Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangejello727
Isnt that what Lebron did? Lebron left a team to join a team with super stars to win a championship because he couldnt do it on the best team in the east?
Here is my issue with your biased viewpoint.. You say Durant left a playoff contending team in OKC to join the Warriors can call that a coward move. But when Lebron left the best team in the eastern conference that was 1 step away from the finals, you consider that a competitive move? How are the 2 any different??
You claim Durant is soft because he joined a powerhouse team in the Warriors. But you think colluding with 2 other super stars to form a superteam is being competitive? Explain the difference between joining 2 other superstars (Lebron) vs. joining other superstars (Durant)??
No going off into tangents about how Warriors didnt need Durant, because the same could be said for Wade not needing Lebron. Infact if anything Both Durant and Lebron needed everyone else to become champions. They are 1 in the same.
I personally think Lebron is a coward for staying in the easy cake walk of the east. A true competitor would move to the west and take on the best. But that doesnt fit the competitive nature of Lebron now does it?
|
No, you're making up what I'm saying. I haven't said anything about Kevin Durant being on a winning team. My argument is simple. Durant joined a team who he couldn't beat eliminating competition. Lebron formed a team of players who weren't winning to beat a team he couldn't beat. No comparison. I'm all for players on losing teams to try to form more competitive teams. I'd love to see players like Anthony Davis or Porzingis join up with other losing team stars to form more competition. It makes rivalries and competition fun. There's honestly no argument you can make to justify KD's decision based on a competitive standpoint.
It was the easiest choice for him to not have to compete against a team that he couldn't beat. Any competitor in this world would consider that a weak and soft move.