Here's a hypothetical that hits home: say Karl Malone decides to join the Kings instead of the Lakers in 2003. Is that ring chasing? Maybe, but I'd argue it would have been less objectionable than joining the Lakers, who had just won three years in a row. He could have been the final piece to put the Kings over the top, filling in with Webber hurt. That would have been a nice legacy. Winning with the Lakers would have meant less (luckily, Detroit took care of business).
That situation is completely different, IMO. Jumping ship to a team that has already proven they can win a title w/o you is entirely different than joining a team that hasn't been able to win a title w/o you.
In LeBron's situation in Miami, that core team wasn't coming off back-to-back Finals appearances in which they were 1 play away from having 2 consecutive titles under their belt. While Wade and Haslem had a ring from 5 seasons earlier, the Heat hadn't made it out of the 1st round since. Sure, when James, Wade, and Bosh all joined forces, most believed they'd win -- but they were far from a proven team. In fact, they started out 9-8 until finally hitting their stride but of course lost to Dallas in the Finals.
In Durant's situation in GS, the core of the Warriors had been together for numerous years and had just come off back-to-back Finals appearances in which they won one and lost one. They lost a bit of depth to get Durant, but the core of the team was still intact. Had LeBron joined up with Boston for the 10/11 season rather than Miami, that would have been comparable to what Durant has done. The Celts had just lost in the Finals the season before (beating LBJ and the Cavs along the way) and still had the same core in place from the team that won a ring a couple seasons before.
In summary, LeBron didn't join a ready made team that had won a title w/o him. Durant did. So, in the Karl Malone hypothetical above, while joining the Kings would have been ring chasing, it wouldn't have been the same as joining the ready made Lakers that had won titles w/o him. Malone could have been a player that made the difference for Kings and put them over the top where they'd never been before. However he just would have made the Lakers a better version of a title team than they already were.
To me, that's all Durant has done in GS (should they hold on and win). He simply made a championship team even better. The same thing would have happened had he went to Cleveland instead. Those 2 teams proved to be pretty even last postseason. A top 5 player going to either team tips the scales pretty heavily. Imagine if Kawhi Leonard was able to jump ship to Cleveland next season? The balance would likely shift the other direction.
Even better yet, imagine if LeBron decided to opt out after losing to GS this season and join the Warriors too? He would in all likelihood guarantee himself 6 or 7 championships as they'd easily win the next 3 or 4. And if he did that, all the LeBron haters would pile on stating that accomplishment deserved an asterisk. As an admitted fan of LBJ, I'd fully agree. That's why I don't like what Durant has done. He didn't build and lead a team to a title from scratch. Had he joined Washington instead, who had 2 all-star caliber players in Wall and Beal, and led that unproven team to the title, I would see it as more of an accomplishment and akin to what LBJ did in Miami.
