Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr is trying to diffuse the latest situation between his team and the Oklahoma City Thunder.
The lead-up to Monday's game in Oklahoma City has been largely centered around a report that has kicked up dust.
Apparently, in the ESPN report, Golden State's "organization" was upset about the treatment Kevin Durant received for his February 11 return to Chesapeake Arena.
In the report from Chris Haynes, the team was "furious and bewildered about the inactivity" from the Thunder before Durant's first game back in town after leaving for the Bay Area after nine years with the Thunder organization.
Durant, however, will not play in Monday night's rematch in Oklahoma City, as he is out with a knee injury. He did play in February, leading the Warriors with 34 points and nine rebounds in a 130-114 win against his old team.
For some reason, ESPN granted anonymity to the "league sources" who wanted to push that opinion.
Later Monday, Kerr addressed the report.
"Was there a name attached to the story or something?" Kerr asked reporters at Golden State's shootaround on Monday. "I don't agree (with the report)."
Kerr then referenced Thunder General Manager Sam Presti and the OKC organization.
"Sam Presti is a friend of mine, I know (owner) Clay Bennett, it's a class organization all the way, so I don't really pay attention to a story like that unless there's an actual name that's put on it.
"I assume it's just 'sources'?" said Kerr, putting air quotes around the term and smiling. "I don't know who that is. It's nobody with the Warriors."
You have to like Kerr chiding the media here, and he's absolutely right.
Kerr is a really smart guy and has spent some time in the media too, so he understands what's going on here: ESPN is irresponsibly trying to drum up a story.
Sure, there's probably someone with Golden State, or maybe pockets within the organization, who have grumblings about this. But if they aren't willing to put their name on it, why give them that mouthpiece?
The original ESPN story referenced how the "Warriors organization" could have helped diffuse the situation for Durant by not acknowledging the star's return and his past service to the OKC franchise.
The question is, though, unless there was a reasonable threat or suspicion of possible violence that was going to happen or something: Why would the Thunder organization want to diffuse anything to make things easier for Durant?
That's the part the mostly doesn't make sense.
And if the "sources" can't answer that question, and the reporter can't spell it out in the story, then why let the anonymous quote stand?
Anything for a story, right?