I'm going to ask you to, for a moment, consider a statement I completely disagree with as fact. Now for many of you, you're going to already agree with the statement anyway, so it won't be much of a stretch. Here it is:
"LeBron can't win in Cleveland."
IF LeBron had no chance of winning a title in Cleveland, WHY DIDN'T HE HAVE A CHANCE?
I understand the reasons for LeBron going to Miami, and even agree with a couple, understand a couple more, and think that of the choices he was offered, *IF* he was going to leave Cleveland, EVEN WITHOUT WADE AND BOSH, he picked the right choice. That's not what my argument is.
Apparently, for some reson, Cleveland is incapable of constructing a winning team. Except that, to a very high level, they did. But Cleveland just lost its last two big free agents: LeBron and Boozer. Boozer left for the money, but LeBron left for "winning."
In the past 10 years, we've had 5 teams winning titles. In the 10 years before that, we had 4 - with two being from the previous 10 years. In the 10 years before that, we had 4 teams in 10 years, only one not in the past 20. We've had 8 teams win in the past 30 years. Add Seattle and another Lakers title to that, and that's the whole time-frame I've followed the NBA.
The count:
Los Angeles, 10
Chicago, 6
Boston, 4
San Antonio, 4
Detroit, 3
Houston, 2
Philadelphia, 1
Miami, 1
Seattle, 1
If LeBron can't win in Cleveland, I think it's very fair to say that Nowitzki can't win in Dallas, Deron Williams can't win in Utah, Bosh couldn't have won in Toronto, Chris Paul can't win in New Orleans, Mayo can't win in Memphis, and Nash can't win in Phoenix.
Can Durant win in Oklahoma City? Seems awfully unlikely, doesn't it?
You do not see people lining up to sign in Milwaukee. Who is the last major free agent you remember signing in Minnesota?
Now some of that is an organization question. When you've got owners like Sterling and Sarver, you're always going to have a few problems trying to achieve at a top level. But how is it that Dallas has never won a championship, given a favorable situation in terms of owner, and a general willingness to spend? Why does Cleveland, a team that has been loyal to its stars in the past, lose their free agents because they don't believe they can win?
"Well, you have to have two superstars to win." Garbage. Hakeem Olajuwon showed us in 1994 that one superstar was plenty. And in 2004, Detroit showed us that you didn't even need one, if you played smart, disciplined, team-oriented basketball.
So *WHY* is the idea that you need to superstars to win so prevalent? Because those big name teams that are always winning are always fielding the two superstars.
Let me ask you this: there are two teams - let's say Indiana and Chicago. Indiana has a tradition of treating its revered players well (Reggie Miller, Rik Smits), and Chicago has a tradition of treating its revered players poorly (Pippen, Kukoc, even to an extent, Jordan). WHICH TEAM is more likely to get a superstar signing? Why?
I say it's Chicago. Big city. Big opportunity to shine in a big spotlight. AT BEST, Indiana hopes to keep that gem they find in the draft.
When Duncan is gone, how long before San An is irrelevant?
Right now, BEST CASE, you figure the following teams have a chance to win it all next year, and I'm being generous:
Orlando, Boston, Miami, Chicago
Los Angeles (Lakers - heck, the DODGERS have a better chance of winning the NBA title than the Clippers do), Dallas, San Antonio, Portland (if Oden pans out), and Oklahoma City.
9 teams. Included in those teams are the teams winning the last 6 championships. 6 of the 9 have won before (okay, 5, if you don't count OKC as inheriting Seattle's championship). Of those 9, Orlando, Chicago, San Antonio, and Portland won the lottery (Howard, Rose, Duncan, Oden), and OKC had Durant as the #2 pick.
Dallas is the only one that adopted the idea, "We're going to spend, not rely on the lottery, and not rely on our history" to get into the championship discussion. And how many folks around here think Dallas has a *REAL* shot?
In essence, I do not think it is any longer possible for a fringe team - say an Indiana or a New Orleans or a Cleveland - to figure prominently in championship discussion, because they will be unable to acquire 2 top-level players, because just 1 will keep them from getting the second one in the lottery. They are not attractive enough to free agents.
Now while many of you may love the fact that it's Lakers-Celtics all over again, frankly, I'm disgusted by it. Skander made the comment that he lost a lot of interest in the NBA after the Lakers acquired Gasol for a bag of stale potato chips. His words were, "L.A. made a *MISTAKE*. They traded CARON BUTLER for KWAME BROWN. If you've got any self-respect, if you're an opposing team, you make them *CHOKE* on that mistake! But no."
Same thing just happened with the Bosh and James signings. Both Toronto and Cleveland agreed to sign-and-trades that got them draft picks and trade exceptions. Bosh and James get rewarded for jumping ship by getting an extra year on their contracts, for rotten picks. (Unless, of course, the Miami experiment doesn't pan out, and they miss the playoffs. Then those first rounders might end up in the top 3. Why not buy a Lotto ticket instead? Better chance of winning on that.) Why not make James and Bosh take that one less year? Does anyone thing that a LeBron-less Cleveland is *NOW* one player away from winning, whereas *WITH* LeBron, they were "can't win?"
The LeBron signing makes me think one thing more than anything else: there is no longer parity in NBA basketball. Perhaps there never was, but I was just too optimistic to see the fact. Either way, professional basketball, which had already gotten boring, just got *MORE* boring.
*SO* that leads us to next year's lockout. And don't kid yourself. There *WILL* be a lockout. Probably a long one.
If I'm Milwaukee, or Minnesota, or Golden State - do I have *ANY* reason to come back quickly? AT ALL? Will I have any future chance at being competitive? *AT* *ALL*?
If I'm one of these teams - and a host of others (including Utah) - here are the demands I'm making, and I'm not settling until I get them.
1) Hard cap - no cap exceptions. Only way to level the playing field. You can get your LeBron James, but you won't team him with Bosh and Wade, because:
2) Eliminate salary scale. You can get 75% of the franchise's money. Good luck finding 11 people willing to take 2% apiece.
3) Eliminate sign-and-trade advantage: no extra year on a sign and trade deal, although you can still offer the larger raises.
4) Eliminate "restricted free agent" status. You want your player to stay with your organization? Pay for them.
If you look at any major sport, and ask which is the most competitve, the most exciting, the one where the most teams realistically can think they can win the whole thing, it's NFL Football. With it's hard cap.
What does that do to teams that have overpaid their Joe Johnsons? What does that do for teams like Miami, who'll be over the cap and then some by the time they get done? Picture this: Miami forced to choose which of Bosh, Wade, or James they're going to have to deal away to get under the hard cap.
I'm absolutely doing this if I'm a "minor" NBA team. Why would I not? I want the field more level. I expect the game to be a fair one.
Cleveland fans and ownership have a right to be angry. It's not like they've mistreated their past players, been a bunch of bumblers in running the organization, and tried to nickel-and-dime their superstar. And LeBron James had no obligation to stay if he didn't want to play there. But if Cleveland assembled a good cast, offered him the moon (and then some), and has always been good to him, don't you think the idea that he'd sign somewhere else wouldn't have been as popular as it was?
I think that the LeBron James signing may be the BIGGEST debate point in negotiating the new CBA that isn't being talked about *AT* *ALL*.
