Give Me Unrestricted LeBron or Give Me Death

I know I already did one post on free agency, but hey, what else is there in the NBA right? Also, while it's no 2010, this offseason does have some prime talent on the market, which makes it worth talking about.

Or not, if you ask The Big Lead:

The consensus appears to be that there aren't any franchise-changing players on the market, and the only teams with considerable space to make any moves are Philly and notoriously frugal Memphis.

He's right about the lack of raw cap space around the league, and yeah, Elton Brand, Baron Davis and Artest probably won't opt out. But there's a good chance of some sign and trade going down, which can change that. More importantly, though, TBL tries to downplay the level of talent that's available -- maybe only Arenas can still be seen as a true franchise player, but to say these player aren't "franchise-changing" is, well, patently untrue.

Sure, Brand and Davis are no longer seen as guys you build a team around. But sweet heavens, wouldn't Baron instantly turn the Knicks into D'Antoni-land? If Brand went to the Sixers or Heat, wouldn't they suddenly fill a major void in their game plan? Artest is nuts, fine, and yet a lot of smart people think he could put the Lakers over the top, or make Denver into a two-way team. With some coaching, Josh Smith can dominate. Jamison is the quintessential prodcuer.

It's fine to say that, in terms of cut-and-dry free agent signings, this off-season not such a thrill. But to imply that teams aren't going to be trying to move on them, that they couldn't step in and make a major difference just isn't right. Especially if -- not to get all semantical here, but the distinction is important -- you recognize that "franchise-changing" is a lower bar than "franchise player."

This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.