Westbrook rumored to sign his extension soon

[Nate505]

So he deserves props for staying loyal to a team, but if the team decides to trade him, would they get the same hate as him leaving?

Yes. Especially if the Thunder didn't get an absolute King's ransom in return. The Thunder would get massive amounts of hate. It's an extremely simple answer.

Of course the circumstances to make this work is that in this hypothetical, Westbrook isn't trying to force a trade and wants to stay on the team. Him playing at a relatively high level matters too because as I do get the point you're trying to make, people aren't that upset when washed up players leave a team via FA.

I guarantee you if the Jazz ever traded John Stockton or the Pacers ever traded Reggie Miller, and both players wanted to stay in Utah/Indiana, that the fans of those teams would have been livid. If the former ever happened, that would have been enough to end my 15 years (say if they did it during the last year of Stockton's career) of Jazz fandom.

[Patches Perry]

So he deserves props for staying loyal to a team, but if the team decides to trade him, would they get the same hate as him leaving?

In the Thunder's case, yes.

Only because it would run counter to the team winning. The team would be acting in its own best interests, but if a player does the same.........

It's still a hypocritical stance no matter how it's sliced.

Sure, I would even extend it to fans. Why are fans expected to be loyal to teams and players that aren't loyal to them? If we are giving passes to teams and players for acting in their own interests, then it's inconsistent to criticize a fan for acting in his own best interest by rooting for whatever team he feels like that day. If there is no loyalty in sports, it has to be across the board.

[Andre Roberstan]

If this gets done, and I've believed it will, all it takes is a nice solid run into the playoffs and they might just have kept PG13 for the longhaul.

Russ - Roberson - PG13 - Patterson - Adams

a damned good starting 5 with guys like Kanter, Abrines, Felton, and McBuckets all coming off the bench is a pretty deep and balanced team, with some seriously good instant offense off the bench.

That bench is really bad, they really need Abrines and Ferguson/Grant to develop into something.

I dont think Abrines is bad at all.. as a rookie he showed the ability to stripe it from 3. Coming over from Europe I expected his defense to be lacking, but his wingspan gives me hope that he'll be at least a capable defender at the 2. Worst case, he plateaus as a quality 3pt threat off the bench, but I can easily see him being a Bogdonovic or Korver type player going forward.

The bench's defense is bad though, really bad. Offensively.. they can score, and in a hurry. The one odd piece, to me, is McBuckets. I think he'd actually do well if he played significant time with Russ/George, because the more you turn him into a spot-shooter, the better he'll be. Like move George to SG, slide Buckets in at SF against a primo defender and see what he can do off the ball.

Pretty much agree with this. Abrines has a touch of game off the bounce and is shockingly athletic (yes, yes, get your white jokes off). Russ threw him a couple of lobs last year that really surprised me—he can get UP. Defense was quite bad, though, despite having the speed to stay with guys. Fouled too much, mainly. But he can really stroke it.

I think McBuckets's future is more at the 4 than the 3. His foot speed is really slow for a 3, and he's got the bulk to play there if he's putting on weight and muscle (as he's rumored to be doing this summer). Our swing/wing rotation is going to be interesting to watch going forward.

[Synciere]

So he deserves props for staying loyal to a team, but if the team decides to trade him, would they get the same hate as him leaving?

Yes. Especially if the Thunder didn't get an absolute King's ransom in return. The Thunder would get massive amounts of hate. It's an extremely simple answer.

Of course the circumstances to make this work is that in this hypothetical, Westbrook isn't trying to force a trade and wants to stay on the team. Him playing at a relatively high level matters too because as I do get the point you're trying to make, people aren't that upset when washed up players leave a team via FA.

I guarantee you if the Jazz ever traded John Stockton or the Pacers ever traded Reggie Miller, and both players wanted to stay in Utah/Indiana, that the fans of those teams would have been livid. If the former ever happened, that would have been enough to end my 15 years (say if they did it during the last year of Stockton's career) of Jazz fandom.

What if they traded him for Michael Jordan? Fans wouldn't have been upset, because they'd be doing it for the improvement of the team, right? You could love Stockton or Miller, but fans would say screw loyalty in that situation. They want to win. They'd be thinking about their own self interest.

But if Westbrook decides to leave OKC, to go to a better team, or a better city, or a better overall situation, no one would say anything about loyalty? Maybe his situation is different because he's invoked that word already, but had he not, it still would've come up. Again, fans and teams want loyalty that they are not willing to give back. They'll trade a loyal guy in a heartbeat for the chance at the chip. But for a chance at the chip, guys like KD were absolutely crucified.

We don't need hypotheticals though, because guys are traded against their will every year. Guys are drafted against their will every year. There's no loyalty from teams, and the only times t comes up is when it's in their interest.

[KobeBryant24]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo...................

We just want PG , we got a real playmaker on the squad

[Nate505]

So he deserves props for staying loyal to a team, but if the team decides to trade him, would they get the same hate as him leaving?

Yes. Especially if the Thunder didn't get an absolute King's ransom in return. The Thunder would get massive amounts of hate. It's an extremely simple answer.

Of course the circumstances to make this work is that in this hypothetical, Westbrook isn't trying to force a trade and wants to stay on the team. Him playing at a relatively high level matters too because as I do get the point you're trying to make, people aren't that upset when washed up players leave a team via FA.

I guarantee you if the Jazz ever traded John Stockton or the Pacers ever traded Reggie Miller, and both players wanted to stay in Utah/Indiana, that the fans of those teams would have been livid. If the former ever happened, that would have been enough to end my 15 years (say if they did it during the last year of Stockton's career) of Jazz fandom.

What if they traded him for Michael Jordan? Fans wouldn't have been upset, because they'd be doing it for the improvement of the team, right? You could love Stockton or Miller, but fans would say screw loyalty in that situation. They want to win. They'd be thinking about their own self interest.

But if Westbrook decides to leave OKC, to go to a better team, or a better city, or a better overall situation, no one would say anything about loyalty? Maybe his situation is different because he's invoked that word already, but had he not, it still would've come up. Again, fans and teams want loyalty that they are not willing to give back. They'll trade a loyal guy in a heartbeat for the chance at the chip. But for a chance at the chip, guys like KD were absolutely crucified.

We don't need hypotheticals though, because guys are traded against their will every year. Guys are drafted against their will every year. There's no loyalty from teams, and the only times t comes up is when it's in their interest.

Who has been traded against their will every year? At least who that is a top tier player? Because that's what we're talking about here. Nobody cares on any side whether the Trevor Booker's of the world are loyal or not.

Drafted against their will? Since when are these guys forced to join the NBA in the first place? They can go to Europe or Asia or wherever if they want.

Of course people would question his loyalty if he went to another place as a FA. That's a given.

KD was crucified for many good reasons. He was an MVP caliber player who joined a stacked team in his prime. It's never been done before, at least to my knowledge. It ruined the competitive balance of the league. I remember when people said that it would at the time a year ago there were people saying "who knows what will happen, injuries, he may not mesh well, etc." Yet it played out just like most people said it was, because it was extremely obvious how it would play out.

[Synciere]

Yes. Especially if the Thunder didn't get an absolute King's ransom in return. The Thunder would get massive amounts of hate. It's an extremely simple answer.

Of course the circumstances to make this work is that in this hypothetical, Westbrook isn't trying to force a trade and wants to stay on the team. Him playing at a relatively high level matters too because as I do get the point you're trying to make, people aren't that upset when washed up players leave a team via FA.

I guarantee you if the Jazz ever traded John Stockton or the Pacers ever traded Reggie Miller, and both players wanted to stay in Utah/Indiana, that the fans of those teams would have been livid. If the former ever happened, that would have been enough to end my 15 years (say if they did it during the last year of Stockton's career) of Jazz fandom.

What if they traded him for Michael Jordan? Fans wouldn't have been upset, because they'd be doing it for the improvement of the team, right? You could love Stockton or Miller, but fans would say screw loyalty in that situation. They want to win. They'd be thinking about their own self interest.

But if Westbrook decides to leave OKC, to go to a better team, or a better city, or a better overall situation, no one would say anything about loyalty? Maybe his situation is different because he's invoked that word already, but had he not, it still would've come up. Again, fans and teams want loyalty that they are not willing to give back. They'll trade a loyal guy in a heartbeat for the chance at the chip. But for a chance at the chip, guys like KD were absolutely crucified.

We don't need hypotheticals though, because guys are traded against their will every year. Guys are drafted against their will every year. There's no loyalty from teams, and the only times t comes up is when it's in their interest.

Who has been traded against their will every year? At least who that is a top tier player? Because that's what we're talking about here. Nobody cares on any side whether the Trevor Booker's of the world are loyal or not.

Drafted against their will? Since when are these guys forced to join the NBA in the first place? They can go to Europe or Asia or wherever if they want.

Of course people would question his loyalty if he went to another place as a FA. That's a given.

KD was crucified for many good reasons. He was an MVP caliber player who joined a stacked team in his prime. It's never been done before, at least to my knowledge. It ruined the competitive balance of the league. I remember when people said that it would at the time a year ago there were people saying "who knows what will happen, injuries, he may not mesh well, etc." Yet it played out just like most people said it was, because it was extremely obvious how it would play out.

When players are traded, 9 times out of 10, they have no say whatsoever. Top tier players don't get traded because it's in the interest of their teams to keep them! But as soon as it's not... think deron Williams and the Jazz. THe only reason most top tier players aren't is because teams don't want to pay top dollar for rentals, and if you have a top tier player long term, then you don't care if he's unhappy. You roll the dice that by the time contracts come the money keeps them or that you're good. It's the team thinking of their interest first and foremost!

Players every year are drafted to cities they don't want to go to. I'm not even going to address this further.

My point is that players should NOT have their loyalty questioned if a team can trade them in their own best interest and the team isn't expected to be loyal. Since when is loyalty supposed to be one sided? That's not loyalty, that's servitude.

However you want to spin it, you expect a player to be loyal to a team while you don't expect the team to be loyal to said player. It's a double standard, and a hypocritical stance to take.

[DubTheVanDamage]

In the Thunder's case, yes.

Only because it would run counter to the team winning. The team would be acting in its own best interests, but if a player does the same.........

It's still a hypocritical stance no matter how it's sliced.

Sure, I would even extend it to fans. Why are fans expected to be loyal to teams and players that aren't loyal to them? If we are giving passes to teams and players for acting in their own interests, then it's inconsistent to criticize a fan for acting in his own best interest by rooting for whatever team he feels like that day. If there is no loyalty in sports, it has to be across the board.

Isn't that really the truth -- that fans shouldn't be expected to be loyal? We've built this who set of mores for how fans are expected to behave, but isn't it actually quite silly?

Take a hypothetical situation of an OKC fan last year that switched allegiance to the Warriors.

The general consensus, I think, would be, "bandwagoneer!" and scorn.

But what if it was a fan from Seattle, who hates Clay and only followed the Thunder because of loyalty to Durant -- that'd be ok, right? Or a young fan, who got into the NBA after a visit in the hospital by Kevin Durant? No reasonable person would criticize the kid.

Personally, I was a Raider fan but don't like that they're moving. I won't support the 49ers because I despise the York family. So, I've adopted the Browns -- a downtrodden team with an awesome fanbase. Browns fans I've talked to seem to appreciate it and most people think it's a respectable choice -- but what if I chose the Pats, instead? Instant scorn.

Isn't it silly to get into that level of nuance? Sports is for enjoyment and if someone gets pleasure out of front-running, so be it.

Admittedly, if I met a Warriors fan who likes the Penguins, Pats and Cubs, I'd roll my eyes, but shouldn't we strive to get past these biases?

[DubTheVanDamage]

That bench is really bad, they really need Abrines and Ferguson/Grant to develop into something.

I dont think Abrines is bad at all.. as a rookie he showed the ability to stripe it from 3. Coming over from Europe I expected his defense to be lacking, but his wingspan gives me hope that he'll be at least a capable defender at the 2. Worst case, he plateaus as a quality 3pt threat off the bench, but I can easily see him being a Bogdonovic or Korver type player going forward.

The bench's defense is bad though, really bad. Offensively.. they can score, and in a hurry. The one odd piece, to me, is McBuckets. I think he'd actually do well if he played significant time with Russ/George, because the more you turn him into a spot-shooter, the better he'll be. Like move George to SG, slide Buckets in at SF against a primo defender and see what he can do off the ball.

Pretty much agree with this. Abrines has a touch of game off the bounce and is shockingly athletic (yes, yes, get your white jokes off). Russ threw him a couple of lobs last year that really surprised me—he can get UP. Defense was quite bad, though, despite having the speed to stay with guys. Fouled too much, mainly. But he can really stroke it.

I think McBuckets's future is more at the 4 than the 3. His foot speed is really slow for a 3, and he's got the bulk to play there if he's putting on weight and muscle (as he's rumored to be doing this summer). Our swing/wing rotation is going to be interesting to watch going forward.

I liked Abrines -- he's streaky and disappears for stretches but forgivable considering he was a rookie playing his first season in NA. If he can improve his defense, his shooting and athleticism should make him a very useful player.

Pat Pat was a terrific low-profile move.

[Patches Perry]

Only because it would run counter to the team winning. The team would be acting in its own best interests, but if a player does the same.........

It's still a hypocritical stance no matter how it's sliced.

Sure, I would even extend it to fans. Why are fans expected to be loyal to teams and players that aren't loyal to them? If we are giving passes to teams and players for acting in their own interests, then it's inconsistent to criticize a fan for acting in his own best interest by rooting for whatever team he feels like that day. If there is no loyalty in sports, it has to be across the board.

Isn't that really the truth -- that fans shouldn't be expected to be loyal? We've built this who set of mores for how fans are expected to behave, but isn't it actually quite silly?

Take a hypothetical situation of an OKC fan last year that switched allegiance to the Warriors.

The general consensus, I think, would be, "bandwagoneer!" and scorn.

But what if it was a fan from Seattle, who hates Clay and only followed the Thunder because of loyalty to Durant -- that'd be ok, right? Or a young fan, who got into the NBA after a visit in the hospital by Kevin Durant? No reasonable person would criticize the kid.

Personally, I was a Raider fan but don't like that they're moving. I won't support the 49ers because I despise the York family. So, I've adopted the Browns -- a downtrodden team with an awesome fanbase. Browns fans I've talked to seem to appreciate it and most people think it's a respectable choice -- but what if I chose the Pats, instead? Instant scorn.

Isn't it silly to get into that level of nuance? Sports is for enjoyment and if someone gets pleasure out of front-running, so be it.

Admittedly, if I met a Warriors fan who likes the Penguins, Pats and Cubs, I'd roll my eyes, but shouldn't we strive to get past these biases?

I agree we should. There are a lot of feelings of entitlement among fans. They feel entitled to a player's services, or feel entitled to be a spokesperson of the team, especially as more time passes being a fan of that team. You hear a lot of fans tout how long they've been a fan for, as if it gives them a greater stake in the team than a newer fan. There was actually an exchange with a Warriors fan about this a couple months ago, where they were saying that the newfound success priced all the real fans out of the arena. All the long time fans that followed through the rough years can't go to games anymore without paying a hefty ticket, and so they've been replaced with newer maybe more casual fans who can afford it. This exists across all fan bases, and it's not even limited to sports. It reminds me of when fans of a certain band get irritated when the band actually gets popular and gains new fans. The older fans don't consider the new fans "real fans" since they weren't around since the beginning. It's the same kind of entitlement.

That entitlement though seems to be created from their loyalty. They've stayed loyal to a team, why can't players and teams stay loyal to them? This is where it goes off the tracks for fans.

I don't like the entitlement and I don't like the idea that everyone has to be loyal, but I also don't like the idea of fans frequently changing their allegiances, players frequently changing teams, teams frequently changing cities. Not sure what the solution is.

[ReturnofMVP3]

Honestly, just wait until the off season, what happens if George leaves? He's going to be on a supermax with a crummy team?

[NBAFan93]

Don't get this move at all, he should have waited until he was a free agent and joined whichever team he lost to in the playoffs.

Love this ...

[NBAFan93]

Honestly, just wait until the off season, what happens if George leaves? He's going to be on a supermax with a crummy team?

Him signining makes OKC more attractive to FA and to PG. If PG leaves they are no crappier than they were last year and still attractive to others cause Westbrook is there.

[SDANNIE]

Isn't that really the truth -- that fans shouldn't be expected to be loyal? We've built this who set of mores for how fans are expected to behave, but isn't it actually quite silly?

I totally agree. What's the fun of sports if you can't root for the team you want to, when you want to, for whatever reasons you want to? Same goes for the players we love and love to hate.

I am a Californian but was born and raised in OKC. I'll always be a Thunder fan. But I'll never watch KD play basketball again no matter who he plays for. Yes the KD hate was real, lol. But now I don't care anymore and I just don't want to look at the guy.

[King4Day]

Now get LeBron to come to OKC next year and have the big 3 there.

[nbafan38]

Isn't that really the truth -- that fans shouldn't be expected to be loyal? We've built this who set of mores for how fans are expected to behave, but isn't it actually quite silly?

I totally agree. What's the fun of sports if you can't root for the team you want to, when you want to, for whatever reasons you want to? Same goes for the players we love and love to hate.

I am a Californian but was born and raised in OKC. I'll always be a Thunder fan. But I'll never watch KD play basketball again no matter who he plays for. Yes the KD hate was real, lol. But now I don't care anymore and I just don't want to look at the guy.

I agree the double standard needs to stop. If players are allowed to hop from team to team with no loyalty what is the point of fans being loyal to a team at all. Fans should be allowed to root for whoever they want to without being considered bad fans or fair weather fans since we seem to be in the era of fair weather players.

[LakersLegacy]

WB better get a no trade clause

[InWestWeTrust]

OKC should've locked Westbrook up before trading for PG (if possible).

Now him and PG can "talk" all season if WB doesn't extend. We all know PG has been fairly open about his desire to be in LA. Don't care what he said to the media after the trade. It's semi scripted PR gibberish.

And now WB and KD are "buddies" again

The stars are aligning

[nbafan38]

OKC should've locked Westbrook up before trading for PG (if possible).

Now him and PG can "talk" all season if WB doesn't extend. We all know PG has been fairly open about his desire to be in LA. Don't care what he said to the media after the trade. It's semi scripted PR gibberish.

And now WB and KD are "buddies" again

The stars are aligning

I don't think they really had much choice, I mean it's not like a player of George's Caliber is available for months and months. OKC had to pull the trigger when they did.

[michaelm]

Yes. Especially if the Thunder didn't get an absolute King's ransom in return. The Thunder would get massive amounts of hate. It's an extremely simple answer.

Of course the circumstances to make this work is that in this hypothetical, Westbrook isn't trying to force a trade and wants to stay on the team. Him playing at a relatively high level matters too because as I do get the point you're trying to make, people aren't that upset when washed up players leave a team via FA.

I guarantee you if the Jazz ever traded John Stockton or the Pacers ever traded Reggie Miller, and both players wanted to stay in Utah/Indiana, that the fans of those teams would have been livid. If the former ever happened, that would have been enough to end my 15 years (say if they did it during the last year of Stockton's career) of Jazz fandom.

What if they traded him for Michael Jordan? Fans wouldn't have been upset, because they'd be doing it for the improvement of the team, right? You could love Stockton or Miller, but fans would say screw loyalty in that situation. They want to win. They'd be thinking about their own self interest.

But if Westbrook decides to leave OKC, to go to a better team, or a better city, or a better overall situation, no one would say anything about loyalty? Maybe his situation is different because he's invoked that word already, but had he not, it still would've come up. Again, fans and teams want loyalty that they are not willing to give back. They'll trade a loyal guy in a heartbeat for the chance at the chip. But for a chance at the chip, guys like KD were absolutely crucified.

We don't need hypotheticals though, because guys are traded against their will every year. Guys are drafted against their will every year. There's no loyalty from teams, and the only times t comes up is when it's in their interest.

Who has been traded against their will every year? At least who that is a top tier player? Because that's what we're talking about here. Nobody cares on any side whether the Trevor Booker's of the world are loyal or not.

Drafted against their will? Since when are these guys forced to join the NBA in the first place? They can go to Europe or Asia or wherever if they want.

Of course people would question his loyalty if he went to another place as a FA. That's a given.

KD was crucified for many good reasons. He was an MVP caliber player who joined a stacked team in his prime. It's never been done before, at least to my knowledge. It ruined the competitive balance of the league. I remember when people said that it would at the time a year ago there were people saying "who knows what will happen, injuries, he may not mesh well, etc." Yet it played out just like most people said it was, because it was extremely obvious how it would play out.

Why do they have the free agent rule then?