Steve Kerr said it’s “absurd” to label Kevin Durant a villain just because he opted to sign with another team. Agree? Disagree?
David Aldridge, TNT analyst: Completely agree. I understand Oklahoma City fans, perhaps, feeling that way, but no one without a dog in the hunt should categorize KD that way because he made a decision about where he wanted to work. And, really, that’s all he did. He didn’t do anything to you or me. He decided he wanted to work in Oakland instead of OKC. People do that every day of their lives. No one is considered villainous for doing so.
Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Of course, agree. It’s silly to think otherwise. He changed teams, didn’t rob a bank.
Shaun Powell, NBA.com: Agree, agree, agree with Steve Kerr. First of all, who gets to determine who’s a “villain?” Jealous couch potatoes? Bored and lazy media types? Durant owes nobody anything. He gave 9 of the best years of his career to OKC. He helped the community. He raised the profile of the franchise (and the value). Why have free agency if certain players — superstars — aren’t “allowed” to be free agents according to the public? Or that there are certain teams (contenders) they aren’t allowed to join? Durant is getting more grief than athletes who, you know, commit actual crimes. Felt the same way about the over-the-top treatment of LeBron for a silly TV show.
John Schuhmann, NBA.com: I agree and I don’t see him as one. But others will and if they enjoy watching the Warriors in that way, that’s their right. I guess it might be too much to ask for them to just keep it civil on Twitter, though.
Sekou Smith, NBA.com: I want to agree with Kerr on this one, on principle alone, but I know better than to think Durant or any star of his ilk could make a move like this and not instantly become the villain to a large segment of the sports-loving public. Like it or not, wearing the villain tag after you bolt Oklahoma City for Oakland the way Durant did and you have to own the foolishness that comes with that move. I agree, Durant has not done anything to be labeled a “villain” in the darkest sense of the word. He did what was in his heart. I’ll never condemn someone for doing that. But he also crossed that imaginary line that revisionist historians love to cite as the point of no return for superstar athletes where loyalty is concerned. Free agency provides a freedom of choice for the player, it does not guarantee that he’ll be free of the consequences of his choice, intended or otherwise.
Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: Agreed. This is not going to be a simple transition for him and his teammates. Durant is going to have to earn his success by adapting his style to fit with the Warriors, and every setback along the way will be exaggerated and celebrated. Accusations of his villainy are based on the premise that Durant has taken the easy path to the championship. And so fans by the millions are going to make sure that it won’t be easy for him, in the same way that they made it difficult on LeBron James when he moved to the Miami Heat. By next June everyone is going to be reminded that winning the NBA championship is almost never easy. Someday we’ll look back and recognize that Durant was no villain based on the hard decision he made.
Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: If we’re really going to parse it, my favorite part of Kerr’s quote was how he tried to stretch it to apply to any person on the Warriors, along with Durant: “To think of Kevin Durant or Steph Curry or any of our guys as villains, it’s kind of absurd.” Any of our guys? Hey, you know who probably doesn’t think terming Kevin Durant a villain is all that absurd? How about a kid in Oklahoma City who had a Durant jersey and poster and was a huge Thunder fan? Or how about a fan of the Cleveland Cavaliers, the team the Warriors were doing their best to eliminate in the NBA Finals? Look, I fully support KD’s ability to choose his own adventure. But there are consequences to our decisions and choices. And to be honest, all in all, enduring a few boos might be worth getting a ring.
