Three days into the 2016 free agency period, Kevin Durant gave up a potential five year/$150 million contract to leave the Oklahoma City Thunder.
He had been there for nine years. He signed a short-term deal with the Golden State Warriors, who just came off an historic 73–9 season. Considered the biggest and most divisive free agency move since LeBron James to Miami in 2010, many media members and fans considered this a weak move. But why is it considered weak? What is deemed as a ‘weak move’?
The popular perspective that solely blames Durant for leaving OKC for Golden State is taken in a more traditional way. It focuses on Durant’s personal characteristics. It focuses on his mental fortitude and competitiveness compared to past sporting triumphs. The main points used against Durant for joining the Warriors are as follows.
• They already have three perennial NBA All-Stars (Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green);
• In 2015, The Warriors won the championship and Curry won his first MVP award;
• In 2016, the team set the NBA record for most wins in a season (73–9), and Curry wins the NBA’s first unanimous MVP award, his second consecutive;
• and in the 2016 Western Conference Playoffs, Durant’s Thunder were leading 3–1 against the Warriors and lost.
Considering this context, Durant joining an already successful team who have proven they can win without his talents is seen as non-competitive. It is seen that he doesn’t possess the mental fortitude to bounce back and face the Warriors he was so close to beating, next season. Instead of competing against a formidable opponent, he chose to join them – eliminating the competition to win a championship, ultimately taking an easier route to achieve his goal and is therefore considered a weak move.
We then look back through NBA history, with former greats referencing their experiences 30 years ago, highlighting that in previous eras great players would never leave their own team and join a rival to increase their chances of winning. For the traditional fan, the argument is more centred around Durant’s personality and how it compares with past figureheads of the sport, such as Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant – two iconic personalities that resonated with the everyday fan by facing tough competition and adversity, and finding a way to win.
Acknowledging adversity is a key point in blaming Durant. Historically, society has taught us about adversity and its importance in life and survival. Stories of one character’s lone adventure to face an impossible challenge are told and retold to our younger generations as a cautionary tale to better prepare them for the real world.
From biblical figures such as David against Goliath, to superheroes like Batman, society covets adversarial narratives because it is what people relate to most.
(AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)
From Jordan’s triumph over the Pistons to Kobe’s 2010 Finals win over the Celtics, these victories over adversity are revered en masse by NBA fans. With Durant joining the Warriors, there has been little adversity faced en route to winning his first championship, contradicting what society has taught throughout history – getting what you want is hard and you have to face tough challenges to get it.
So yes, when looking at the move from a more traditional perspective there is an argument in purely blaming Durant for joining the Warriors, and the majority of basketball fans agree. But let’s consider Durant’s move in a different light for a moment, and maybe we can acknowledge his game a little more without the vilification.
(AP Photo/Tony Dejak)
One of the main arguments against blaming Durant for leaving OKC, is to look at the move in a different context. Imagine the CEO of Samsung was offered the top position at Apple. Apple is currently achieving more success and is performing at the top of its industry with Samsung trailing.
If Samsung’s CEO went to Apple, it would be considered a very good career choice. No scrutiny, no cupcake signs, nothing. So considering Durant’s move as a career choice, which it basically is, we would call it a good decision for him.
He’s moving to a place that’s achieved more and can sustain their success with him. He’s also worked hard for an organisation where he didn’t choose to work for, for nine years, and this is the first time he has been given an opportunity to work somewhere else of his choosing.
Surely he’s earned the right to explore his options as we would expect if we were in the same position.
If we were to explore our options after nine years, one of our main criteria in joining a new organisation is culture. How does the organisation operate day-to-day? How do people interact with one another? Is there a sense of purpose to achieve a collective goal?
We would surely join an organisation with an excellent team culture where everyone loves working together and has fun without internal tension.
For Durant’s case, that is exactly what the Warriors have shown game-to-game. With the beloved Steve Kerr leading a hyper-paced free-flowing offense with a versatile team-oriented defence, the team plays with a certain joyful energy that is rarely seen on the basketball court and Kevin Durant just wanted a piece of that, like any other person looking to make a career move.
It’s not his fault that he chose to work for a successful and culturally-rich organisation, we all would. So, if we consider Durant’s move outside of an emotionally-charged sporting context, there is an argument that the Warriors’ organisational management is more responsible for attracting him in the first place.
Finally, let’s not forget the fundamental factor that made this move even possible – the unprecedented salary cap spike that settled during the latest collective bargaining agreement negotiations between the league and the players’ union.
The $24 million rise in cap space gave the Warriors the perfect opportunity to create room by trading Andrew Bogut and not re-signing Harrison Barnes. It’s clear that the league is also responsible for Durant’s decision because if the league and the union agreed to a smoothing of the salary cap over a longer period, this situation could have been avoided and competitive balance would remain (somewhat) intact.
After considering Kevin Durant’s decision outside of popular traditional perspective, there is a valid argument that there were other key factors that encouraged Durant to join Golden State and it’s not fair to solely blame him.
It was the league’s decision-making that resulted in the cap spike that created the opportunity for Golden State, Golden State’s astute management and culture that made the opportunity possible, and Kevin Durant’s choice to take up the rare opportunity of historically greener pastures.
Nevertheless, sport is all about entertainment and emotion, and it’s difficult for us to take emotion out of opinion, especially when it impacts our team as well as the entire sport. While Durant and the Warriors may have turned the league into chaos, let’s at least stop and acknowledge the game of basketball being played at its highest level again.
At work
Roar Rookie
If I had the same choice as Durant to join a team that was already the best or join another competitor I'd maybe do the same. But that doesn't mean he's above criticism, he definitely deserves criticism for taking the 'easy' option. And yes I realise he played very well with big clutch moments in the finals, so no he wasn't cruising and he instead taken over Curry as it being his team. Fair call, your talking about Jordan era there and Celtics/Lakers rivalry. Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Bird, etc. I don't think any (bar Lebron) can even be put in the same sentence as those players. For me as a casual fan, it is a little boring knowing that the Cav's will play off against the Warriors in the finals, then once there the Warriors are just next level and the Cav's don't really have a chance, even with Lebron posting ridiculous numbers
mushi
Guest
Casual fans lapped it up when only two teams won it ina n 8 year period or 4 teams over 13. The last 15 years have been the outlier. The difference here is Druant was the first player to have the opportunity to choose, rather than just taking blind luck, and for "some" reason we don't like it.
At work
Roar Rookie
For Durant to leave OKC, which were a good team to move to an already superstar team who had just posted the best record in history is a little weak. As soon as he signed on it was (barring injuries) a lock that GSW were going to be champions this season. From a casual fan, I would argue that this makes the NBA less attractive. Sure there's the short-term sugar hit where you watch this team in awe of how impressive and dangerous they are, but now it's just boring as there is no competition and no chance for other teams to compete.
Big Al
Guest
"The argument about someone else’s legacy is, to use your own word, lame." -My comment about Durant affecting Curry's legacy was simply a comment, an opinion, a prediction and perhaps one day in the future it will be shown to be a fact. I said it was a side effect of Durant joining the team and wasn't using it to slight Durant. I never said Durant should have thought about that in his decision. I just think it's interesting that Durant is now the best player on the team, Steph #2. Steph will never win another MVP while playing with Durant.
Big Al
Guest
Nope, no follow up, just threw down an opinion but I see your reply now so I'll bite. "Okc gave up on 12 of the 14 guys he went to the finals with." -I agree, OKC did give up on those 12 players, that's pretty standard in the NBA. Look at any NBA roster from 5 years ago and they're all radically different from how they are today. I never said Durant had to stay and be loyal to OKC, I just said he gave up. He was free to go anywhere, he chose to go to the best team. He won a championship, he deserved the finals MVP, but it was earn't cheaply and I have little respect for it.
Ryan H
Guest
I can appreciate his ability, he was incredible in the finals. Doesn't change his decision, doesn't make it not a weak move. Using "everybody" is clearly a way to describe the widespread thought amongst basketball followers, not an actual reflection of every single individuals exact thought. I will be more careful in the future. Pretty sure this has nothing to do with my character.
Mushi
Guest
Never speak for "everybody" I think it's "weak" to deny someone choice. If you can't appreciate his ability in light of his decision that is condemnation of your ability and weaknesses of your character.
Mushi
Guest
The argument about someone else's legacy is, to use your own word, lame. So now NBA players need to weigh heavily how ill informed critics, who provide tacit acknowledgement that they are unable to process, will judge other players after they make a decision. Durant's job is to play basketball. The NBA has gone through many periods of sustained dominance before and survived, I am sure Durant was responsible for that too.
Mushi
Guest
No follow up Big Al? Is that because you didn't have knowledge of the fact pattern.. Or you've backed away from the rampant hypocrisy?
Mike Julz
Guest
I red something online during the off-season last year, during KDs hot free agency decision making, that KD had a meeting with Kerr, Curry, Thompson, Draymond and Igoudala. This right here for me is what seals the deal to his move to Golden State. I think it was supposed to be Kerr and KD, but Kerr brought all of his best players with him. Whatever happen in that meeting, it worked. I knew straight away where hes gonna end up when I red about it.
BrainsTrust
Guest
In 2016 the turnaround was due to Bogut recovering physically, Bogut looked like he was playing injured in the first 4 games and then game 5 looked good again rather than Durant choking. CLeveland though also won when Bogut got injured so if Bogut had not recovered Durant could have won that year. I don;t see what the issue is, you can understand if Oklahama fans resent the move, is it anyone else business. Making a super team sounds good in theory, it can lead to a clash of egos, and it hasn;t worked in instances in the past.
Mushi
Guest
I think the author is making the point that we want to deny Durant his fundamental right to chose.
Mushi
Guest
Gave up on okc? Okc gave up on 12 of the 14 guys he went to the finals with. And one of the two guys left played fewer minutes all year than Durant did vs Cleveland. Loyalty is a one way street I suppose. I'm actually an okc fan, I am just not wildly irrational.
Swampy
Guest
This is all a bit 5 year plans and sharing economy for my liking. Sorry to break it to you but communism largely failed. It's a nice idea but the reality is humans always look for an edge and someone is always better off somewhere than the majority. It is not up to the NBA to even up its competition further - it does enough already via salary caps and drafts. I enjoyed watching GSW - they may be the best version of basketball we've ever seen. I follow no one but was hoping the Cavs could be victors in the Finals. Or at least competitive. We got great basketball in the finals. The Warriors were exceptional. I couldn't ask for more. Appreciate what you saw rather than complain about it. It is up to the other clubs to assemble a team to beat/compete with the dubs. There are mechanisms to do this. Trades, drafts, free agents. New coaches. I find it appalling people whinged about this year - it's been historically great to watch. Oh and OKC shouldn't escape attention here - they did afterall let Durant see it through to the end of his contract. And Westbrook may not be all that much fun to play with.
Robbo
Guest
It's really tough to see the other side of this (durant's) because pro sports is so different to the rest of the world, but there must be a middle ground between fans wanting competition and players wanting to win. Durant had the option for a guaranteed win, which is awesome for him, but a huge loss for every fan other than Warriors. How do you incentivise players to create competition and remain loyal when money clearly isn't working. It hardly seems fair that if Westbrook wants to be payed max salary and be the man on his team, only bringing in other non top 5 players, he will never get close to beating GS. I'd rather watch a league where stars are spread out and Boston potentially adding Butler or PG still gets them no where near the Warriors.
Robbo
Guest
I agree Jeff, but it is the one the author made. There are a million other factors as well, maybe the biggest being that basketball is 5v5, meaning 1 player has an enormous influence. Which is why Durant is the centre of so much discussion.
Ryan H
Guest
"Considering this context, Durant joining an already successful team who have proven they can win without his talents is seen as non-competitive. It is seen that he doesn’t possess the mental fortitude to bounce back and face the Warriors he was so close to beating, next season. Instead of competing against a formidable opponent, he chose to join them – eliminating the competition to win a championship, ultimately taking an easier route to achieve his goal and is therefore considered a weak move." This. This is all the article needed to be. There is not if and but about this. It was weak, everyone knows it. The whole employer/employee garbage getting spruiked makes logical sense. However this is sport, it isn't logical. People cheer for mean throwing balls in hoops because they are wearing a certain coloured jersey. You cant just jump to the Warriors like Durant and not expect the backlash he has received. He deserves it, and no matter the outcome over the next 3-5 years I think it has defined him. He will never be as great as he could of been.
Big Al
Guest
It's weak because he gave up on OKC. Winning championships is not easy, and when sportsmen struggle for year after year to finally reach the top and raise that trophy it's immense and we as fans rejoice in it. Many champions fail too - Barkley, Malone and Ewing to name but a few. KD gave up on the struggle and took the easy option, sure he still had a lot of work to do during the year but it was easy. The playoffs were also a breeze for golden state this year, they swept all before them except for an amazing Cavs performance in 1 game where they scored 50 in the first qtr...that's what it took to beat this team! He was virtually gifted a title and fans don't respect that. The CEO comparison/argument is lame...Durant joined the Warriors because Kerr is a great bloke who lets them play care free basketball?! Puhleeeeasseeeee! Another point you don't address is what this decision did to the league. As a neutral NBA fan (i.e. I don't strongly support any one team) this playoffs was a dud. Very little drama, very little suspense, it all went according to script, a huge anti-climax. Here's another side effect, Durant has seriously dented Steph Curry's legacy. While playing with Durant will he be the regular season MVP again? Nope. Finals MVP? Nope. Scoring champion? Nope. He's gone from being 'the man' on the team to a side-kick. You'd still easily consider Steph a top 10 point guard of all time after his career...but without Durant there to stifle him he could've competed with Magic for #1.
jeff dustby
Guest
Not a good comparison. apple and samsung are not in a league together.
joe
Guest
Philly had just better hope all these high draft picks actually PLAY as opposed to whether they stick around when their contract expires in a fee years.So far Embied,who looks awesome,has barely played.Maybe 35 games in 2 years.Simmons has yet to play a game after 1 season with the Sixers. Lets see them actually produce wins together & get Philly going in the right direction before worrying about where they go in 2020 or whatever it may be.