Poll: Choose your NBA Career | The Boneyard

Poll: Choose your NBA Career

You just retired from a 14 year HOF career in the NBA. Would you rather.....

  • a) Spend your entire career with 1 team, be "the guy", make a couple finals and win no rings

    Votes: 26 24.3%

  • b) Jump to a talented contender midway through your career and win 3 rings

    Votes: 81 75.7%
  • Total voters
    107
Status
Not open for further replies.
watching-longer-videos-2011.jpg


Deep its summer time outdoors; fishing, golfing, swimming, traveling, etc...... Just saying.
 
I'm really surprised at the results so far.
 
Few things to look at. Am I jumping from an OK non contending team? Will I be the face of the franchise I jump to?

My answer would be go to the Celtics and become a legend....thank you very much.
 
.-.
In three years people will be saying durant made the right decision. The only way to beat Lebron right now is playing for the Warriors, now he can win multiple rings, which add immensely to your legacy.
 
Huskyforlife said:
In three years people will be saying durant made the right decision. The only way to beat Lebron right now is playing for the Warriors, now he can win multiple rings, which add immensely to your legacy.
Expand ...

agreed. people were po'ed at lbj a few years ago and they said he tarnished his legacy. Fast forward a few years and he is widely considered the third best player ever.
 
KemBuckets21 said:
agreed. people were po'ed at lbj a few years ago and they said he tarnished his legacy. Fast forward a few years and he is widely considered the third best player ever.
Expand ...
You really think that? I recall people being mored pi$$ed at The Decision and how it came to pass far more than at the choice James made. Plus, he went back to Cleveland and won. I'd say the chances are somewhere between none and slim that Durant returns to Oklahoma.

Secondly, Golden State is already over the top. They've won the ring and went to Game 7 a year later after winning 73 regular season games. One would have to be rooting for injury if any team other than the Warriors has a chance to win the NBA Championship.

By the way: The only thing I'm ticked about the Durant situation is that he didn't choose the Celtics.I have no other issue with his decision.
 
.-.
Deepster said:
Just curious to see how the numbers play out here.
Expand ...

This is a push poll, seemingly aimed at justifying KD's decision.

I say that prior to voting. I'll vote A for that reason. I assume B means Durant. No, I wouldn't do that.

If I was on a team for 10 years and they (a) refused to improve the roster or (b) wanted to go in a different direction, then heck yeah I'd go somewhere else.

There are also shades of "talented." GSW isn't "talented." They just broke the record for most wins in a season and were an injury away from back-to-back titles.
 
I chose the first one. I'd rather give everything I have for one team and come up short than have a ring basically handed to me. Durant was a fan favorite in OKC. Spent 9 years there and showed loyalty to them. Never won a ring but that didn't seem to affect his legacy. Now I think he'll be one of the more hated players in the league. I would have much preferred to see him stick with OKC and come up short of a championship rather than join the team with the best record in NBA history. Lost a lot of respect for KD over this.
 
nomar said:
This is a push poll, seemingly aimed at justifying KD's decision.

I say that prior to voting. I'll vote A for that reason. I assume B means Durant. No, I wouldn't do that.

If I was on a team for 10 years and they (a) refused to improve the roster or (b) wanted to go in a different direction, then heck yeah I'd go somewhere else.

There are also shades of "talented." GSW isn't "talented." They just broke the record for most wins in a season and were an injury away from back-to-back titles.
Expand ...
They were a kick to the balls away from winning...
 
nomar said:
This is a push poll, seemingly aimed at justifying KD's decision.

I say that prior to voting. I'll vote A for that reason. I assume B means Durant. No, I wouldn't do that.

If I was on a team for 10 years and they (a) refused to improve the roster or (b) wanted to go in a different direction, then heck yeah I'd go somewhere else.

There are also shades of "talented." GSW isn't "talented." They just broke the record for most wins in a season and were an injury away from back-to-back titles.
Expand ...

There is clearly a lot more "what if's" and details to make the argument for either choice in the poll. I could easily wonder if KD stays put, Westbrook either gets hurt next year or leaves in FA the following year and now KD is 2-3 years older with less talent on the roster and a closing window on a title in his career (in OKC or anywhere else, for that matter). So why not go and join the Beatles and tour with them for a couple years?
 
Why does it have to be stay and win no rings? Why cant you stay and recruit players to you. The thing that upsets people about KD leaving is more about who and how he left as opposed to the simple act of leaving. Had he gone to any other team this would be a non-issue. KD left a team that was one win away from the finals and loaded with talent and a committed front office who was always making deals to stay competitive. He wasnt on a team that was inept at putting pieces around him. Also he left for the greatest regular season team in history, one who was the favorite to win this next year's title WITHOUT HIM. Staying with one team does not mean you are relegated to never winning, its not so black and white.

In addition, in my mind a true "superstar" doesnt move teams. Superstars are the focal point of a franchise and they are the ones who recruit other lower tier stars and all stars to them, not the other way around. Thats another reason I wasn't thrilled with KD's departure.
 
You gotta go for rings. Charles Barkley doesn't have a ring and when he went somewhere he could get one, MJ stood in his way and the clock ran out on his body. I can guarantee Barkley wishes he got himself a ring no matter what it took, it haunts him.
 
.-.
Hoophound said:
You gotta go for rings. Charles Barkley doesn't have a ring and when he went somewhere he could get one, MJ stood in his way and the clock ran out on his body. I can guarantee Barkley wishes he got himself a ring no matter what it took, it haunts him.
Expand ...

I'd rather stay with one team, give them 100% percent, and retire without a ring knowing I gave them everything I have. Durant is just taking the easy way out. He doesn't want to compete. He wants the easiest path possible to a ring which is not the mentality a true competitor should have.
 
In an ideal world, sure, stay with one franchise. But that franchise has to actually care about winning as much as you do.

You can pretend the Thunder cared about winning as much as Durant, or you can look at the actual facts: they traded away Harden, they kept Brooks to save money, they traded away Jackson... it isn't pretty.

People said LeBron tarnished his legacy in 2010. No one cares now. No one will care later when remembering Durant. He went to the Finals, multiple Western Conference Finals, and won an MVP on the Thunder. If things go well for Durant, he'll be able to add a few titles to that as well.
 
The only way I'd leave a team is if the team showed no commitment to winning a championship.
 
temery said:
The only way I'd leave a team is if the team showed no commitment to winning a championship.
Expand ...

Again, if you look at OKC, who knows if they could keep Westbrook. They traded Harden. Is Durant, at this point in his career, supposed to dive headfirst into a shallow pool?
 
Trading Harden didn't mean at the time what it did today. No one knew what kind of player he would become on his own. Also booting Brooks for Donovan shows they definitely cared enough about winning for them to get rid of Westbrook and Durant's mentor.
 
.-.
BUHusky10 said:
Trading Harden didn't mean at the time what it did today. No one knew what kind of player he would become on his own.
Expand ...
Of course they didn't know, but they traded away a 22-year-old who scored 17ppg in a highly efficient manner behind two players who scored 24 and 28 ppg. It was clear the kid was just scratching the surface, which is why everyone knew he was going to get the max on the open market. It was derided at the time by most people as short sighted cost-cutting, and that's what it was.

As for Brooks...yes, they did get rid of him, but probably about 2 years too late. I'm with Deepster here. There was no guarantee Russ was staying either.
 
Deepster said:
Again, if you look at OKC, who knows if they could keep Westbrook. They traded Harden. Is Durant, at this point in his career, supposed to dive headfirst into a shallow pool?
Expand ...

You give me way too much credit for knowing anything about the NBA. I recognize the name Durant, but couldn't even guess at his first name, college he went to, or team he plays for.

I'm going to guess he's probably a tall black man. Other than that, I doubt I could even correct your post for spelling and grammar.
 
If OKC loses both of them, will it soon lose the Thunder as well?
 
I've been to Oklahoma City and like it very much, but always felt it wasn't the kind of place that could really support a major-league level team. With two bona fide stars in Durant and Westbrook they've had deep playoff runs and packed the house, but if they become a mediocre team with mediocre players, I don't know how long the OKC location will continue to work. I hope I'm wrong because it's a great city with great people, but there's probably a reason they went as long as they did without a pro team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,154
Messages
4,554,947
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom