No it’s just a juvenile attempt to belittle our separate perspectives on your comments. And I post as I read. I don’t look ahead. So I’m not looking to see what cheese posted to “one-up” his level of “hostility.” But thanks for the personal attack.
Well then it should have been easy for you to shrug off my accusation. But, I'll admit that I was wrong here, and hopefully we can move on. I apologize for failing to regard your perspective as fully individual.
As for motivation, shaq had none. He had won multiple championships and even won one without Kobe with the heat. Durant is definitely seeking his “own” championship without the warriors. If the league talking heads are to be believed he desperately wants to shed the rep that he just tagged along with the warriors - a rep which only became hotter with the warriors now winning before and after Durant.
This is one of our big disagreements. I don't put any stock at all in Durant's claims to be hungry, and even less in the take of league talking heads, who as we all know are ignorant.
I've seen nothing over Durant's long career to suggest that he's capable
of finding a higher motivation gear. And I think it's folly to believe, never mind assume, that he'll be transformed into SuperDurant if he gets his way and joins the Suns.
I'm also much more concerned about his injury history than you are. Achilles ruptures have a pretty bad track record, as detailed here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kevin-durant-looks-like-himself-again/
Now, the two worst cases on that list, Bryant and Billups, both suffered the injury in their mid-30s, so Durant has a potential advantage there. And some of the players were never stars, or all that fluid, in the first place.
The best comparison is probably Dominique Wilkins, who tore his Achilles at age 32. When he came back, his numbers were as good as ever for two seasons, until age 35, when he started to fall off rather precipitously. So it starts to become a question of counting months on the calendar and hoping to get lucky.
I'm pretty sure that, over the years, you've joined the chorus on this board of questioning Durant's heart and making fun of his inept handling of celebrity. But maybe I'm misremembering. Either way, I'm far from the only one who thinks that Durant is a headcase.
And it's telling how, over the last week or so, the pro-Durant crowd has shifted from "Durant is awesome and will give us what we need" to "Eh, we're screwed no matter what, so we might as well gamble on a miracle." I mean, that's not exactly a vote of confidence. So the question isn't really so much the upside of getting Durant, but the downside of whatever the alternative is. And I'm less despondent than most about the alternatives.