As a competitor, would you want to join the Cavs/Warriors?

[Cactus Jack]

Just Win, Baby!

[AndriPerdhian93]

If i'm a star cavs(beat a team with 2 mvp sound epic) and if i'm a scrub(serviceable role player) warrior for that more easy ring.

[HotTubMike]

KD criticized it and then he did it.

[Z Cabarkapa]

I would join the second class team in hopes to elevate them into CONTENDERSHIP(OKC BOS TOR)

Yes, that reminds me of the time when Bill Russell left the Celtics, who were winning every year, to join the Cincinatti Royals. Oh, and what about when Magic left the Lakers to aid the crosstown Clippers. Of course, best of all - remember in 1996 when Michael Jordan came out of retirement to join up with the expansion Vancouver Grizzlies instead of going back to the Bulls, who had already won 3 titles? NBA history is chock full with examples of players doing this - nobody wants to win if its easy!

Terrible examples. He's clearly talking about teams that are one good player away from being contenders. Not the Grizzlies and Clippers of the 90's

OK - I needed to upgrade the teams by a tier. The clear point I was making is that in the history of the NBA, superstar players don't switch to inferior teams. And when they do change teams, they go to another championship contender. Is that so of a point? If this is wrong, please do show me superstar players of the past who either left their contending team or switched to a "second class team" except whey they were at the tail end of their careers!

Russell? No. Wilt? Traded up to the Lakers. Dr. J - no. Kareem? Traded up to the Lakers and never left. Larry Bird? No. Magic? No. MJ? No. Malone? No. Hakeem? No. Shaq? No (traded up to Lakers). Duncan? No. Kobe? No. KG agreed to go to Boston in the understanding he would be on a contending team.

People judge what Lebron and now KD have done as "weak" moves, but players in the past never chose the path of most resistance and went to "second class teams" to get their titles. NBA superstars don't mess around - they play to win.

[NBARocks]

as a competitor, I want to win rings. who the eff cares what some internet troll says about the value of rings.

a ring is a ring.

[righterwriter]

Remember in gym class when teams were being picked and on the odd occasion there would be one team that was absolutely stacked with the best athletes, and the feeling you had when you got on that team?

That feeling is part of why these guys-- and all guys who aren't just chasing a paycheck-- choose to go to better teams if they get the opportunity.

[HotTubMike]

as a competitor, I want to win rings. who the eff cares what some internet troll says about the value of rings.

a ring is a ring.

?

So you don't view a player who is the "man" on one team leading that team to a championship any differently than a great player jumping onto an already established GOAT team and then winning a championship?

Ok... I think most NBA fans would look at those two things as different accomplishments and one is more worthy than the other.

[Def Leppard]

Titles a bit of an oxymoron

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using RealGM mobile app

[3Diamantidis]

Especially the cavs, no.
I don't know how many well known players they need in order to stay "competitive" and "deep" w their bench.
Truly awful.
The warriors...not to them as well.
Their bench ain't so deep but this starting 5 is what it is.

[Johnny Firpo]

I'd join either one. As a competitor I'd want to win more titles because that's all anyone will remember in 20 years, and nobody will really remember how you got there

Status matters though. No one will remember that Adam Morrison won two rings, whereas Nash will always be remembered as a total NBA legend.

[dark shark]

If I'm a career bench player I'm following the cash. I wouldn't care about championships. No one will remember me and I'll have no legacy to build so I want to make sure I have plenty of money to retire with.

If I'm a starting role player.. im still following the cash

[Edrees]

I'd join either one. As a competitor I'd want to win more titles because that's all anyone will remember in 20 years, and nobody will really remember how you got there

Status matters though. No one will remember that Adam Morrison won two rings, whereas Nash will always be remembered as a total NBA legend.

Yes you're right, that's definitely a factor. I was referring to the Nash's of the world.

[bmurph128]

I think people care about winning a title. And if you ask real players, rather than posters on RealGM, I doubt any player on the Warriors, Cavs, or Spurs thinks it will be easy to win a championship.

Agreed. Go back and watch the Cavs celebration after beating the Raptors in the ECF.

Fans may have thought it was a foregone conclusion, but the Cavs players obviously didn't treat it that way.

[bmurph128]

The easy answer here is yes because even if the Cavs and Warriors defeat the rest of the field easily (which is probably not going to be the case) - they will be playing each other. So this is a unique case, because you have this titanic clash.

You will be remembered for being in this battle, even if both teams blazed through the rest of the NBA. So if anything, being a competitor would give you more reason to join one of these teams and face off in a potentially epic NBA final

[Knickerbocker91]

I'd wait until I had a championship calibre team. Go up 3-1 against a 72 win team, finals bound but somehow lose 4 straight...yeah I'd pick that team. still salty as f***

[God Squad]

I think people care about winning a title. And if you ask real players, rather than posters on RealGM, I doubt any player on the Warriors, Cavs, or Spurs thinks it will be easy to win a championship.

Agreed. Go back and watch the Cavs celebration after beating the Raptors in the ECF.

Fans may have thought it was a foregone conclusion, but the Cavs players obviously didn't treat it that way.

Loved that series. Well fought both sides