Was Lebron James' "Decision" Good or Bad For The NBA?

[SSJPhenom]

We all know the story. At the end of the 2009-2010 NBA season, Lebron James became a free agent. He had an hour long special on ESPN where he would reveal his decision on whether to stay in Cleveland or leave. We all know how it ended, he took his talents to South Beach. With that move and the signing of Chris Bosh, the Miami Heat became an elite NBA team over night with the potential to win multiple titles and they were successful. They went to the Finals four straight times and won two championships back to back. For that time period, there was no wondering which team was going to come out of the Eastern Conference because nobody in the east could compete with Miami. Was that good for the league though? I'm not so sure.

What that Miami Heat team did was create a need in the NBA for what some call a "Super Team". Teams with several great all-star calibre players. That was the only way teams could compete with Miami. So what happened? We had teams trading away their entire futures for several years so they could compete immediately. The Nets did this. They took on an outrageous Joe Johnson contract and traded away their first round picks in the NBA draft through 2018 to get Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett from the Celtics with no thought about it not working out. On paper, the Nets were stacked. They had Deron Williams, Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Brooke Lopez. Who could beat that? Everybody could because those players had no chemistry and they weren't given time to build any. New York tried it too. They got Amar'e Stoudamire during free agency and offered him a huge 100 million dollar contract. Which was puzzling because anyone with half a brain knew that Stoudamire was as good as he was because of Steve Nash and the system they played in. Then they got Melo and added Tyson Chandler to the mix expecting to compete right away, but they didn't and now they're rebuilding. Not to mention the Lakers who tried to add Dwight Howard and an aging Steve Nash to their core of Kone Bryant and Pau Gasol to become a Super Team. We all know how that turned out. Look at teams like Cleveland or San Antonio this season. They're Super Teams. So what that decision did was make it impossible to compete if you didn't have a Super Team.

It also made it impossible for small market teams who can't afford multiple big contracts or who aren't located in desirable places to compete. So the Bucks, Timberwolves, or Hornets of the world are screwed. But Phenom, what about Golden State? No they didn't start out a Super Team, they developed the old fashioned way. Through the draft, trades, and etc. Then they worked together for years building chemistry and getting better and better. Now, however, they definitely are a Super team. It used to be that teams were put together like the Warriors were. Teams used to be built through the draft, trades, or free agency and after years of finding the right players and building a great system, the team was ready for championships. Now owners, teams, and fans as well want it now. Teams now bet the farm on a thrown together team with multiple superstars and I just don't think it's working out.

I say the Decision was ultimately bad for the NBA.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong? If I am, tell me why? Am I right? If I am, tell me why? Let me know your opinions.

 

[Akhilleus]

LeBron James pulling his ESPN tv stunt is what led teams to wanting to trade away their futures for "win now" talent? I don't think that had anything to do with it. The only bad thing about that whole move was the way he did it. It wasn't that he was leaving Cleveland for Miami. So if you're putting blame somewhere, it has nothing to do with LeBron.

Now what Miami did was smart. They brought in smart pieces to build around their superstar, and they built a winning team out of it. Competing GMs copy tactics all the time often less successfully than the original person. This is on the GMs rushing into decisions and not making the right ones for their teams.

But this stuff isn't new. It's called buying, and selling, contending and rebuilding. Some teams are in a state where they need to build for the future, and others are in a state where they think they have the pieces to win the championship and want to go all in. The sad thing to that is 29 teams aren't going to be happy when the season ends. And this isn't entirely on the GMs either, some get pressure from the owners to contend and so they are forced to sell their future. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was the owners wanting their GMs to "make a splash" after the LeBron signing.

This comes down to bad front offices. It has nothing to do with LeBron. Miami built a dynasty team, and other teams ruined their franchises trying to mimic it.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Don't be cute. I wasn't talking about his ESPN special, I was talking about the whole move. And yes, while some teams of the past have done this, its never been done the way the Miami boys did it. Lebron, Bosh, and D-Wade literally had meetings with one another and talked this thing out and planned it out long before it actually happened. I don't recall that ever happening before. So if you're Miami and free agency rolls around and Bosh and Lebron say, we want to be on your team with our buddy, are you going to say no? While the concept of the super team isn't new, I think the way it was pulled off was horrible and there has never been such an influx of Super Teams before. It seems like every year there's a new Super Team experiment in the NBA. The Lakers and Celtics of old drafted most of their players. Some came with trades, but they never called up one another and said lets join the same team.

Also, I think it put a bad stigma on star players that if they don't accept less money then they don't want to win and that's crap.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I don't want to say it's bad, although Lebron has been on 2 super teams since the Miami Heat team and has been to the finals 5 straight years he only won 2 rings during that time and the teams that beat them weren't super teams in an overnight sense, they were teams that were built up over time and an argument can definitely be made that the old school way of building a team is still the better way to do it. Miami wasn't even the 1st super team to do that as Boston did it in '07-'08 with Pierce, Garnett and Allen, this whole big three idea really started with them and so many teams have tried it since then (Boston, New York, Brooklyn, Miami, Cleveland, Houston, ect.) but very few have had the success they were ultimately going for.

For years there were teams in the NHL and MLB that went the "buy a title" route and it never really ruined the league or made it worse and it didn't stop small market teams from being successful because buying a team fails more than it succeeds, ask some of those New York Ranger teams from the past that would spend absurd amounts of money to get a Stanley Cup caliber team but ultimately wouldn't even make it to the playoffs despite having a killer roster. Don't get me wrong, I know having successful super teams can cause a ripple effect where everyone thinks they need to do it but a lot of teams have proven it really doesn't need to be that way and the 2 best teams in the NBA (San Antonio and Golden State) aren't bought teams and often big market teams just fuck themselves over by doing that kind of stuff giving smaller market teams a better chance.

All in all I don't think you're necessarily wrong, you definitely have a point but I find this idea of teams buying titles is often a fad, in very few cases it actually lasts and eventually these teams go back to the old school method much like the Red Wings and Rangers did when buying teams wasn't working out long term for them.

 

[J.J.]

It wasn't bad for the NBA. It was bad for Cleveland that he left. You got the Celtics dominating and you're trying to surround guys out of their prime like Shaq and Antawn Jamison who were 5 years last their prime to put around LeBron with Mo Williams and Big Z? That was ratings for the NBA simply put.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It wasn't bad for the NBA. It created a narrative for LeBron and put the NBA's biggest star in a bigger more interesting market. It was basically Hulk turned Hollywood.

All that Super Team stuff happens whether LeBron stays in Cleveland or not.

 

[Khalifa]

I would say it was bad for the NBA. Maybe not so much now but definately while Lebron was at Miami. Well okay maybe I am not wording it right. For the NBA as a product it was good but for any team that is basically not in the top 6 for the East or top 8 in the West it was bad because you had to sit a twiddle your thumbs hoping for an injury or for younger players to make deals with each other to sign up to just beat Miami. It wasn't anyone else it was all about Miami. Boston had a super three but it wasn't okay lets all go to Boston. Allen got traded their and Garnett found it really difficult leaving Minny. Also they were beatable. Injuries might of hurt them after the first ring but still weren't anywhere near the level of where Lebron, Bosh and Wade could of got to. It also turned into every free agent that hadn't won a ring would either go to play with Lebron or be on the squad that could beat him. Nobody was thinking about Sacramento or Charlotte and places like that. I know they weren't the most popular markets before like LA and New York are but it's a bit different comparing a city to a super team.

Even this year it could of kind of be related to. The Phoenix suns for example. They got Tyson Chandler especially for LaMarcus Aldridge and looked what happened. They gave away good players from their suprise team the years before to help sign Aldridge. Sure the Bledsoe injury hasn't helped but Phoenix surely wouldn't rather Chandler over Len without LA there. COntracts situations are probably worse off because of it as well. I know the CBA hurt the salary but it seems to me that you either get a max deal to save a player from going to a super team or to overpay a role player (like the Pelicans did this year) to keep them there. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on the super teams with that point but to me that's just what it seems like now.

I just hated the whole thing about it. I guess i'm a loyalty guy and the whole thing about them talking about it at the Olympics the year before probably is what made it even worse for me. I think the whole superteam thing is dying off though because of teams like Spurs, Warriors and Blazers proving you can draft and be contenders.

 

[Gallops77]

Honestly, I think at any point in time if a team had the cap space to do what the Miami Heat did that year, they'd do it. They brought in the best player in the NBA in Lebron James, kept Dwayne Wade and brought in a third piece in Chris Bosh. They dominated for 4 years because of it.

I don't think the aspect of bringing 3 top tier players to one team hurt the NBA. I think Lebron James having a 1 hour special on who he was signing with hurt Lebron James.

That night made him a villain to many people and they wanted to see him lose. Then he goes back to Cleveland and it's like everyone forgave him.

 

[Cena Is A Punk Rocker]

Actually Miami mimicked what Boston had done a few years before when they acquired Garnett and Ray Allen to team with Paul Pierce.

 

[nwocongo]

Actually Miami mimicked what Boston had done a few years before when they acquired Garnett and Ray Allen to team with Paul Pierce.

Exactly, I don't think LeBron going to Miami was so bad for the NBA, it was definitely not the first time this happened in a major sport, especially the NBA.

The ESPN coverage and grandstanding by the network and LeBron MAY have been bad for the game. This portrayed the so called, new face of the NBA as an arrogant, childish, self righteous douche who thinks he is God in a pair of sneakers. I don't know if it really tarnished anyone's view of the NBA or ESPN (already a joke in my eyes) but it definitely ruined LeBron's image and to a lot of fans and exposed him as the childish turd he is. I tried to like LeBron, I was already losing interest in him as the next big thing but that whole situation really soured me on that entire NBA season and the rest of his "legacy".
He's not fit to wash MJ, Bird, Kareem, Kobe, or Magic's jock. Throw whatever stats at me you want he can't touch any of those guys.

 

[Khalifa]

The thing is though Boston had to trade a shit load of picks and players just to get them all together. The thing with Miami is that every player made a personal agreement to play with each other and if it meant sacrificing money they were going to do it. So Miamis big 3 was going to happen regardless. That wasn't the case for Boston either as it was just hard enough for Garnett to try and justify the move in his head and plus the Ray Allen trade could've been another team as well.

Lebron, Wade and Bosh pretty much made it 'cool' to try and make a super team years before your contract even runs up. It definitely changed the league. It wasn't even Miami/ Pat Riley as wel because he had no control over what the players were talking about, they were just like "oh wow Lebron wants to come here with Bosh to team up with Wade, sure."

I hate it, especially being a Lakers fan. Your allowed to veto trades but not allowed to veto MVPs making deals to make a super team. Joke. If Chris Paul, Melo, Lebron and Wade all end up on a team before they retire I will do something that will make the league think twice (probably not) that I just can't think of right now.

Anyways in summary, Miami big three planned the team since the 08 olympics so it was always going to happen were has the Boston big 3 was just at right place at the right time. No shady year long agreements.

 

[nwocongo]

[/QUOTE]

The thing is though Boston had to trade a shit load of picks and players just to get them all together. The thing with Miami is that every player made a personal agreement to play with each other and if it meant sacrificing money they were going to do it. So Miamis big 3 was going to happen regardless. That wasn't the case for Boston either as it was just hard enough for Garnett to try and justify the move in his head and plus the Ray Allen trade could've been another team as well.

You and Phenom both make some good points that I kind of glossed over. Other champioship teams had been built with big free agency deals but it was in conjunction with giving up a lot of draft picks and or players and Cap space. This manner of deal where guys showed this kind of lack of loyalty to their respective franchises by negotiating amongst themselves was a newer phenomenon.