People read way too much into these statements. Curry and Klay aren't going to sacrifice much, of any at all. A sacrifice isn't giving up shots, it's giving up open shots. And with KD on the team, their open looks should stay the same or even increase. Since they figure to get the same number of open looks, there will be no sacrifice.
Likewise, KD won't have to sacrifice because he'll get more open looks too.
How so? That's merely a semantic argument, because the style of play that both Klay and Steph play with means they take quite a few contested shots each. It seems pretty silly to say that only losing open shots counts as a sacrifice, because contested shots are a major part of both of their games. For example:
"Curry made 200 contested 3-pointers off the dribble, which exceeded the total of 26 entire teams. He shot 43 percent on those attempts. He was the only one of 33 players who took 100 of those shots to make more than 40 percent of them."
http://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/117810/stephen-curry-is-a-difference-maker-in-so-many-waysThe same argument can be made for iso-heavy KD, too. Further, they all took quite a few shots per game as it is - Curry 20.2, KD 19.2 (replacing Barnes at 9.6), Klay 17.3, and Green 10.1. You can't sit there and tell me that at least one of them (most likely Green and/or Klay) isn't going to see a significant drop in touches and/or shots.
It seems pretty obvious that one or more of them will have to significantly sacrifice due to them replacing Barnes with a former MVP with a shooting rate of +10 shots a game, and you can't just redefine the concept of sacrifice to fit this situation, especially when contested, non-open shots are a major part of the games of Curry, KD, and Klay. That's just not how it works when significant pieces come together like this, and you can look at all of the other "super teams" in the recent past as evidence for this.