To a certain extent, I don't think your total legacy should be about titles. I mean look at Horry. He has 7 (I think it's 7) titles, but he's not in the conversation of top 25 to 50 all time. Is titles the ultimate goal? Yes, but idk i just don't know if they should determine legacy. At the end of the day, you're right as far as how the league views it.
Whether or not a player has a title in his resume should not define whether or not he's a great player. Allen Iverson is arguablly one of the greatest small men to ever play the game. He never won an title. Should he then be excluded from any "greatest" conversations? Heck no!
Dennis Johnson won titles with Boston. He was a decent PG, but he wasn't great in my eyes. Shoot, I liked Cornbread Maxwell better than him! Because Dennis won titles with Boston, should I now include him in "greatest" convos? Heck no.
For me, how good a player is/was should be defined by how good the player is/was, and not by things he can't control by himself, like winning a championship.