NBA Playoffs

[MadDogRevival]

It's almost as if this series would have been perfectly even had Durant stayed out of it. Add him to the mix and it's probably over in 5 or 6. That's how good he is.

Yeah, Durant is so good he couldn't win in OKC with the best athlete in the league running triple doubles next to him.
Not sure what it is about Durant, but he's a guy who is more of a numbers-compiler than anything else.
Say what you want, Durant was a guy who couldn't get it done when it mattered and had to go to the team that was already a favorite to win it all in order to win.

His playoffs look like this . . .
blanked
blanked
Quarters
Conf. Finals
Finals (lost)
Conf. Semis (5/21, 7TOs in final game, lost 4 in a row to mighty Memphis, shooting .421)
Conf. Finals
INJURED
Lose to GSW after being up 3-1. Shot .423 overall and .286 from 3 for the series. OUCH.
Guy posts those crap-@55 numbers, only makes the finals once, and then goes to GS.
Could be the greatest scorer and the most overrated player, in terms of winning, in the history of the league.
And yeah, I can't stand the guy for the sole reason that he made NBA basketball less interesting with his limp wrist move.

 

[Dogdeacon]

It is much worse in say the NFL to trade up than in the NBA. The NFL roster size and sheer quantity of talent you need vs. the individual player impact of high NBA draft picks is the main difference. The bust rate is also much lower in the NBA than say a franchise QB. Plus the rookie scale doesn't properly account for the extreme impact of the top players (it scales, but not as drastically as it should).

It's a good idea to accumulate picks to increase your whacks at the pinatta, but what if you've already nailed it? The Hinkie plan is the best for rebuilding, but competing for a title is a different strategy. At some point you need to take advantage of your prime window and draft picks aren't as valuable when veteran stars (who 90% of the time are better than rookies or 2nd years) want to come and win with you and you can sign them in Free Agency at minimum or exception rates without surrendering any assets other than cap space. Additionally, in the NBA having a lot of good is good, but having a couple great is better. Consolidating talent into fewer but marginally better players is worth it.

For the Celtics specifically, it's about opportunity, timing, and certainty.

For opportunity, this year's class is exceptionally loaded with bigs, which is the Celtics main need going forward into the future. They are set for at least 2 years at every other position. If they were going to cash in assets to make a move, this would be the time. The Celtics have the ammo because they have potentially 5 1st round picks the next 2 years. They can't even roster that many first round picks. Sure you can draft and stash, but...

The timing is ideal because they don't have minutes for role players as it is the next few years, let alone with Hayward and Irving fully healthy. How are they going to develop those guys when they can't even crack the top 10 of the rotation? Further, the Celtics roster is currently constructed more in the "a lot of good is good" way. They will be unable to pay all these players because the salary cap is a bitch, so their ideal championship window is the next 2 years. Sure you can draft replacements when those picks convey, but there are few guarantees those picks will be valuable enough to do so at an impact level in a quick enough time to matter.

Unlike the NFL or NHL, the best teams in the NBA win basically every year. There is no "getting hot" or having a hot goalie, etc. The team with the most talent that plays the hardest wins almost every series. As mentioned above, the more elite, elite talent you can get, the better off you are. There is less risk in potentially shortening your competing window if you get yourself the best roster in the league. Whereas in the NFL, even with the best player of all time, it's best to elongate your window and try for as many shots at it as possible.

You're not mortgaging the future by trading excess picks for a pick. It's still giving yourself a future. NBA teams have 7 years of control of a top draft pick, 4 of which are at great cost savings. Say you trade your own this year, the future Kings pick (likely to be in the 5-7 range) but protect it top 1, and the Clippers pick (possibly mid round 1st, downside of a 2nd) to Mavs for #3. You've still got all your own picks and the Memphis pick.

The Hinkie thing is playing the odds that you need as many picks as possible b/c some of them won't succeed. Just look at last year's draft: Fultz is a massive bust so far, Lonzo over-rated, Monk, Fox, Isaac & Nkitina also look over rated and picked too high. The draft is a crapshoot and the fact that the Celtics seemingly picked perfectly with Tatum & Brown and to lesser extent Rozier & Smart probably indicates that they are in for some regression to the random, unlucky mean. Every year there are a couple of guys drafted in the lottery that don't pan out and I truly think the Celtics can look at their 2019 or 20 picks right now and map out a decade of dominance rather than convince themselves they've got a short window. Their owners will pay the luxury tax when the time comes.

 

[champs99and04]

Yeah, Durant is so good he couldn't win in OKC with the best athlete in the league running triple doubles next to him.
Not sure what it is about Durant, but he's a guy who is more of a numbers-compiler than anything else.
Say what you want, Durant was a guy who couldn't get it done when it mattered and had to go to the team that was already a favorite to win it all in order to win.

His playoffs look like this . . .
blanked
blanked
Quarters
Conf. Finals
Finals (lost)
Conf. Semis (5/21, 7TOs in final game, lost 4 in a row to mighty Memphis, shooting .421)
Conf. Finals
INJURED
Lose to GSW after being up 3-1. Shot .423 overall and .286 from 3 for the series. OUCH.
Guy posts those crap-@55 numbers, only makes the finals once, and then goes to GS.
Could be the greatest scorer and the most overrated player, in terms of winning, in the history of the league.
And yeah, I can't stand the guy for the sole reason that he made NBA basketball less interesting with his limp wrist move.

I think you're being harsh, though I can understand some of the frustration towards him. It's the same reason I tend to root against Duke and Kentucky in college basketball. The whole point as an entertainment product is to generate the most competitive outcome, or at least start with that pretense. As someone who has been on the Warriors bandwagon dating back to the Mark Jackson years, I'm able to enjoy the dominance. But I can understand how others don't.

In his defense, one could say that what he has now in Golden State should have been his all along. OKC had an unprecedented nucleus of young talent with he, Harden, Westbrook, and to a lesser degree Ibaka, and ownership cheaped out rather than investing in what could have become one of the most iconic franchises in sports because of those guys alone. I wouldn't blame him a bit for feeling resentful of that and I don't blame him for taking matters into his own hands and restoring the fate of the basketball universe to where it should have been. Karma, the basketball God's getting even, etc. Plus, the Warriors play "the right way." There's value in that. He and Russ approached the game differently. I can see how, for KD, it wasn't just losing, it was losing that way, with two alpha's taking turns and everyone else standing around. He's an OCD guy who wants all the plants watered a certain way.

But he had a hand in the losing, as you say. This was not somebody who had no room to grow as a player. He had weaknesses just as Russ had weaknesses, and they were both exploited by a tougher, smarter Warriors team. He shot under 40% in games 5-7 and tossed in a gruesome 10 for 31 in game six, a game I remain in awe of to this day. To come this close to a ring with the organization that drafted him and then leave for the team that just beat you? I'm not going to try to talk you into that one. The optics are bad. This was not LeBron leaving Cleveland where seemingly every conceivable resource had been exhausted and they had come to a dead end. I respect the decision because I think in some ways - PR wise - it's incredibly ballsy, but at the same time there are so many other guys I love precisely because they would never even think about doing that.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I think you're being harsh, though I can understand some of the frustration towards him. It's the same reason I tend to root against Duke and Kentucky in college basketball. The whole point as an entertainment product is to generate the most competitive outcome, or at least start with that pretense. As someone who has been on the Warriors bandwagon dating back to the Mark Jackson years, I'm able to enjoy the dominance. But I can understand how others don't.

In his defense, one could say that what he has now in Golden State should have been his all along. OKC had an unprecedented nucleus of young talent with he, Harden, Westbrook, and to a lesser degree Ibaka, and ownership cheaped out rather than investing in what could have become one of the most iconic franchises in sports because of those guys alone. I wouldn't blame him a bit for feeling resentful of that and I don't blame him for taking matters into his own hands and restoring the fate of the basketball universe to where it should have been. Karma, the basketball God's getting even, etc. Plus, the Warriors play "the right way." There's value in that. He and Russ approached the game differently. I can see how, for KD, it wasn't just losing, it was losing that way, with two alpha's taking turns and everyone else standing around. He's an OCD guy who wants all the plants watered a certain way.

But he had a hand in the losing, as you say. This was not somebody who had no room to grow as a player. He had weaknesses just as Russ had weaknesses, and they were both exploited by a tougher, smarter Warriors team. He shot under 40% in games 5-7 and tossed in a gruesome 10 for 31 in game six, a game I remain in awe of to this day. To come this close to a ring with the organization that drafted him and then leave for the team that just beat you? I'm not going to try to talk you into that one. The optics are bad. This was not LeBron leaving Cleveland where seemingly every conceivable resource had been exhausted and they had come to a dead end. I respect the decision because I think in some ways - PR wise - it's incredibly ballsy, but at the same time there are so many other guys I love precisely because they would never even think about doing that.

I think you make a great point by bringing up the Durant, Westbrook, Harden Ibaka core that OKC should have had. Besides wanting to play a different style of basketball than what KD ended up with in the Russ controlled OKC iteration, KD legitimately could feel the universe owed him a super-team that was ripped from him.

I return to a sentiment similar to my LeBron theory. It is much more fun rooting for the transcendent talents/players, unless their style is totally unappealing to you (for me Harden) you gotta just enjoy the wizardry. Giannis, Kawhi, Curry, LeBron, ADavis, Russ, Porzingis, on and on, there are just so many guys in the league that are a joy to watch because of their incredible and unique skills.

 

[Lefty2one]

It's almost as if this series would have been perfectly even had Durant stayed out of it. Add him to the mix and it's probably over in 5 or 6. That's how good he is.

Yeah, this is why fans get annoyed with LeDecision and to a larger extent KD going to GSW. Teams simply can't match up. It hurts the product from an entertainment perspective.

A player of KD's caliber, the best scorer on the damn planet, shouldn't have the luxury of being able to go 1v1 all game because the opposing D is worried about Klay and Steph going off. I think HOU is making the right call strategically (limit Klay/Steph threes and let KD iso and shoot a lot of mid-range jumpers) but KD is so good that it's not going to matter.

HOU's defense last night was the deciding factor IMO. They were too lackadaisical for me, they let GSW get way too many easy/quick looks. I know their D was better during the regular season but who cares? That's irrelevant now. HOU will be lucky to take this thing to six games.

 

[the Q]

I think you're being harsh, though I can understand some of the frustration towards him. It's the same reason I tend to root against Duke and Kentucky in college basketball. The whole point as an entertainment product is to generate the most competitive outcome, or at least start with that pretense. As someone who has been on the Warriors bandwagon dating back to the Mark Jackson years, I'm able to enjoy the dominance. But I can understand how others don't.

In his defense, one could say that what he has now in Golden State should have been his all along. OKC had an unprecedented nucleus of young talent with he, Harden, Westbrook, and to a lesser degree Ibaka, and ownership cheaped out rather than investing in what could have become one of the most iconic franchises in sports because of those guys alone. I wouldn't blame him a bit for feeling resentful of that and I don't blame him for taking matters into his own hands and restoring the fate of the basketball universe to where it should have been. Karma, the basketball God's getting even, etc. Plus, the Warriors play "the right way." There's value in that. He and Russ approached the game differently. I can see how, for KD, it wasn't just losing, it was losing that way, with two alpha's taking turns and everyone else standing around. He's an OCD guy who wants all the plants watered a certain way.

But he had a hand in the losing, as you say. This was not somebody who had no room to grow as a player. He had weaknesses just as Russ had weaknesses, and they were both exploited by a tougher, smarter Warriors team. He shot under 40% in games 5-7 and tossed in a gruesome 10 for 31 in game six, a game I remain in awe of to this day. To come this close to a ring with the organization that drafted him and then leave for the team that just beat you? I'm not going to try to talk you into that one. The optics are bad. This was not LeBron leaving Cleveland where seemingly every conceivable resource had been exhausted and they had come to a dead end. I respect the decision because I think in some ways - PR wise - it's incredibly ballsy, but at the same time there are so many other guys I love precisely because they would never even think about doing that.

It's just interesting to me that in a world where you see so much bellyaching about players being all about the money and not about winning that a guy actually puts his money where his mouth is and takes less money to be about winning.....he faces more backlash than anyone.

Moral of the story: fans will never be happy, players gotta do what's in their best interests.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It is much worse in say the NFL to trade up than in the NBA. The NFL roster size and sheer quantity of talent you need vs. the individual player impact of high NBA draft picks is the main difference. The bust rate is also much lower in the NBA than say a franchise QB. Plus the rookie scale doesn't properly account for the extreme impact of the top players (it scales, but not as drastically as it should).

It's a good idea to accumulate picks to increase your whacks at the pinatta, but what if you've already nailed it? The Hinkie plan is the best for rebuilding, but competing for a title is a different strategy. At some point you need to take advantage of your prime window and draft picks aren't as valuable when veteran stars (who 90% of the time are better than rookies or 2nd years) want to come and win with you and you can sign them in Free Agency at minimum or exception rates without surrendering any assets other than cap space. Additionally, in the NBA having a lot of good is good, but having a couple great is better. Consolidating talent into fewer but marginally better players is worth it.

For the Celtics specifically, it's about opportunity, timing, and certainty.

For opportunity, this year's class is exceptionally loaded with bigs, which is the Celtics main need going forward into the future. They are set for at least 2 years at every other position. If they were going to cash in assets to make a move, this would be the time. The Celtics have the ammo because they have potentially 5 1st round picks the next 2 years. They can't even roster that many first round picks. Sure you can draft and stash, but...

The timing is ideal because they don't have minutes for role players as it is the next few years, let alone with Hayward and Irving fully healthy. How are they going to develop those guys when they can't even crack the top 10 of the rotation? Further, the Celtics roster is currently constructed more in the "a lot of good is good" way. They will be unable to pay all these players because the salary cap is a bitch, so their ideal championship window is the next 2 years. Sure you can draft replacements when those picks convey, but there are few guarantees those picks will be valuable enough to do so at an impact level in a quick enough time to matter.

Unlike the NFL or NHL, the best teams in the NBA win basically every year. There is no "getting hot" or having a hot goalie, etc. The team with the most talent that plays the hardest wins almost every series. As mentioned above, the more elite, elite talent you can get, the better off you are. There is less risk in potentially shortening your competing window if you get yourself the best roster in the league. Whereas in the NFL, even with the best player of all time, it's best to elongate your window and try for as many shots at it as possible.

You're not mortgaging the future by trading excess picks for a pick. It's still giving yourself a future. NBA teams have 7 years of control of a top draft pick, 4 of which are at great cost savings. Say you trade your own this year, the future Kings pick (likely to be in the 5-7 range) but protect it top 1, and the Clippers pick (possibly mid round 1st, downside of a 2nd) to Mavs for #3. You've still got all your own picks and the Memphis pick.

I would trade Irving in the offseason if I was the Celtics. This is going to be Brown's and Tatum's team going forward, and Rozier is going to be expensive to resign at the end of next season. Irving is not part of the long-term plan, and they can get a lot of value for him right now.

The other thing the Celtics have going for them is that the East looks stuck for the next year or two. The 76ers are competitive, and Bucks are a point guard away from being a Conference Semi or Conference Finals caliber team. That is the only competition for the Celtics in the East for the next two years. The Wizards and Raptors likely both peaked this season, have aging rosters and cap problems. I think the Pacers overachieved this season and will have trouble matching this season's record. Heat, Hornets and Pistons could challenge for a playoff spot but not much more next season. You could talk me into the Pistons winning 48-50 games if some things broke just right. Every other team in the East is deep in rebuilding if Lebron leaves Cleveland.

My way too early 18-19 Eastern Conference:

Celtics - 60 wins
76ers - 55
Bucks - 52
Raptors - 49
Wizards - 48
Pistons - 45
Heat - 43
Pacers - 40
Hornets - 40

10th place will be lucky to have 30 wins.

 

[MadDogRevival]

Well, I could definitely be wrong, but it's going to be Ws in 5 or 6 then the Ws in 4 or 5, and outside of Ws fans, this is going to be pretty much boring for everybody else.
It's a shame, really, because the athletic talent in the NBA is fantastic and fun to watch, for the most part.
Who knows - maybe the Cavs or Rockets will surprise me.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I would trade Irving in the offseason if I was the Celtics. This is going to be Brown's and Tatum's team going forward, and Rozier is going to be expensive to resign at the end of next season. Irving is not part of the long-term plan, and they can get a lot of value for him right now.

Man, people want the Celtics to either trade Hayward or Irving due to injuries yet a lot of folks killed them for screwing Isaiah. No way do they trade Irving, his injury isn't serious and Rozier is not an equivalent replacement. Plus Irving is really fun to watch and his handle combined with creative finishing are spectacular - need more than half a season of that. And of course if you put a healthy Irving on either the Cavs or Celtics right now they are prohibitive favorites to make the finals and might be able to give the West a run = that is why you play & what you create a roster to do. Further, put Irving & Hayward on the Celtics and maybe its an even-ish matchup vs the Warriors.

This conversation is premature, have to see what happens in the totality of this postseason to assess what the Celtics need. And then have to see what happens with the draft and major free agent moves (LeBron, PG13, etc..). Then its time to talk about what the C's should do. Ping pong balls tonight are pre-step along that path.

 

[Rocktheworld]

Man, people want the Celtics to either trade Hayward or Irving due to injuries yet a lot of folks killed them for screwing Isaiah. No way do they trade Irving, his injury isn't serious and Rozier is not an equivalent replacement. Plus Irving is really fun to watch and his handle combined with creative finishing are spectacular - need more than half a season of that. And of course if you put a healthy Irving on either the Cavs or Celtics right now they are prohibitive favorites to make the finals and might be able to give the West a run = that is why you play & what you create a roster to do. Further, put Irving & Hayward on the Celtics and maybe its an even-ish matchup vs the Warriors.

This conversation is premature, have to see what happens in the totality of this postseason to assess what the Celtics need. And then have to see what happens with the draft and major free agent moves (LeBron, PG13, etc..). Then its time to talk about what the C's should do. Ping pong balls tonight are pre-step along that path.

Wonder how high of a ceiling they think Rozier has. They could send him, the pick, and another piece and get a serious player

What you do with Hayward is the hardest thing because Tatum is already better

 

[superjohn]

That's what I'm saying.
Guy absorbs more contact with no foul called than any other non-center I have seen in my 40 years of watching basketball.
You breathed on Jordan and you got a foul. Yeah, the play was rougher then, but that didn't apply to him. He was the league's savior and he could do no wrong.
His last championship he had a pretty poor year, by his standards. Excluding his partial year, his lowest shooting year in a decade, into the 238 from 3, assists and rebounds down in more minutes . . . but the guy's free throw attempts went up almost 2 a game.
If MJ got hit like LBJ, he'd have shot 20 frees a game instead of 8.8. LeBron's shooting 6.5 a game this year, BTW.
The concept that LeBron gets the whistle is laughable, when you consider how much he handles the ball, how much he rebounds, and how much he drives. If he got the favor of the whistle as much as Mike he'd already be the 2nd career scorer.

This post is absolutely hilarious, A+ stuff Frank!

 

[Huskyforlife]

What you do with Hayward is the hardest thing because Tatum is already better

Why do you think this?

 

[Rocktheworld]

Why do you think this?

Because I’ve been watching the games

 

[the Q]

Wonder how high of a ceiling they think Rozier has. They could send him, the pick, and another piece and get a serious player

What you do with Hayward is the hardest thing because Tatum is already better

No. He's not.

Jeez, let's not get carried away here.

 

[Huskyforlife]

Because I’ve been watching the games

Ah, thanks for clarifying!

 

[Huskyforlife]

Because I’ve been watching the games

Hayward averaged 24pts in his last 11 game playoff series, 44% from field, 41% from 3, 6 rebounds and 3 assists.

Tatum in 13 games is averaging, 19pts, on 46% FG, 32% 3pt, 5 rebounds, and 3 assists.

I'll admit they're closer than I thought, but Haywards numbers are still better, and Hayward has seasons worth of high level production, while Tatum is showing crazy potential.

 

[HuskyHawk]

No. He's not.

Jeez, let's not get carried away here.

Agreed. Already better? No. Looks like he has a higher ceiling...yes, maybe that. Brown, because of his defense and off the charts athleticism, is possibly the best of the three.

As for trading Kyrie, no, not going to happen. But Rozier, I doubt that they can afford to keep him and several teams would pay him starter money. Smart is a free agent at the end of the year. I'm not sure there is a good way to keep him. Certainly not Smart and Rozier.

Rozier has one more year left before becoming a RFA. He can be extended this year. I think he can play with Irving, but that puts pressure on the trio of Brown, Tatum, Hayward to share more limited minutes.

Danny has kicked around 1000 scenarios by now. He's done it over an over. Stockpile quantity and trade it for quality. Rozier has higher value now than he did 3 months ago. It's almost a no brainer that they trade him, maybe package him to move up in the draft.

 

[Waquoit]

Assuming you are going to get a top asset in return, I agree trading Kyrie is the way to go.

 

[the Q]

Assuming you are going to get a top asset in return, I agree trading Kyrie is the way to go.

No one would offer a better player in a kawhi deal imo.

 

[Lefty2one]

Hayward averaged 24pts in his last 11 game playoff series, 44% from field, 41% from 3, 6 rebounds and 3 assists.

Tatum in 13 games is averaging, 19pts, on 46% FG, 32% 3pt, 5 rebounds, and 3 assists.

I'll admit they're closer than I thought, but Haywards numbers are still better, and Hayward has seasons worth of high level production, while Tatum is showing crazy potential.

Hayward was unquestionably the best player on a 50-win Jazz team that won a playoff series in the brutal west (vs a tough LAC opponent no less) where he posted 24/7/3 on 47/45/96 shooting. Tatum will be a better player eventually but geez people need to calm down.

 

[intlzncster]

Warriors-Rockets looks like a lot of what we expected. The x's and o's of this particular match-up re-enforce the macro trends rather than counter them. Houston is good enough to the point that they can reliably get Harden iso'd on the guy they want, but he can't exert that sort of energy every possession for 48 minutes.

Consider the fact that Klay Thompson might be the fourth best defender in the lineup Golden State started tonight and he's an all-NBA caliber defensive player. Tucker, Ariza, and Mbah a Moute aren't going to cut it, not when the guy they're guarding on the other end is maybe the best scorer on the planet. I mean, I don't know exactly what the Warriors numbers defensively were during the regular season. I don't think it matters. They go to dark places when they're dialed in and could absolutely win a championship with a league average offense. Draymond and Durant are so good defensively that you could build a championship roster with Trevor Ariza types filling out the starting five. Add Curry and Thompson to the mix and it's just a joke. They had the greatest shooting backcourt of all-time under Mark Jackson and have since added two of the best players in the world.

It's almost as if this series would have been perfectly even had Durant stayed out of it. Add him to the mix and it's probably over in 5 or 6. That's how good he is.

Sticking with my over in 5 call.

 

[MadDogRevival]

This post is absolutely hilarious, A+ stuff Frank!

Hey look, a Golden State fan - did you see when Durant slid 3 feet to his side last night in the 3rd quarter, intercepting a guy going to the rim, hip checking him, and then getting the charge call?
Now THAT's gettin' the calls.

 

[champs99and04]

I think you make a great point by bringing up the Durant, Westbrook, Harden Ibaka core that OKC should have had. Besides wanting to play a different style of basketball than what KD ended up with in the Russ controlled OKC iteration, KD legitimately could feel the universe owed him a super-team that was ripped from him.

I return to a sentiment similar to my LeBron theory. It is much more fun rooting for the transcendent talents/players, unless their style is totally unappealing to you (for me Harden) you gotta just enjoy the wizardry. Giannis, Kawhi, Curry, LeBron, ADavis, Russ, Porzingis, on and on, there are just so many guys in the league that are a joy to watch because of their incredible and unique skills.

I've grown to feel the same way about Harden, which is weird because I was his biggest fan when he was in OKC and for his first couple years in Houston. I honestly think it's more a case where his personality seeps into his game. There's just a depressing vibe with him and CP3 no matter how much they win. They're really only missing Dwight Howard.

 

[Yardigan]

I've grown to feel the same way about Harden, which is weird because I was his biggest fan when he was in OKC and for his first couple years in Houston. I honestly think it's more a case where his personality seeps into his game. There's just a depressing vibe with him and CP3 no matter how much they win. They're really only missing Dwight Howard.

Well said....was trying to figure out why I don't enjoy Harden's game more but, ..."depressing vibe" hits the nail on the head....same with CP3

 

[champs99and04]

It's just interesting to me that in a world where you see so much bellyaching about players being all about the money and not about winning that a guy actually puts his money where his mouth is and takes less money to be about winning.....he faces more backlash than anyone.

Moral of the story: fans will never be happy, players gotta do what's in their best interests.

It's a fair point, but then again, there is a reason he took less money (although I'm not sure how endorsements, taxes, etc. change his overall income). I don't think the "fans will never be happy" narrative is applicable when you have the second best player in the world joining a 73 win team, but technically you're right. You're never going to please everyone and I don't think anyone has ever suggested he not do what's in his best interest. On a micro level, always do what makes you happy. Again I like Durant but I see why it irks people.

I do think increased player movement has been a big plus for the NBA in the long-run, though. LeBron has played his cards perfectly IMO. He's never won a title without winning a tightly-contested game 7 somewhere along the way. That's great for drama.

Of course, if a team like Golden State pushes Boston or Philly to another level, that can be good, too. There is something to be said for the fact that you kind of have to choose between parity and stacked teams. The knock on the NBA in the Billups/Hamilton Pistons days was always that there wasn't enough star power and that the league wasn't exciting without stars. I thought what we saw two years ago in the playoffs was closer to optimal than this year or last year, but it's not going to ever be perfect.