Tai wrote:gustofwind wrote:Tai wrote:
I'm legit very close to sigging this and being done with this, and considering who's in my sig now I think you understand that's not a compliment.
What do you mean the Warriors' hands are "bloody"? Cause they wanted Durant? Cause god forbid they wanted a highly touted FA, if not THE highly touted FA this off-season. Why wouldn't the Warriors go hard for Durant? Why would they "reluctantly embrace" Durant? At the end of the day, Durant was a FREE agent who was FREE to go to whatever team would take him. It'd be one thing if he took a paycut to join the Warriors, but Durant will be paid around $27m/yr, which is why they had to let Barnes go and then trade Bogut. Maybe a small sacrifice at the end of the day to get another superstar, but it is something. How does this mean ethics were broken?
Maybe you misunderstood floopymoose's point that the Durant and Warriors wanting to be being together was mutual. If Durant wanted to go for the Warriors over the Thunder, then good for the Warriors, boo hoo for the Thunder. Yea, an opportunity to continue to compete was taken away from them, but that's life in the NBA. Happened to Cleveland the 1st time with Lebron, so be it. I can't re-call who said this to you, but I agree with him: I don't know if you would have reacted like this if Durant chose Boston, and even if you did, you'd still be dead wrong. Warriors have NOTHING to feel sorry for. NOTHING. I'm not saying you have to like it, but that doesn't make the Warriors malicious or unethical.
I believe we should be respectful to each other when we engage in conversation. I don't feel this is a respectful post. There is a way to voice disagreement with others without trying to demean them.
You're position is a perfectly fine one, but I disagree. I believe that Durant signing with GSW is bad for the league. Some disagree.
As for your questions, I've written enough about this topic and have very little else to add.
cheers and have a good day
It's one thing for you to say the Warriors getting Durant is bad for the league. But that's a far departure from calling them "unethical", and with that the implication of how you think the NBA works that i'm not a fan of. I can only imagine you had similar feelings about Lebron to the Heat, which admittedly required more parts art work though ultimately I don't feel that was unethical either, but I guess this premise of "unethical" is where my demeaning tone came from and for that I apologize.
Still, part of the reason I quoted the post I did was because looking through your posts, I found what I felt most reflected how you truly feel. I dunno how you back out of "be competitive yourself without destroying opportunities for others" into a different point and the implications that come with it.
Thanks for the change in tone. It's appreciated. Your opinion is perfectly valid and completely understandable. Mine is simply different.
I can't, or shouldn't have a long conversation about this because I have work to complete today. But, let me try to respond to your fundamental question.
I'll try to summarize if it wasn't clear already why I think there is an ethical component here. To be clear though, ethics can be a complex and ambiguous subject, and I do not expect others to agree with my particular perception of ethics. I believe that Durant signing with the GSW is bad for the league, but potentially good for him and good for him and good for the Warriors. Generally speaking then, often when people act in a way that benefits them, but hurts others, there is an ethical concern at play. I believe you should not act in a way that helps yourself, but hurts others. In fact, usually if it hurts others it doesn't really help you in the long run. Now, sometimes in life you will invariably upset other people; change of any kind can disrupt social expectations and upset people emotionally. I believe people have a right to change systems and disrupt customs if that change can help other people in the long-term. I also think people should stand up for their own rights when possible. This is not hurting anyone in a physical or material manner. So there is certainly room for debate here about what truly hurts others and what inconveniences others or simply challenges others, but is ultimately still ethical.
It's true that the object of a basketball team is to win games and to beat the other team. However, you can be competitive and win games without hurting the system that allows everyone else to be competitive. If GSW strengthened their team by drafting players, developing them, making mutually beneficial trades, or signing disgruntled players who sought better environments they would be strengthen themselves in a way that didn't undermine the natural development of other teams. This is what GSW had done up to this point. Kudos to them for that. Durant too had developed his game within a culture he liked, and strengthened his team in a way that helped others.
But, now that's changed. GSW have poached a player who was, by all accounts, perfectly satisfied in a relatively ideal basketball environment, and destroyed what OKC had built organically for a decade. GSW did not beat OKC fairly by stealing Durant the way they might win a basketball game. They stole what OKC had developed. What's particularly ridiculous to me is that both Durant and GSW could have won championships in their respective situations had they simply played a little better next year. It feels greedy they would destroy one team (OKC) and hurt parity around the league by building a team with a monopoly on talent to avoid responsibility. This hurts OKC financially and ruins the experience they would have had with a successful team for many years. It also hurts other teams that had grown within the bounds of fair play to compete for a title. (Fair play in this context is building a team in a way that does not hurt other teams. This is described above.) Now other teams do not have a fair opportunity to grow to a level that would make them competitive with Golden State due to Golden State's current monopoly on talent.
So then, I believe Durant and GSW behaved in a way that was unethical. They took excessive measures to help themselves at the expense of the overall competition in the league and at the expense of the Thunder organization and every fan who roots for them. I don't see any long-term benefit to others that would outweigh the adverse consequences they have caused. There are, of course, fans who will like the development, but I believe they are in the minority. I conducted a poll that proved as much a couple days back (over 60% here were disgusted by the idea of Durant going to GS).
I hope that clarifies the ethical issue I believe was raised here.
