Agree. He's already an all time player. This is the new NBA -- superstars now change teams. This won't hurt his legacy at all.
IMO, the signal of legendary has become championship rings, it separated the greats from the legends. The players today see Shaq on TNT killing Barkley non-stop about not having any rings. Fans and media make arguments that players with rings are better than players without
(Montana better than Marino, Jeter better than ARod, etc.). Great careers are now defined by championships and as a result players on the cusp of legendary status are going to do whatever it takes to get a championship.
It is like society, boomers complain about millennials, yet ignore that the way they raised their kids is a result of the "millennial attitude". Same goes with the athletes of yesterday, the media and fans so caught up on rings that players have adapted to that environment. It used to be that fans were so quick to criticize a player for picking a destination that they couldn't win in yet got the most money, now they are getting criticized for the opposite.
I state this all being in Durant pressed the easy button camp, but former players, fans and the media have created the current environment of rings above all. The question now is, is that a bad thing? Is stacking the deck for a championship better than chasing the dollars only?