Why would Golden State do that? It's one thing to get something in return for a player like KD, but you don't do that if it gives the other team a great chance at beating you in the finals. GS would be better served letting KD go to a bad team for no return than getting Horford/Hayward and a forst from us (especially since it would make sure they had money to keep Klay, etc.)
1- You dont waste any Steph years
2- You never let someone like Durant leave your team for nothing.
Giving Durant to the Celtics would make us a superteam. That would waste Curry's prime more than having a Curry/Thompson/Green core would.
Losing an asset for nothing matters when you are in an asset collection phase, but when you are contending you instead need to focus on what will most help/least harm your chances of winning it all. Trading the second best player in the world to an already good-to-great team would hurt their chances more than letting him join a non-contender like the Knicks or Clippers, even if they got nothing in return. The Curry/Klay/Green core won 73 games without KD, and they'll be fine if he leaves, too
And hayward reduces their odds?
How does that happen?
Cause I was advocating a hayward+ for durant.
I think any gm that is in championship contention would rather hayward and assets to nothing.
Hayward doesn't reduce their odds, us improving does.
Durant is better than Hayward - I don't think anyone would dispute that. So if we upgrade from Hayward to Durant, we will have improved. If they go from Durant to Hayward, they will get worse. If the Warriors think that Celtics+Durant have a better chance to beat them+Hayward than the Celtics with Hayward have of beating them without Durant, then trading Durant to us decreases their chances of winning a championship
Again, you are ignoring that the move is not made in a vacuum. Getting a player of Hayward's caliber is better than getting nothing, but sending Durant to us has a negative effect on their chances of winning a championship. They may feel like they are still better than us if they make a deal like that, but there's more to consider than "something is better than nothing
So that was alot of words.
Lets go with this...
Is hayward better than nothing?
Cause that is what you are advocating here.
Durant will make every single team better. So your point there is moot.
Even Durant to NYK makes them alot better, Durant to nyk with max capspace makes them even better again.
Again, you're not actually listening to what I'm saying. The Warriors would be better with Hayward than with nothing, but you keep ignoring my point that that doesn't necessarily mean it gives them a better chance at a championship.
Here's a simple question: if you're the Warriors, are you more concerned about being as good as you can be, or about being the best team in the NBA? (and, no, those are not the same thing)
If they trade us Durant and that makes us better than them (with Hayward), they're in a bad place. If they think they're still the best team in the NBA without Durant (like they were before he came), then as long as he doesn't make some other team better than they are (and no, the Knicks with Durant, or even Durant and Kyrie, would not be better than the Curry/Klay/Green core. That's why him going to a bad team isn't a problem), they are in a very good position
The Warriors are trying to be the best team in the NBA and win a championship. Bringing a top rival up to (or above) their level (which giving us Durant would do) could hurt their chances more than gaining Hayward helps them. It's better to lose an asset for nothing and stay as the best team than to make another team better than you just to say that you got something in return
