Kevin Durant, in one of the most shocking free agency moves in NBA history, joined the Warriors on a 2-year, $54.3 million deal and threw the NBA world into a frenzy of polarized opinions and emotional reactions. Opposition to Durant’s decision is widespread and vehement, ranging from annual Warriors-detractor Charles Barkley to jersey-burning Oklahoma City residents. A common narrative in the criticism is how Durant’s just wanted an easy ticket to a championship and that he is a coward for choosing the Warriors.
On his podcast, Bill Simmons dove into Durant’s decision to join the Warriors with guest Joe House and pumped the brakes hard on the flood of criticism directed towards the former MVP.
Simmons spoke out strongly against these reactions: “What I didn’t like is this portrayal that he was weak, that there was a weakness to the decision, that he took the coward’s way out … I think there were many decisions that led to [picking Golden State], and I don’t feel like they were reflected in the reporting.” Simmons brings up a conclusion that should be obvious (but somehow isn’t) to both NBA fans and the media: no one knows that much about the motivations behind Durant’s move, primarily because he himself hasn’t revealed them.
There are so many contributing factors that could have influenced Durant’s move to Golden State, and Simmons speculates on some in the episode, including “maybe he was just tired of playing with Russell Westbrook… maybe he wanted to live in the Bay Area… maybe he wanted to play with Steph Curry and Draymond… maybe he wanted to be in a better offense… maybe he wanted to be on a team that just spends money.” Simmons’ point is not that all of these considerations were part of the decision; rather, his point is that the reporting surrounding the signing doesn’t accurately portray the complex nature of Durant’s big move.
Simmons sheds light on several more key aspects of the Durant decision that have been overlooked, one of which revolves around the collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and NBPA. This type of move is exactly what the agreement accomplishes for NBA players. In guest Joe House’s words, “that’s the beauty of what the Collective Bargaining Agreement affords these players. I support it: the players’ right to self-determination when the circumstances provide the opportunity.”
The circumstances that brought Durant to Golden State stretch back six years ago to the 2010 FIBA championship team with Curry and Andre Iguodala. So when Durant became a free agent after the season, he earned the right to make his own decision — and he chose the Warriors. That empowerment is exactly what the NBPA seeks to achieve for the players, and it’s simply illogical to criticize a player for using those tools to determine the best home for him.
Durant’s decision is his own. Yes, it hurts Thunder fans. But many of his critics try to redirect the focus from that and ask: well why wasn’t he loyal to Oklahoma City? Simmons attacks this angle too, citing OKC’s own history of disloyalty and their prioritization of business and financial moves over loyalty. “First of all, Clay Bennett moved the Thunder from Seattle to Oklahoma City. That doesn’t seem very loyal… Second, he signs a huge extension in 2010 to stay there for five years, so does Westbrook, and then, [two years] later, they just trade Harden. Not sure about the loyalty there. They fired Scotty Brooks a year ago. That doesn’t seem very loyal.”
Sports is a business, and Durant doesn’t owe Oklahoma City anything, just like Bennett felt he didn’t owe Seattle anything, that they could jettison Harden instead of paying him, and they could fire Scotty Brooks despite the turnaround he inspired in the franchise. So why does Durant suddenly have to be loyal? Those were business moves by the franchise, and Durant’s move to the Bay Area is one as well.
Simmons wrapped up the point perfectly in his usual blunt vernacular: “Sports isn’t loyal. $#!t happens.”