With LeBron James' decision to form a "superteam" with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami, there was fear that he could start a trend among NBA superstars. Now, Chris Paul reportedly wants his own superteam. It's happening. But don't worry: It will be awesome.
But before we get there, we have to understand why LeBron's colored everyone's judgment.
Jul 26, 2010 - So far this summer, the NBA offseason has seen stars changing teams, GMs throwing millions at middling talents like Darko Milicic and Drew Gooden, teams like the Bulls and Jazz becoming contenders, while teams like the Suns and Hawks ensconced themselves squarely in the second tier of the NBA's caste system. If you can look past the elephant in the room, there's been a whole lot of furniture rearranged.
But as you know—as everyone knows—LeBron James, the elephant, obscured it all. The years-long buildup, the week-long buzz of back-and-forth rumors, the crescendo of LeBron's narcissism, and the subsequent cascade of name-calling and wild predictions. He cast a shadow over everything.
It all felt like satire, but it was actually about as real as sports gets.
Media begging for news, then moralizing to no end once they got it. ESPN pulling back the curtains, forsaking the illusion of journalistic independence. NBA teams proving once and for all that it is, indeed, "a player's league." And of course LeBron James, the star at the center, who revealed himself to be what most mega-celebrities are: self-obsessed, detached from reality, and not very smart. He wasn't LeBron the basketball player this past month. He was LeBron, the person with a comically outsized view of himself, one eye on brand-building, another on Miami.
I mention this now because it's tough to get excited about what LeBron decided, because if we do, it feels an awful lot like we're validating The Decision. Like we're validating LeBron's worldview.
For about a week, the nation was entranced by a celebrity that'd become completely detached from reality. And now it's hard to separate our resentment for that celebrity from our current reality. But...
What's our current reality?
Don't let LeBron distract you: This will be awesome. Really, really awesome. LeBron James might just be the catalyst for the NBA's salvation. We've been conditioned to resent him, of course, but hear me out.
With news that Chris Paul has demanded a trade to a team with more talent, you've got a lot of people crowing about lack of loyalty, and the slow erosion of competitive balance in the NBA. That's the LeBron-effect. LeBron's whole charade felt wrong, so its implications can't be much better. Right?
As Ken Berger wrote when he broke the news of Paul's trade demand: "Call it the Miami Model, the South Beach Effect, or whatever you want. It's the new normal for young NBA superstars looking for a new home and a better chance to win."
You can feel disgust dripping through those words.
But basically, now that LeBron's established the standard for great teams, his peers are no longer satisfied with "good." They want great, too, even if it means forcing the hand of franchises that would otherwise give them the world. But if New Orleans' world isn't enough for Chris Paul, who seems like pretty great guy, shouldn't we be concerned?
For the answer, we turn to this outstanding scene from Wall Street:
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms.
Greed—for life, for money, for love, knowledge—has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.
Yep. Gordon Gekko hits the nail on the head with the NBA in 2010. Greed is good. Greed works.
Think about what Chris Paul means right now. He's an insanely talented athlete playing for a team that's average at best, and forgettable in the long run. Aside from his significance in New Orleans, what does that do for the rest of us?
Will we tell future generations about Paul's 45-win Hornets teams?
Will we wax poetic about the Chris Paul-David West fastbreaks?
Will we watch the Hornets' 58-point playoff loss on ESPN Classic?
Right now, Chris Paul is a superstar at the height of his powers, toiling in relative obscurity.
Now think about what Chris Paul could mean on the Orlando Magic. Think of the rivalry with Miami that would take hold of the league for the next five years. The best point guard in the league running pick-and-roll with the best center in the league. Can that combination beat a team with two of the best players in NBA history? Imagine the possibilities. Where will amazing happen this year? If Chris Paul goes to Orlando... "Florida."
Or think about what Chris Paul could mean on the New York Knicks. Bringing prestige back to the most prestigious basketball city in America. The Knicks with Chris Paul and Amare Stoudemire might score 120 points-a-game, regardless of whether Carmelo shows up in 2011 to create equal and opposite reaction to Miami's big three. Would we wax poetic about CP3 running the break with Carmelo and Amare? God yes.
Or Oklahoma City, the dark horse here. Wouldn't CP-and-KD be the perfect candidate in our search for the "Good" to battle Miami's "Evil"? After LeBron, a lot of people have said, "I never thought I would root for Kobe, but now..." Except, that'll never feel right. But rooting for Kevin Durant and Chris Paul, two of the NBA's most beloved young superstars? They'd be the perfect foil for both the Lakers and Heat, giving Kevin Durant the help he needs to unseat LeBron as the face of this basketball generation, and giving America a rooting interest for the next years.
See how greed works? In any of the above scenarios, basketball fans win the chance to savor the prime of the best point guard in the NBA, and enjoy rivalries the likes of which we haven't seen since the 1980s. If Paul stays in New Orleans, none of that happens.
It's perfect. There are just three counter-arguments that need to be addressed.
1. LeBron Ruined Everything. Listen, I understand why people see what's happening with Chris Paul and want to blame LeBron James for ruining the NBA. But this is not the "LeBron Era." Lord knows, James deserves every bit of scorn thrown in his direction after the nauseating journey he engineered over the past six weeks. But don't let LeBron distract you, and don't think that Bron has somehow "poisoned" Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, or any other superstar that wants to go somewhere and play with teammates befitting a superstar.
As much as Maverick Carter and the rest of "Team LeBron" would like to take credit for establishing some grand ideology, it's not like LeBron performed inception on Carmelo and Chris Paul. These are players that want to win championships, and given the salary cap and other constraints, that's not always possible in a place like New Orleans or Denver.
LeBron just allowed players like Chris Paul to say that out loud. Because the Heat demand a counterpoint. Do you really think the other superstars in this league are just going to concede the next six years to the Lakers and Heat? No, and they shouldn't.
So don't make LeBron James the face of "the Superteam Era." Put Chris Paul on the Magic, and make them your Superteam. Or the Knicks. Or whomever. Because that's what'll define this new era. The "Miami Model" will be awesome, just not in Miami, where it's starring an egomaniac that went on National TV to backstab his hometown.
But with Chris Paul and Kevin Durant in Oklahoma City? Hmm...
2. What Happened To Building Your Own Superpower? This is a popular argument these days. The idea that this generation's stars don't understand what greatness means, or something.
With LeBron, it's fair to a certain extent. He didn't just go to a better team. He joined forces with one of only two or three players that could realistically be called his equal. This isn't Michael finding Scottie--it's Magic joining Larry. That's lame, and whether it's injuries, chemistry conflicts, or Chris Paul going to Oklahoma City, it'll probably be punished by terrible karma. LeBron-and-Wade is so unnatural and counter-intuitive, it doesn't even make that much sense from a basketball standpoint.
But let's not indict an entire generation, here. Whether it's Michael Jordan shaking his head saying "That's the way the game is today," or this e-mail from ESPN's Bill Simmons' most recent mailbag, the crowing about the current generation needs to stop:
Young kids everywhere are going to see this and think that it's better to take the easier road to success instead of taking the chance at being great. If you have a chance at transcendence but it seems just a little too hard or too much for you to handle, then don't go for it. Take the easy road. That's the lesson learned and the trend set for this generation.
But then again, this is also the generation that airs out their beef on Facebook/Twitter. This is the generation that could never understand what JFK's quote "We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard" really means. Hell, this is the generation that thinks the greatest rapper of all time is a Canadian who got famous because he was on a Nickelodeon show. So maybe LeBron's just a product of his time and he's just doing what he thinks is right.
-- Sopan, New Brunswick, N.J.
While I appreciate the gratutious shot at Drake in that e-mail, and the connection between LeBron's psychology and instant gratification seems self-explanatory, let's clarify: LeBron's personal weakness in choosing not to compete against Wade isn't some sort of generational disease. As a fan that's distinctly of this generation, having watched most of these guys play in high school, and then matured with them as the years passed, I feel like I should stick up for my insanely-athletic, multi-millionaire peers.
We're not all like LeBron.
James joining Wade was weak, and it's completely fair to call out his manhood there. But Chris Paul forcing a trade would be smart, and ultimately, it's the most competitive thing he could do right now. It's not shrinking from the challenge; it's seeking out teammates that'll allow him to become a real threat to the NBA's new superpower.
Look at the Lakers. Nobody questions Kobe for having some of the most expensive teammates in basketball. He's not lazy or obsessed with Twitter and an example of why this generation's doomed. It's just... that's what it takes to win these days.
But how many other franchises could afford to foot the bill for that payroll? Five? Ten? There are certain realities about today's NBA that have to be acknowledged. Which leads us to...
3. Will Chris Paul Kill Basketball In New Orleans? It's a fair question. If Chris Paul leaves New Orleans, can that franchise survive? After all that's happened to that city, it's a sensitive subject. Nobody wants to see New Orleans lose its team. But at the risk of insensitivity, the Hornets are an example of a larger problem in the NBA. It's two-fold:
Since David Stern's not going to contract a team anytime soon, and there aren't a whole lot of billionaires walking around looking to sink hundreds of millions into a basketball team, these fundamental realities will continue to plague the NBA. With 30 teams, the talent is spread thin, and the only mitigating factor is a team's ability to exceed the luxury tax and horde the talent. Most teams can't do that.
So if you're a superstar, wouldn't you want to go to a team that can? If you're a competitor, wouldn't you want to be competing with the best of the best, year-in and year-out?
And if the Hornets can't compete with the Lakers or Magic or Knicks, and Chris Paul leaves to go to one of those teams, killing basketball in New Orleans... Isn't that evolution?
The idea that we're witnessing an inferior generation of superstars is just offensive. All the greatest NBA dynasties were cast in a bygone era, before the luxury tax arrived, and before the league had grown to a bloated 30 teams. The NBA's Golden Years were back in the 1980s.
No matter what happens every June, we always hearken back to that glorious decade, and those legendary battles, where manhood was on the line and it felt like time stopped. Well guess what? Today, the 76ers, Lakers, and Celtics of the 1980s would be splintered by the economic realities of the NBA, or separated by the NBA Draft before they ever coalesced. Not even a question.
And Jordan? When Michael Jordan's Bulls drafted Scottie Pippen, there were 23 teams in the NBA. Can you imagine some of the dynasties that would crop up if you divided seven NBA teams among the remaining 23?
Imagine if the Raptors didn't exist and Chris Bosh had been drafted by the Heat. Or if the Bobcats distributed their starting lineup among playoff teams last year. Or if Tyreke Evans and Kevin Love played for contenders. We could do this all day long.
It would suck for the cities like New Orleans, but wouldn't the NBA product be better off with, say, five less teams?
Um, don't answer that.
Besides, it'll never happen. It's just an example of why it's ridiculous to point to guys like Jordan and Magic and say that these players toay are taking the easy way out. What we're seeing instead are players taking the "Miami Model" as a call to action. Where people like Chris Paul and Carmelo Anthony take their destinies into their own hands, forming dynasties of their own.
It's selfish, it's mean, and it's downright greedy. But to paraphrase Gordon Gekko, "greed, you mark my words, will not only save Chris Paul, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the NBA."
As an NBA fan, would you rather have 10 good teams, or three-to-four great teams?
It's not a sign of weakness or laziness, and it's not LeBron poisoning the NBA punch bowl.
It's competition. It's players using their leverage on the free market. It's evolution. And it could be the best answer yet to the NBA glory years of the 1980s. Gordon Gekko would be proud.
78 comments
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
Scoreboard data copyright © 2012 by STATS LLC. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC is strictly prohibited.
OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters
•
Odds Shark 
Comments
As long as this isn't serious, good article.
"Now, Maggette's one of those where when he catches, it's probably going to go up--Not to a teammate." --Jon McGlocklin, 11/14/09
by Jacob Grinyer on Jul 26, 2010 10:25 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Most backhanded compliment ever?
by Andrew Sharp on Jul 26, 2010 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree on most of the serious points, especially about not feeling sorry about franchises that can’t hack it (though sorry for their fans, that’s life). And that it’s not fair to judge the other players based on LeBron.
I also agree that other teams forming in higher concentration of talent is good for the league (and for all but the fans of the lowly teams left behind), that it shouldn’t all be viewed through the lens of LeBron’s specific actions, etc.
Don’t think it’s really a straight up matter of greed though, or at least it doesn’t reflect on greed. In the specific case of Paul I also think it’s kind of silly for him to be potentially making demands with 2 years left and not so long after signing an extension. It’s truly his own fault for not seeing the writing on the wall and interfering with his ability to get on the free agent market sooner, where he’d be free to do whatever he wanted.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 10:37 AM EDT reply actions
Agreed
Paul took the security of multiple years as part of the contract. Had one of his recent injuries turned out to be career ending, he’d sure as hell expect to get paid for the full length of his contract.
Personally, I’d like to see guaranteed contracts go away, and let players insure themselves. You get injured and can’t play? You’re off the roster.
by superfly05 on Jul 29, 2010 1:55 AM EDT up reply actions
EXACTLY!!!
The Lakers and Celtics of the 80’s were “superteams.” Make no mistake about it. What Miami has done will forever change the league. Thank God for that!!!
1+3+6=5 rings
by Dollar Man on Jul 26, 2010 10:43 AM EDT reply actions
I don’t know that it’ll really change the league. Maybe in the context of the 30 team league, but I think you’ll see the new CBA make this kind of thing harder going forward with tighter cap rules. Paul asking for a trade, if motivated by the Miami moves, is still the same kind of thing that has been going on since probably before free agency even existed.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
+1
Magic, Bird, and Jordan made me laugh talking that bull about this Heat team. Especially Magic and Bird , because they had great teams and hall of famers on there teams. Jordan can talk a little but he still had Pippen and let us all remember Jordan never won a championship without him. Barkley is a special case of stupid because he jumped from team to team at the end of his career trying to piggy back a championship. LeBron proved how much he wanted to win by taking less of the spotlight and money to go to Miami.
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 27, 2010 2:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Superteams may be great for the NBA, but they’re lousy for places like Cleveland, who will never be able to compete for free agents with more glamorous cities like NY, LA or Miami, or warm weather teams. If we want a new superteam era, we might as well move all NBA teams out of the Midwest (well, Chicago can keep the Bulls) and tell their fans that they just don’t matter any more. Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Minneapolis – sorry, you guys don’t make the cut – the NBA is just too glamorous for your lifestyle.
"Facebook is bad news. It and Jason Donald both crush dreams." - JRontherim
by woodsmeister on Jul 26, 2010 10:43 AM EDT reply actions
You can’t get rid of built-in advantages some teams have over others in free agency, etc. Those are there with or without cap systems. Especially a place like Miami when you factor in location + tax rules. The NBA could try doing something to neutralize tax advantages in the next CBA if they want to make the cap more effective.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Didn’t Detroit win a title not too long ago? And with a defensive-minded team that had chauncey billups, who’s never made an all-star game, as the series MVP? Teams can win championships without players like Lebron and Chris Paul, and those midwest teams will always have a shot. Cleveland made the finals in 2007 and were legitimate contenders every year since then. They couldn’t get it done, but that doesn’t mean basketball will become irrelevant in that region, it just means those teams have to work a bit harder to get it done before their stars get restless and fly the coop.
by Sean Embrey-Stine on Jul 28, 2010 3:54 AM EDT up reply actions
check your stats
Billups has been named to five all star teams (06-10), Sheed and Ben Wallace have been on four, and Rip Hamilton has three himself. They may not be future hall of famers but in their prime, they were some of the best the Association had to offer.
by lazy cake on Jul 29, 2010 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought the Celtics started the recent trend
Anyways, to compare Chris Paul and Lebron James are viewed would be a tad steep. Paul is a PG, it is his job to make others better. He isn’t viewed as the next Jordan, who can take over a game by himself. Paul asking for better teammates comes with the territory.
James jumping ship to Miami destroys the previous media created reputation of him of being the next Jordan since he is no longer The Man. In fact, now he is just a supporting player.
by bezeerk on Jul 26, 2010 11:32 AM EDT reply actions
Let him breath
Why does everyone feel like Lebron owes Cleveland anything!! This man played out his contract.He makes the money and wants a championship…is it too little to ask that he be fit with players that can help him get to where he wants to be.Nobody plays just to be playing and if you have ever played basketball before and took it serious you would understand that you don’t settle for getting close and losing every year! He made a decision and that was his to make.The dominoe effect is that folks can’t take responsibility for their own actions.I’m sure Chris Paul would have wanted to be traded regardless of Lebron’s decision.I’m almost sick of seeing folks call him a back stabber.He never told Cleveland that he was coming back.And if the owner reacted like that,hell no telling what was going on behind the scenes.The greed is that the owners cash cow is gone and he can’t take it.It’s life live with it! Lebron goodluck in Miami..Boston still gone beat that ass..lol…
by C.White on Jul 26, 2010 11:44 AM EDT reply actions
+1
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 27, 2010 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions
so it’s ok to hold the franchise hostage, essentially screw them over for the foreseeable future, and decide to do it in a disgusting self-aggraindizing FU on national TV? He still could have had his little dog and pony show on TV with privately telling the Cavs to look elsewhere beforehand.
He couldn’t tell his teammates privately or his owner to their face or even return phone calls?!? He had to have one of his ‘boys’ call them as the announcement was happening?
THAT’S the issue. Not him simply leaving.
Sure, there would have been anger regardless since the team did nothing but pretty much do anything and everything he asked, got better every single year, he made a commitment and a promise to win a championship in cleveland, and spoke over and over again about family, loyalty, and ‘home’…
BUT…he wouldn’t have become basically the sad joke he has become, become the most hated man in professional sports, and ruined his legacy forever without conducting himself in pretty much the most classless, egotistical, ignorant manner possible.
by johnnyphoenix on Aug 2, 2010 1:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I think it depends on what kind of fan you are...
If you are “just” a basketball fan, with no particular tie with a team, then the era of superteams is great…you live for the next Laker-Heat game. But if you are a fan of one of those Midwest teams that someone mentioned, it’s not so good, because your team has no chance, and never will…I’m a Warriors fan, a team that has sucked for decades, but has a supportive fanbase…the Dubs will never be one of those superteams…so what do I do? Isn’t my money as good as a Laker fan or a Heat fan or a Magic fan? This is the dilemma that the League has, to some extent: promote great matchups with great teams, but not completely alienate fans of teams that are in a poor location, or who have historically bad management or any one of a number of reasons.
Good article though…very thought provoking.
by tbell61 on Jul 26, 2010 12:04 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
warrior fan here too
because of how well written the article is, it is difficult to disagree with the idea that a smaller league full of better teams would greatly improve the NBA product. but that’s just it. a smaller league. there are teams that would seem to be on the fringe of vanishing because they’re unable to compete with the superteams. our dubs wouldn’t suffer that fate, i don’t think… they may play in oakland but they represent the entire bay area (and its deep love and tradition for basketball) and that is some powerful backing. it’s the sad instances of new orleans and charlotte that would be the first to slip away from the league were that to happen.
but the dubs wouldn’t have any problems with the talent pool if it is larger with less fish to feed. we, too, could end up with a blake griffin were the clippers to dissolve. i hate to sound like “Well hey not my warriors at least! woot!” but it is what it is right? certain markets will lose out but they were never fit to begin with; they were forced.
the point is, i think the real issue is that fans in EVERY city want a team to call their own but the economics don’t allow for that and neither does reality and there’s no reason to destroy a pro league trying to force the issue. college basketball benefits greatly from the NCAA not having as much central control over the economics of each individual “market” in the sense that any participating school has to manage its own shit and that ends up working out well for everyone (and allows for every market to have its “own” team).
/rant
it is what it is
by zyko on Jul 26, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
It may be sad for Charlotte and New Orleans but lets face the facts, they both already lost teams before. That doesn’t mean they’re destined to fail now but yanno… how many times would a city have to lose a franchise before it’s fair to say “the league needs to just do what is best for the league and if you can’t tread water it’s just never going to work anyhow.” I say, generally speaking, it’s that time right off the bat. I say this as a fan of two small market Buffalo teams (they once had an NBA team… they moved on for the greener [financial, obviously] pastures of … THE L.A. FRICKIN CLIPPERS… they were in the playoffs more often in their 6 years in Buffalo!) and the big bad Yankees + Knicks.
It’s sad to see a city’s “heart” ripped out, but no other city will have a chance at a basketball team unless another city fails. They tried to get around this by rapidly expanding the league and that leads to these problems in the first place.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Couldn't agree more with you guys
I’m a Pistons fan, and the idea that the league will essentially abandon teams in the midwest with great fan bases and basketball history (Pistons, Bucks, Pacers, etc.) is pretty depressing. Watching the ‘04 Piston’s title run is probably my favorite moment in sports during my relatively short lifetime. The fact that they destroyed an INCREDIBLY arrogant, deeply unlikable Lakers super team with hustle and suffocating defense was just amazing to watch. That team was comprised of players other teams underestimated and cast aside — particularly Ben Wallace, Billups, and Prince — and I feel like a similar team can’t ever happen again. Part of that is Stern’s rule changes that makes physical defense a thing of the past (unfortunately…), but this climate that rewards teams like Miami for no particular reason other than geographic location certainly doesn’t help.
"Detroit Bad Boys is full of HOMOS ,JACKASSES and NON-sports fans."
-ralphgoblue/thunder_god08
by Thom_not_Tom on Jul 27, 2010 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
sad but true TNT.
by dandresden on Jul 27, 2010 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Um…not really. You’d be gone too …considering all the ‘fanatical’ interest in ‘Golden State Basketball.’ You’re juuuust above Clippers in relevance and that’s only because you don’t have another championship winning franchise playing in the same city. So you’d have to sit in the back row too, sorr
Even If you weren’t, ‘gone,’ you’d be regulated to the insignificant pile of the ‘have-nots and never will be’s’…so sorry, we got a seat back here reserved for YOU guys too with the cavs, bucks, pacers, clippers, wizards, hornets, bobcats, and the other ‘washington generals’ out there…
Hell, the league hasn’t even gotten like that just yet and you’re kinda already there, so I can’t exactly see why you would be excited about this.
by johnnyphoenix on Aug 2, 2010 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, ok I guess…but how many ‘basketball’ fans are there that don’t have a specific allegiance to a specific team? Maybe 1%? B/c from what I’ve seen about 99% of all ‘basketball’ fans didn’t like him very much before this, and now absolutely detest him.
by johnnyphoenix on Aug 2, 2010 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions
i only read the title of this article....and i agree
this can’t be mad. super teams make for waaaay better playoff games and rivalries.
by dcraised82 on Jul 26, 2010 12:09 PM EDT reply actions
I don't see how it would make better playoff games
It actually seems to me that it makes more playoff games less interesting. Out of the 16 teams that make the playoffs, maybe at the most 4 will be actual superteams, giving us, at the most, 3 good series and the rest of the playoffs will be worthless.
by boilerg on Jul 26, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
The solution to that would be to reduce the size of the playoffs
The NBA qualifies more than half of its teams for the postseason, but such is not the case with the NFL and the MLB, and they seem to be doing fine. That said, no matter what such a move does to improve the quality of the playoffs, it’ll never happen because the owners will not want to give up extra gate revenue from an inflated postseason. Nor will the NBA want to give up the extra broadcast revenues from airing the extra games.
by DickFractal on Jul 27, 2010 2:45 AM EDT up reply actions
It's all about Attendance
Attendance per game is why the NFL and MLB can have less teams make the playoffs. The NBA and NHL have a much smaller capacity per game and thus they need more teams in to garner profit from ticket sales.
by Raptoronto on Jul 27, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Now lets watch the three of them fall apart during the playoffs.
I hate having these superteams, it gets boring to watch the games when you know that only a couple of teams have a chance at winning. I like parity and never knowing who will win the Championship [the Cardinals in the Super Bowl, something like that will never happen in the NBA].
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
by JoeCB1991 on Jul 26, 2010 12:36 PM EDT reply actions
Unless a team wisely manages its cap space (as per the rules put in place to create more parity, e.g. the cap) and brings in amazing players. Don’t get me wrong, I never liked LeBron James and I don’t like this superteam. But I like that I don’t like it. I’m going to love having a team to truly hate.
If the league wants to ‘do something’ they can address certain things via the CBA. Let’s not act like this is a pure slam dunk for Miami, they are destined to always be less deep in their starting rotation and have way less bench than any other top team they go against. Injuries, foul troubles, cold streaks… they are no more invincible than Boston or L.A. and I don’t see people complaining TOO much about those two teams. They complain about how boring it is to see them match up but not that they did something unfair in building their teams. Even though they have built-in advantages of being able to swallow contracts financially and the allure of historic NBA cities/etc.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
foul trouble on bosh, wade or lebron?
thats rich. have you ever watched one of these guys play? the entire opposing team will foul out before one of these guys gets 3 fouls.
by dandresden on Jul 27, 2010 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Andrew, there is a major problem with your premise that greed is good.
Gekko was wrong as we just found out with our economy. Greed, unrestrained, lead to not saving the U.S. and the economy but to nearly making it collapse. Wall Street in conjunction with major Banks were more interested in making money and being greedy that they were willing to throw caution to the wind and give a mortgage to anyone that was breathing instead of having to adhere to guidelines and regulations that gave mortgages to only those who could afford to pay them back. The U.S. government, meaning us, had to bail them out. In the same way, the players are trying to "greedily horde" talent to one or two teams.
What does this do? The NBA will end up with two superpowers with a bunch of Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals making up 26 or 27 of the remaining teams. Who is going to want to support those teams? Who will be interested in watching regular season basketball? There already is a problem with attendance in the league for teams like New Orleans and Charlotte for example. The season will be over for nearly all the teams before training camp even starts. Creating 2 superpowers will only exacerbate the problem and make it spread to other teams. Even the playoffs will not be top sellers in the early to 2nd rounds. There probably would not be enough talent to create a 3rd and definitely not a 4th team to really challenge the top 2 teams.
Hey, I understand that players want to win championships and especially in basketball where championships define the greatness of players due to the few players involved in the game and the impact that a player has on the success of a team. But James joining Wade is not the best way for James to achieve his legacy or helps in NBA business, competition, and fan enjoyment in the long run. For 1 year it might captivate the fans but once they start running off championships, how many fans are going to be interested in the NBA. Creating a 2nd superpower will only create a 2nd city where basketball will be watched. The rest of the country will ignore basketball until June. That’s not good for business or the fans.
I don’t necessarily think that Paul is doing anything wrong about forcing is way out of New Orleans as their commitment to winning or even competing may be called into question. I have a problem with his suggestion that he team with Anthony and Stoudamire. Do you need that many great players to win? Jordan had Pippen and to a lesser extent either Rodman or Grant. Not exactly James, Wade, and Bosh. Too much talent is too much. Maybe the problem is that there are too many teams in the NBA with talent stretched too thin as you stated. The NBA has always been a bit top heavy as there are few too superstars that are championship quality. Amassing 3 of them each on 2 teams makes the league only a 2 team league for only one month. Wake me up in June.
by StevieG. on Jul 26, 2010 12:44 PM EDT reply actions
The ‘greed is good’ stuff was silly in the article but I don’t really agree with your analysis. Greed wasn’t an economical problem. The concept of a corporation is to pursue profit, ergo ‘greed’. Throwing caution to the wind and making risky moves is not a symptom of greed but merely bad management (which may well turn out to be the case for the franchises scooping up premier players at max contracts). It’s also far from the only problem that was going on with the economy but that’s beside the point.
If a few teams in the NBA can’t hack it because they can’t keep better players, those teams will move to better markets. That is economics and what is best for the league. If the league can’t support 30 teams, it can go back to 26 (will never happen). I’m not saying everything would be gravy (or would be for everyone concerned) but overall the league is probably better off as top-heavy. And let’s not kid ourselves, it was top-heavy before Miami happened.
Just because established stars or superstars bail doesn’t mean that their former teams can’t still put together a good team. Hell, they could end up better for it if they manage things right. That’s why there’s a new season every year and they don’t hand out the championship in November.
I think it’s rash to turn some thing like the Miami signings into some harbinger of doom. First off, it’s not even completely unheard, it’s only unheard of in the specific iteration of the quality of players. It was bound to happen at some point when everything lined up right, and could have happened 10 or 20 years ago. Now that Paul ‘wants’ a trade, it is somehow the continuation even though Kobe did the exact same thing (and it never happened). Sure, he may be saying this in reaction to what Miami has done and he did sign with LBJ’s marketing firm. But, something like this happens every season. It may not be someone as great as Chris Paul but this simply isn’t evidence of a New World Order in the NBA, though I’ll concede that it is a very cliquey and fad-based league.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Too much greed IS an economical problem
If someone amasses too much fortune without giving back true value in return, that causes a major problem. Oil companies amass great fortunes but they provide a very necessary commodity. We don’t necessarily condemn them for that but sure as heck get angry about it. Ultimately though we realize we are getting that very necessary commodity of oil. Making risky moves, which you know or should know will cause harm and not provide value, just for the sake of making money is greed. There are no 2 ways about that. I agree profit is the motive for doing business but unrestrained or reckless pursuit is pure greed and that has its consequences. The consequences in the NBA is that teams stripped of their stars will have a difficult time rebuilding. They may get lucky in the draft but they are certainly not going to attract free agents. Why should top players go to the stripped down clubs especially in cities where players may not be attracted to? Also, where are teams going to move to where most of the major cities are already taken? It’s possible a St. Louis or back to Seattle may be good moves. But would a city get excited about bringing a franchise to their city and spending money to build arenas to attract 10 to 11 thousand fans.
Yes the NBA has been top heavy. Always has been to a certain extent as evidenced by 11 out of 13 Celtic championships. What makes it that way is that one player can have a dramatic effect on team success. Players can have an effect in other sports but not as dramatic as in the NBA because the NBA has few players on the floor and less specialization within the game. If the NBA wants to remain a viable business, most teams must have hope, that with a couple of moves, they could challenge for a championship. Being totally and exclusively top heavy will damage the business of the NBA and ruin the fans enjoyment.
You are right about not trying to make this a harbinger of doom. But letting the players run the league, will be detrimental to most of the franchises and the fans that support those franchises. It is going to be a problem. tbell61 in the post above really cuts to the heart of the matter.
If this continues, why even have an NBA? Let’s just have a World Cup of basketball every year. Have the top players join up together and go at it for a month.
by StevieG. on Jul 26, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t wanna get back into the economics part, but suffice to say the sole function (and legally required purpose when publicly owned) of a corporation is to pursue profit. The bad risks corporations took were mistakes within that code, but the code is the same whether they made smart or poor decisions in pursuit of that profit. If you’re talking about ‘giving back’, that is a question of political philosophy/purpose of taxation but it doesn’t affect how the company is going to operate, in a more socialized capitalist system the company operates the same way within whatever imposed confines (e.g. taxation of profits) government creates. It’s still pursuing profit as the ultimate and really sole objective, anything it does is an indirect attempt at pursuing profit (e.g. good customer service isn’t to make people happy, it is an investment in profit).
But it doesn’t really matter, the rest of your post is sort of spot on. Why have an NBA, let’s just have a World Cup you say. The future, at some point, is actually somewhere between there. At some point the world is going to catch up in some form to the established dominance of the USA/Canadian sports leagues and we’re going to see more a federation of leagues that compete amongst themselves and then the top teams compete in a tournament. Similar to my basic understanding of how much of soccer works. It’s just inevitable at some point. It could be 50 years off, maybe even more, but it’ll happen. In such a scenario, the amount of U.S. teams would probably contract, as it probably should because it seems like in every sport (and the leagues all have about the same amount of teams now) there are a handful of struggling franchises that will ultimately never make it. Leagues expanded way too fast in the 90’s and into the 2000’s.
And of course, we’d still have World Cup national competitions because that represents a whole different angle.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
We will agree to disagree on the economics
but it is a good discussion – thank you.
You may be right that we are seeing an evolution in sports. But we may see some down time and a poor product overall as sports shift to a global format.
by StevieG. on Jul 26, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you both disagree on one thing
you, Stevie, think greed and mismanagement come hand in hand and he, paxon, thinks that someone can be greedy and manage everything correctly as well. You are both correct because that is what the principal of it is. Greed runs everything, but only those who can manage properly can amass great wealth and keep it, while others who mismanage it will face their comeuppance eventually even if it doesn’t happen right away. There are still too many factors in the economy to know why one event might’ve caused this or that, but often a failure to manage a valuable part of the economy comes about through greed and corruption. They are not a product of the system, but they are a product of human behavior. Economic principals don’t promote people to steal money from a company thats sinking profits, but human instinct says to get it while you can. You can’t fully blame an economic system for the faults of human error/behavior, all you can say is that this economic system does not do enough to curve the opportunity costs of human error when one does do something wrong. Now greed does have a corruptive effect on government and thats a better but longer story on how greed in government can cause economic problems. Much too long to get into here and besides this isn’t a political economy course.
Anyway if you see my post below, I agree with both of you that the way it is going with all the leagues around the world, it is part of a transition to global sports format.
Unfortunately the legend of MJ has long surpassed the reality of MJ. -Joshua S.
by Marty Mart on Jul 26, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice post Marty
and read your comments below. Everything is going global and we have to adapt to the changes as they come along no matter how painful. This has been one of the better and more objective posts that I have been a part of. Thanks.
by StevieG. on Jul 26, 2010 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions
This is all very accurate, I think greed is a misleading term in the area of business because it is essentially a dysphemism for ‘profit incentive’. Certainly as an organization greed is not a real factor, perhaps in personal, corrupt decisions, but ultimately whatever system an organization exists within it will strive solely to expand its power, which in the case of business is to increase capital and in the case of government, authority. Which should be checking which and how is a matter of political philosophy.
I believe this is largely applicable to the somewhat-vacuum of sports leagues, with the league itself representing a quasi-mix of cartel and government. They strive for both a collective profit incentive on the one hand and increased central authority over owners and players on the other. You can be sure any measure that is alleged to be done OUT OF the interest of small market fans is only done in those two interests of the league. It may have the actual benefit of helping smaller markets, but that is not the real primary purpose. Corporations work the same way so it is hard to really judge them organizationally in terms of ‘greed’ and so forth when we’re really judging them not by intent but result and particularly how that result aligns with our own interests (which are, inherently, ‘greedy’/selfish to some extent).
It’s further hard to blame a player for greed for choosing an optimal playing situation over sticking around his current fanbase. While we can certainly JUDGE IT on our own terms, it isn’t really any more or less greedy because the motivations will be equally selfish or selfless depending on perspective. If LeBron stayed in Cleveland, it would still be out of some sort of self-filtered motivation, to protect his legacy or how he is viewed in Cleveland or his own competitive spirit. Personally I’d have liked to see him stay or go to Chicago but really don’t care. You further can’t blame Miami for being greedy by saying “alright” to 3 fantastic players who want to play there, since the organization is just striving for one of its two primary incentives, profit and obtaining the best chance at winning (which probably still equates to profit).
Anyhow, I’m rambling on but whether this is good or bad for the league, or for specific teams, framing it as certain parties being greedy isn’t really fair. It is about conflicting interests, and it is better to judge it all in a more subjective manner because judging it negatively in an objective sense just doesn’t hold up when all parties are essentially acting in an equal manner out of the same motivation.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
profit incentive = greed = entropy
No. Business, unlike government, has no in-built scruples other than not getting caught. If any organization should be “checked” by others it is business.
Confront racism: Boycott Arizona
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jul 31, 2010 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Well stated! I think the long term effects of these 'super-star tandems' will be an overall lessening of 'those moments'
like the one described elsewhere by the Detroit Pistons fan. Support of a team during those miserable years are what makes savoring the championship years so sweet.
I think time will tell and it will be a profound irony, if after all this hoopla…some team of average means puts together one of those ‘dream seasons’ that happens from time to time; or better still, a team, like say, the Chicago Bulls, who have built their team the old-fashioned way, consistently, year after year, become the proverbial ‘thorn’ in the side of Miami or other teams built with this formula, and eliminates them in the finals each year. This will be the only real lure for most fans during a typical NBA season—-watching the traditional teams upset these ‘dream teams’ on occasion.
But either way, your premise holds true; in that, it won’t be worth watching until June 1st.
by Anunnaki1 on Jul 28, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
lebron didn't display true greed
true self interest and greed would require taking all of wade’s glory too. A truly greedy person would never go to a team where someone else already has so much. Lebron was weak, not greedy. People feel liek lebron is stealing a ring by doing something against the traditions of basketball and competition. He’s taking the easy way out for him, and its gonna make it harder on us. The bottom line is this, all of us feel that if we were lebron james, we would be way cooler than lebron james, we would have our own team, we’d try to beat kobe and work on our games, and we wouldn’t be so corny. Lebron has the world at his feet, but he’s a dork who idolizes an aging rapper and thinks a championship is a right, not a privelage
by StocktonNEP on Jul 31, 2010 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Sad but true.
Really, all signs point to too many teams. That is crushing. While it is easy to stand back and be objective and point at the signs, tell that to the long time fan with season tickets to one of these sub-par teams. Or tell it to one of the hundreds (thousands) of people employed directly or indirectly by sub-par NBA teams across the nation.
I think the changes in Basketball (or the South Beach effect) are terrible. I think talent is going to be so isolated we are going to have a caste system in Basketball. Who wants to show up and see their hometown heroes get decimated in a 40+ point loss? I think it just leads to fans being resentful of the whole system.
All that said: I think the highlights will be sweet and good for Sportscenter. I’m just expecting an entire season of alley-oop dunks and mix-tape kind of performances that you can only dream up in a Sports video game. It’s going to be like the Yankees visiting your local sub-par franchise; fills seats to the max for a night, but afterwards it’s harder to fill the place up.
by Bridgeloan on Jul 26, 2010 1:25 PM EDT reply actions
good point Bridgeloan
While baseball is bad because of the advantage the Yankees have (and I am a Yankee fan who understands that), you feel like someone can upset them in the playoffs. They could face a dominant pitcher or run into a hot hitter or bunch of midges can attack them. In basketball, talent and superstars win out. You rarely if ever get a true upset like you could in baseball or football or even hockey.
by StevieG. on Jul 26, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree except “even hockey” should maybe be “especially hockey”. A goalie getting hot is like a pitcher getting hot except he’s in every game and really has a more indirect impact on the flow of the offense as well. Football is at time just an utter crapshoot, especially within a single game. So many variables, so many injuries, so much gameplanning.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
You are right paxon!!
In hockey, playoffs are a crapshoot. You never know which team is going to win it all.
by StevieG. on Jul 26, 2010 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
so much excitement!
Because your team, even if they’re an underdog can win 1 game. The NBA and MLB prevent lower-tiered teams from winning with the several-game-series-based playoff system. A series should not be more than 3 games, anymore than that and all we are doing is feeding into this BS. I dont live in Boston, NY, Miami, or LA, so when I see those are the teams that are left, I dont watch the NBA. Same the baseball, I used to be a fan of the MLB, but as an A’s fan, I know all too well what’s like to be the constant underdog, year-in and year-out. I stopped buying tickets and jerseys for the A’s because it doesn’t matter, they wont win. I still have hope for the NBA, but if this new “greed” concept is made out to be norm, the NBA will have lost a fan too. I’ll watch my beloved Kings and support them for as long as I can still have hope that they can win the whole thing, but once that hope is taken away by disparity in the league, I’ll just buy more Bills/49ers tickets.
Act like a sober human being, not a drunk Internet username. -- Brian Galliford
by NorCal BillsFan on Jul 26, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly...
The NBA has become the MLB…no one will care in 10 years if this continues. The NFL will march on taking up more and more of the fans money, the parity in the NFL will kill the NBA just as it has already done to MLB. I’m a Kings fan, we have a good young team, but we MUST draft our team, we can’t compete by FA signings. If the NBA wants to actually be a parity-based league, there has to be a hard-cap, not this luxury-tax crap that the top teams ignore based on other non-NBA related income sources. Insituting a hard cap will prevent teams from handing out contracts like the ones Miami did. I just hope karma bites them in the ass and they fail to make it out of the first round of the playoffs because Wade/Bosh/&LookAtMe! eaither stink it up or get hurt (not seriously hurt though, I’m not that mean, just bitter).
Act like a sober human being, not a drunk Internet username. -- Brian Galliford
by NorCal BillsFan on Jul 26, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
The NFL’s Draw
At least for me, is the short season. NBA is 80+ games. NHL is 80+ games. MLB…..so many damn games, it just feels like forever. As much as I adore Baseball, I think the games may be too long in this attention-deficit disorder generation we are in. Unless you are a hardcore fan, hours and hours of baseball is too slow of pace for you.
NFL: 4-preseason (which don’t make any sense to me), and 16 regular season. Each game is that one in a season match up, baring postseason play. Each game matters. That keeps fans excited and happy. I really hate the idea being pitched around of expanding the season. I understand more games=more money and I empathize with the owners. I just don’t want them to dilute their product and appeal.
The NBA finals are awesome to watch in a close series. Every game matters. Players are just as into it as the fans are. Emotions are huge. Why can’t I get that, as a NBA fan, in my regular season? Even the players look bored most of the time.
by Bridgeloan on Jul 26, 2010 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
The NFL is almost frustrating in its parity, which is frankly as much randomness as anything. The turnover rate is ridiculous. There’s something to be said about rooting for a team that maybe isn’t great every year, but is still the team you’re rooting for. The stronger a cap is the more parity, but also the more turnover. Humble teams that draft well can’t hold on to the players they groom and big markets still hold a huge advantage in free agency regardless of finances (by being desirable locations). They can also afford buyouts, swallowing contracts, etc.
That said, I don’t know that I would even care about baseball if I didn’t grow up a Yankees fan because it seems utterly futile for maybe 75% of the league. And on the flipside, when the Yankees win I barely get anything out of it. If the Sabres or Bills ever win it will be a totally different experience.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Turnover in football is also influenced by the much shorter playing careers and the fact that college football is much better preparation for the NFL than college basketball is for the NBA. Every team in every NFL draft usually gets a guy who is instantly an impact player the following season. In the the NBA, top-five draft picks are regularly busts. The parity of the current NFL can be a little frustrating, for those of us who grew up on Niners-Cowboys, but the view from 30,000 feet is much better. Being able to enter every single season with the legitimate hope that this might be “the year” for your team is far better for fan retention than being able to pick the conference champions in November.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
by Supafishal on Jul 27, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
It’s not all a cap thing. Players fluctuate in ability and effectiveness in a very extreme sense, and even moreso in a coach’s perceptions of them. Any time a new scheme is implemented, it makes some players ineffective and others suddenly effective. That said, there still is a lot of impact from the cap and it’s starting to show itself in hockey more and more, a sport with far more player longevity and more stable player career arcs.
by paxon on Jul 27, 2010 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
LAL>MIA
As good as the Heat look on paper with the big 3, I still don’t think they have anything outside of the big 3 to compete with the Lakers. The Lakers are a proven entity and that why LAL>MIA. Check out my article to see why http://pardonmybias.com/lal-mia/
by avishah5789 on Jul 26, 2010 3:59 PM EDT reply actions
Thats why the NBA should model itself after the English Premiere League
Only 20 teams. Form a 2nd tier of professional basketball (D-League). After the NBA season. The 3 worse teams drop down to the 2nd tier league. The 3 best teams from the 2nd tier league get moved up to the NBA
Born purple and gold. Live purple and gold. Die purple and gold.
by RA37thriller on Jul 26, 2010 4:36 PM EDT reply actions
This is another part to what I was saying up there. You match this concept up with the idea of different leagues around the world pitting their champions in a post-season tournament, and there’s your longterm outlook for worldwide sports. There’s really no other way around it in the long run.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
What's the difference?
So… Name the teams that have taken the Premiership in the last 10 years. Not a lot of different teams right? In that regard it already is like the what the NBA is becoming. Do you think Wigan or Sunderland will ever take the FA cup or the league title? Do you think the Jazz, Kings, Timberwolves or Cavs (now) will ever win a title? I don’t, not with this “Super Team” dynamic in effect.
If NBA players really want to win a title, why not migrate to OKC where a real future star is? Ahhh… small market, no beach…
by OrangeLazarus on Jul 27, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
The Premier League is even more stratified than the NBA! With no cap at all, it is quite literally the exact same teams that win every single year. Relegation (moving the bottom 3 down every year) provides incentive for teams at the bottom of the table to compete (and the NBA could certainly use that), but it would also destroy franchises in one offseason. If you think the Clippers and Hornets struggle to draw against real NBA competition, what do you think would happen if they were playing the Reno Bighorns?
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
by Supafishal on Jul 27, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
You will see players do just that, bank on it. It would be nothing new. But yes, Miami has advantages that Oklahoma doesn’t and those were always there and always will be there.
The Jazz had a shot at a title but some guy named Michael Jordon was around. There will always be ridiculously great teams no matter what system and rules the league puts in place. This Miami thing is NOT a gamechanger of the dynamics of the league, it is just an extreme example and a statistic inevitability.
by paxon on Jul 27, 2010 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that what you say is correct
in that talent has been too spread out amongst the NBA and teams like this Miami team will always have the upper hand against them. Smaller teams being squeezed out is just a function of this process. That being said, the rough aspects of the hurt that the NBA will feel on its pockets during this transition is real and the owners will try to get as much out of it as they can before they leave because that is what greed does as well. I don’t think you needed the whole greed part in here to establish whats going to happen because greed is what caused the NBA to think that 30 teams was better than 20 and why they have the problems now. I’m sure projections thought that talent of bball players would increase and for a while there was a vague form of parity. Given the emergence of foreign leagues and such, the NBA is getting less foreign players to come over and even American players go over there. Just saying, eventually those will emerge as competitors for talent as well. All signs point to a smaller league, but the transition to get there is going to put a hurting on the NBA, talking more 300+ million dollar losses as teams drop out and can’t compete.
I agree that the concept the concept of less teams with more concentrated talent is great, but we’ll have to experience a painful transition until we get there. I think cutting the fat glut of undisciplined players and players without basketball know-how is a good thing, but watching them all play together before they go is just going to be awful
Unfortunately the legend of MJ has long surpassed the reality of MJ. -Joshua S.
by Marty Mart on Jul 26, 2010 5:00 PM EDT reply actions
I fully agree here. The league made a mistake by overreaching and unfortunately for itself (poor business decision, like you said further up… bad decisions turn out badly, the motivation is irrelevant), bad for individual owners who may lose out (again, bad decision), and bad for the fans (can’t really fault them but there are cities who never had their shot, and were outbid by investment groups and municipalities representing their city). Eventually this will self-correct or it will be to the total detriment of the league when the bottom creates too much economic drag and is sucking profit from the middle and upper tier teams.
We live in golden times of long-achieved league stability, with more franchises having joined leagues than moved or outright folded. But back in the day, upstart leagues would challenge the premier league in each sport, both would eventually suffer economically (particularly the worst markets in each league) while the fans would enjoy more teams at competitive prices, until the leagues decided it best to merge. The fans of some cities lose out, the league entities gain stability, etc. Sometimes teams just folded without even being replaced. It’s a vicious cycle for fans of bubble markets but that is just the nature of things. Enjoy it while you can and try not making it a dark chapter of your life when a sports franchise leaves it. There’s really no way around that reality and it is part of the nature of being a small city, struggling for entertainment and keeping its talent in all walks of life. No matter the amount of parity and revenue sharing agreed upon, the economic failure of a market will either be too much for the owner or for the other teams in the league to sustain when there is a better alternative market (or even addition by subtraction — contraction).
As the global talent pool increases in each sport, a tiered system of leagues within a global federation of leagues where teams of all tiers still have the CHANCE from season to season to compete in the upper echelon and finals competition seems the inevitable marriage of small market sustainability and total league consolidation.
by paxon on Jul 26, 2010 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Where does Andrew Sharp live?
because that colors his article. I’d bet anything he doesn’t live in “Fly-Over” land like I do. It’s easy to approve of this nonsense when you live in one of the locales that may benefit, but it is horrible for everyone else. But then selfishness rules the NBA. I love basketball because it is a team sport, but that has been corrupted by the current NBA. There is no need to contract teams to rationalize your superteam bias. There many millions more young men playing basketball today than when the league reached its present number of teams. Consequently, there should be a commensurate increase in excellent players, too. I hope the Wade-James-Bosh triumvirate never win a championship. Player collusion is worse than owner collusion.
by ogishkemuncie on Jul 27, 2010 12:25 AM EDT reply actions
well
Consequently, the “really talented” will be in high demand… by the few teams that can afford them.
The Dream Shake ...on Twitter.
"I think girls are probably just better shooters." - Steve Novak
by Tom Martin on Jul 27, 2010 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions
People are fully capable of making judgments outside of how they may benefit or detract from their own personal stake. I think the writer deserves the benefit of the doubt here, since he’s addressing the league as a whole. I think it’s a given that there are negative implications at play for smaller teams but you can say the same for the Lakers trading for Gasol, or the Celtics trading for KG and Allen. It’s just a notch bigger.
Also to classify this as collusion is just tossing around an ugly word that doesn’t mean much in this context, similar to the word greed. A few players saying “hey let’s sign here” is about as innocuous as can be when you think about it. I’m sure it happens more than once every offseason, it’s just an issue now because of the quality of players involved.
That’s what we know anyhow. It’s quite possible they decided this some time ago and strung teams along, and that Wade and Riley had an understanding which WOULD violate league rules.
I too hope they never win a championship. To me, that is the positive of all of this. I would have been bored seeing LA or Boston win, but I wouldn’t have hated either team (especially if they were playing each other). I will hate this team and I will root for every team that goes up against them.
One last thing: Basketball is indeed a team sport. Either these guys play together as a team and they win (and thus it is still ‘team first’) or they don’t and they lose (which is great, right?). I don’t see a legitimate gripe on that front.
The whole ‘decision’ crap and the way they all strung everyone along really is what made this awful. Hopefully it all blows up in their face.
by paxon on Jul 27, 2010 3:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Also, someone can crunch the numbers but the teams expanded way faster than the talent pool. I’ve crunched the numbers in hockey and there’s really no debate. I’m sure that holds up in basketball. The league expanded ridiculously fast, from the ABA merger and then rapid expansion in the 90s. The exact same thing happened in the NHL with the WHA merger and rapid expansion in the 90s.
by paxon on Jul 27, 2010 3:24 AM EDT up reply actions
What this all comes down to
is that the inmates are trying to run the asylum. LeBron’s legacy after seven years in Cleveland is no rings and a city with a broken heart. Now he takes his act to Miami, which instantly becomes the Darth Vader’s Death Star of basketball that fans in 29 other cities will be delighted to see fail. This is good for basketball?
by jsg on Jul 27, 2010 1:23 PM EDT reply actions
Why not
Let’s try and think of this objectively and not emotionally, because I know we all sympathize with Cleveland (Buffalo, in my case, is very similar in its pantheon of sports heartache). LeBron doing whatever in Cleveland would be great for Cleveland but what impact would it have on the rest of the league, cities, fans, etc?
You said it yourself: 29 cities will be DELIGHTED to see this team fail. That is a big thing. People are excited to hate the Heat. They are interested, they are angry, they are this and that. They’re paying attention and they care. For all of the arguable negative impact this could have on the league the positive impact is clear and undeniable.
And the inmates running the asylum analogy just isn’t fair because it insinuates a group that must be controlled is now doing the controlling. The players union are equal partners in this thing with the owners (league). Players are just acting within the negotiated parameters, they aren’t running anything any more than usual nor is it something they aren’t supposed to be doing.
The real ugliness of all of this was how it played out, how ESPN just loved to ride along and how so many fans actually ate it up. The idea of having a special to announce leaving Cleveland (which is what the announcement really was) is mindbogglingly insensitive and you gotta believe LeBron is just completely unequipped to handle and view himself like any down-to-earth normal person would. The guy’s been so insanely shaped by hero worship, who knows what is going on in his head.
by paxon on Jul 27, 2010 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Many good points
The idea of stars of this magnitude trying to align themselves as James, Wade and Bosh already have done and Paul is hoping to do is something new, however, and we’ll just have to see if it increases interest in the game or distracts attention from other teams and the league as a whole.
by jsg on Jul 28, 2010 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I think using LeBron to justify Chris Paul
Darko Milicec passes just as well as Vlade Divac... Vlade would be the first to tell you that
by prowseinthehouse on Jul 27, 2010 1:43 PM EDT reply actions
I think using LeBron to justify Chris Paul's actions is flawed
because even with as much flack as LeBron is receiving, he fulfilled his contract. Chris Paul is trying to force the Hornets to make moves that will severely hurt the team so that he can bail before his contract is up. That is a big difference. Plus Paul is more than young enough to finish his contract and still have many years to win on a different team.
Darko Milicec passes just as well as Vlade Divac... Vlade would be the first to tell you that
by prowseinthehouse on Jul 27, 2010 1:46 PM EDT reply actions
Yes, but Paul is being egged on by LeBron
and LeBron’s agent and managers, all of whom seem to have gotten totally out of hand.
by jsg on Jul 27, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
That is true
and that is wrong on LeBron’s part, but that’s kind of a different point than what I was trying to make.
Darko Milicec passes just as well as Vlade Divac... Vlade would be the first to tell you that
by prowseinthehouse on Jul 27, 2010 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
Not only is Paul under contract but he shortsightedly extended that contract when he could have been in on this bonanza (or the next offseason? somewhere in that vacinity).
However, the clear link is that he is part of James’ management team now, and this is all interrelated.
by paxon on Jul 27, 2010 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions
It's just so long...
Somebody get me a book on tape for this thing. I’m A.D.D. Hey look rabbit in the back yard!
by BIGCatBobcat on Jul 27, 2010 4:43 PM EDT reply actions
Are you serious?
You call yourself an editor? I wouldn’t be surprised if DWade was already annoyed by LeBron and his crew’s antics already. Did you see them throw competiting parties in Vegas this past weekend. The voices of reason…Barkley, Jordan, and Magic are right…
"Where do you go from here, Dion?" "I go to Toronto."
Spreading that Calgary Flames, Montreal Expos, The U, and Orlando Magic love.
by KingJafi on Jul 28, 2010 9:08 AM EDT reply actions
if it wasn't for "The Decision" i think people would view the Miami superteam a little different
Also, D Wade’s ridiculous meeting with the Bulls shouldn’t have happened.
But I think the NBA should contract and maybe introduce a relegation/promotion system with the D-league they already have set up. Its not that I want to see the Iowa Energy in the NBA, I just don’t want teams thinking its ok to tank entire seasons to clear cap.
don't let the bed bugs bite
by Rex Grossman on Jul 28, 2010 5:16 PM EDT reply actions
Or trade Paul Gasol to another team for a bag of basketballs.
"Where do you go from here, Dion?" "I go to Toronto."
Spreading that Calgary Flames, Montreal Expos, The U, and Orlando Magic love.
by KingJafi on Jul 29, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I could not disagree more.
I have to say I completely disagree with the entire tone of this article. Why should I be happy about teams that aren’t from my area getting better? I hate Miami now, just like I hate LA. I’m also going to hate a team with both KD and Paul. Unless my team of choice is better than those teams, which I can assure you it isn’t, I’m angry about this!
Confront racism: Boycott Arizona
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jul 31, 2010 7:08 PM EDT reply actions
you took the wrong perspective on this piece
from the perspective of NBA fans and players this is right, but for fans of NBA teams, this spells doom. Here is lebron’s message for fans of NBA TEAMS, devotion of fanbase is not an issue when choosing an NBA team, since heat fans are some of the worst in the NBA. It also tells fans of NBA teams that their team probably isn’t gonna be good in the future, before winning the lottery could get you rings, but if the other team has wade and lebron you have to match with more than one guy like john wall, you have to build through free agency, which is hard to do. most NBA teams will have no shot at competing with super teams, so if your loyal to a team instead of a player, your not gonna be too happy.
by StocktonNEP on Jul 31, 2010 7:57 PM EDT reply actions
waaaaaaaaaaaah
bu bu bu lebron should come to my town because we have a superior fanbase! we make lots of noise and the team gives out thundersticks and everyone has a great time! gee golly isn’t it swell?
there are so many butthurt nba fans right now. it’s awesome.
by asuperiormind on Aug 2, 2010 4:57 AM EDT reply actions
The Heat will Win nothing
until Kobe Bryant is out of the nba. The Thunder will become the next nba dynasty.
by Troy Aldrich on Aug 2, 2010 11:01 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed