Wednesday on Twitter, I lamented all the attention the media was giving the potential movement of Carmelo Anthony and Chris Paul. The hype around “will CP3 and Melo switch teams or not?” is approaching volcanic proportions. The endless conversation around both players has been made even more absurd by the fact that both #3 and #15 are under contract. Also, it’s August. No one is playing basketball.
A couple people, namely Tom Haberstroh and Dave Berri, have taken time out to analyze precisely how good of a player Carmelo Anthony actually is (the short answer: statistically, not so much, which makes the combo of Allen Iverson and Anthony in the cartoon above all the more apropos). Mostly, however, the conversation has been dominated by the rise of the super friends era, i.e. how the decision of LeBron James to go and play with Dwyane Wade in Miami is going to drive so-called elite players to the same teams in order to compete.
Let me say a few things first before I get into my larger point: I think Chris Paul is a great player. I don’t think Anthony is. I think Anthony can be a dynamic scorer, whose reputation was built, largely, by his performance in college. If I’m Denver, I’m trading Anthony at the exact moment I believe his value - or perceived value - is at its highest. Additionally, when it comes to the issue of how “elite” players congregating on the same teams will change the NBA’s competitive balance, that issue is largely bullshit. Why? Because since the season that ended in 1980, only 8 different teams have won the title. That’s not balance.
When I’ve expressed disappointment in the past about LeBron going to Miami and taking his rivalry against Wade away from us, I’ve done so not necessarily because of what the NBA was, but because of what I wished the NBA to be. But maybe I’ve been ignoring a more fundamental problem - players of LeBron’s, Wade’s, and Paul’s caliber are too rare for there to be anymore than a handful of teams each season who have a shot to win the championship. Make no mistake about it, teams with superstars on them win titles. Others do not (except possibly the Detroit Pistons in 2004).
Having said all of that, the lack of competitive balance in the NBA makes much of the season largely irrelevant, if you want to look at it crassly. The teams that finish at the top of each conference have the best chance to win it all. If that’s the only thing that matters, as our obsessive desire to judge players on whether they’ve been on a team that won a championship or not would seem to suggest, then until at least the Conference Finals and maybe even the Finals, there is very little reason to watch professional basketball.
For me, this isn’t true. I love the game itself. I suspect I’ll watch all 82 Cavaliers contests this season. Depending on where I’m living in October, I may even get NBA League Pass. Yes, I have to admit that I’ll probably watch a bunch of Heat games this year, too.
For the majority of the basketball-viewing public, however, I understand this won’t be the case. I do believe though that the casual fan cares more right now about NBA basketball, especially in August, then they did last year at this time. And a lot of that has to do with the NWO era in Miami and the countless, ridiculous stories about Paul and Anthony trying to migrate to different teams.
What this implies is that the sport isn’t the sell. The competition isn’t the point. At least not all the time, not until the playoffs, when only 4 to 5 teams have a legitimate chance of winning the whole damn thing (in other words, superstars teaming up won’t really transform the competitive “balance” in the NBA at all). Rather, the narratives are the point. Will Carmelo be traded? What will Denver be able to get for him? I can’t wait until the trade rumors truly begin, with potential names being exchanged. Will Melo sign an extension? Will CP3 go back to demanding a trade? And let’s not forget, will Cavs fans make it impossible for LeBron to play in Cleveland in December?
What seems to me to be happening is that the media, along with the players themselves, are engaged in a kind of implicit team-up, in which the concentrate the essence of the NBA on stories, on the possibility of GM’s doing certain things, and players behaving dramatically in free agency. The media’s presentation of the league is becoming fantasy basketball. And that, for better or for worse, may be what we as fans are stuck with.
I caught a bit of Jim Rome’s show while I was eating lunch today. He did a quick take on Carmelo Anthony’s continued resistance to signing Denver’s guaranteed $65 million contract extension. I have no horse in this race, so I wasn’t expecting to have any kind of visceral reaction to the story.
Then, Rome mentioned that Melo closed his defense of his own actions with a very familiar chorus: “I just want to do what’s best for me and my family.”
At that point, I lost my cool.
The “me and my family” shield has become the bane of my life as a sports fan. It is the most transparent, self-indulgent ploy in use among professional athletes today. And it seems they simply can’t get enough of it.
Though I’m sure it wasn’t the first time anyone had used the defense, I believe it first became infamous in 2004 thanks to Latrell Sprewell. Entering the final season of his contract with the Timberwolves, Sprewell felt he was being unjustly low-balled by management on their offers of an extension. He declared in a pre-season press conference, “Why would I help them win a title? They’re not doing anything for me. I’m at risk…I got my family to feed.”
Sprewell, of course, was set to make $14.6M in the final year of his existing contract. The Wolves were reportedly offering a 3-year extension worth between $27-30MM. At the time of the press conference, Spree was 34.
Sprewell was crucified by press and fans for his comment. It’s hard to argue that the heat was unjustified. Nothing will needle a fan base—especially in a blue-collar Midwestern city like Minneapolis—quite like a pro athlete scoffing at a contract worth more than they’ll ever make in their entire lives.
Having seen the backlash against Sprewell, sports agents and players learned a lesson about how not to pitch that particular argument. However, its better-groomed cousin is all the rage. This is due in no small part to the NBA free agent class of 2010, who invoked the “do what’s best for me and my family” corollary more times than anyone with a life would care to count. (If I didn’t even attempt to research it, you know it’s bad.)
The irony of the situation is that in every instance I’ve seen it used, the athlete in question seems more than likely to do the opposite of what’s best for his family. LeBron completely disregarded the mother of his children’s wishes in choosing Miami. He also took less money to do it, and in the process, uprooted them from the only home they’d ever known.
Dwyane Wade turned down a max contract from Chicago despite the fact that long-term child custody arrangements in his divorce have yet to be finalized, meaning his kids may have to split time between South Beach and their mom in Illinois. I can’t find the quote anymore, but Wade said something to the effect of, “You can’t let those types of things get in the way of making the right decision,” when asked about the impact the divorce might have on his choice of team. Which I thought was hilarious. After all, why would you let something as minor as your children get in the way of your decisions about your career?
Carmelo is contemplating turning down $65MM guaranteed with the potential of either a lock-out or a complete financial restructuring of the NBA salary system looming this summer. In fact, recent reports from ESPN’s Ric Bucher suggest Anthony has already made his choice to leave. Depending on how the CBA negotiations conclude, it could end up being a totally fine move. But there’s also a worst-case scenario in which Anthony goes from making just over $20MM next year to making $0 (in the event of a lock-out).
Far be it from me to say I know definitively what’s the right thing for these guys to do at all times. But based on situations like this, it’s hard to deny that there are some real question marks about the family’s role in the decision-making process.
Admittedly, Anthony’s situation is a bit more complicated. He and his wife are both from the east coast (Melo from Baltimore, his wife from NYC). The Knicks are supposedly high on his list of preferred destinations. He has the opportunity to demand a sign-and-trade before the extension offer expires. If he were to manage to orchestrate a sign-and-trade for max money to his wife’s home town (and nearby his own), it would be really hard for me to argue against that.
To fans, though, “doing what’s best for me and my family” has become code for, “I’m preparing to do something completely selfish. It may make me look like a complete snake. But don’t blame me for it - it’s really about my wife / kids / girlfriend. Seriously. How can you be angry with me for that?”
It’s become the mark of the beast—a signal that something slimy is at play behind the scenes. It was only a matter of hours after Chris Paul suddenly dropped his long time representation at Octagon to (supposedly) sign with LeBron and Maverick Carter at LRMR and push for a trade from New Orleans. The telltale sign of the turn Paul had made? LeBron’s tweet to his buddy:
“Best of luck to my brother @oneandonlyCP3 … Do what’s best for You and your family.”
By contrast, Kevin Durant quietly signed an $85MM max extension this off-season. No talk of weighing his options, soul-searching, or doing what’s best for him and his family. In the process, pundits seem to have collectively decided that Durant became the moral compass of the NBA.
Do I necessarily agree with this? No. I believe at a base level that when it comes to your career, you SHOULD be selfish. You SHOULD do what’s right for yourself. You SHOULD take advantage of the opportunities you’ve earned. Depending on who you are, your family may or may not enter into that equation.
What I take offense to is the notion of pro athletes essentially using their families as scapegoats. If they want to do what’s right for themselves—whether money, championships, teammates, a coach, or a different climate are the main motivator—they should go for it. But they should also be man enough to to own up to the real reasons. Otherwise, they can run their statements through as many PR polishes as money can buy—but to those of us paying attention, the sentiment is still going to sound just as ridiculous, just as delusional, just as offensive as Latrell Sprewell did 6 years ago.
So please, for the sake of those of us paying your salaries, just cut the shit. I promise we’ll actually respect you more. If you don’t believe me, compare the public reaction to Andy Pettite’s candid PEDs admission to the wall of crap Roger Clemens hid behind. It may be the only time that I’d recommend any pro athlete in any other sport look to a baseball player for guidance, but trust me, it’s what’s best for you and your family.
Linkage will take you to an article by CBS Sports’s Ken Berger, all about how Chris Paul has been so inspired by the Wade / James / Bosh trio that he wants to replicate it somewhere else.
Reports of this idea first surfaced at Carmelo Anthony’s wedding the weekend after James announced his decision to head to Miami. Allegedly, Paul proposed during the reception that he, Amar’e, and ‘Melo form their own three-headed monster in New York. I didn’t pay much attention to this idea at first, because it sounded like the type of thing that…well, a friend would say to his other buddies after they’d all gotten hammered at a wedding reception.
However, Berger’s reporting makes it sound like Paul’s alleged proclamation had a lot more substance to it than that. According to Berger, CP3 is now determined to force a trade to the Magic, Lakers, or Knicks before the start of the 2010-11 season.
Obviously, the first two of those scenarios would have the rest of the pieces already in place. The Knicks, though, wouldn’t be “complete” until, in theory, Carmelo rebuffed Denver and decided to sign in New York after his contract expires in 2011.
Of course, that last scenario is far from a done deal. The giant Bermuda Triangle that is the new CBA could render everything moot—though I become more convinced every day that it ultimately won’t look all that different from the current one. Nevertheless, Melo will have to decide whether to accept a 3 year, $65MM extension from the Nuggets between now and then, knowing full well that it could be his last true opportunity to pull down the type of scrill that the free agents of 2010 are now making.
Beyond the specifics of what happens with Paul, the larger implication is the troubling one, especially for small market teams such as the Cavs.
For now, Miami’s triple-star alliance has become the new paradigm for young players in the NBA to covet. We may have entered into an era where every new talent in the league will start to believe that the only path to a title is alongside two other established great players.
If so, it’s a dangerous time for the NBA. The obvious reality is that there can’t be 3 great players on all 30 teams. It would be hard for me to imagine that there can be 3 truly great players on 10 teams.
So what happens?
Hypothetically, power would concentrate in just a handful of teams—probably 5 or 6 at most. By itself, this doesn’t sound so crazy. There are only 5 or 6 legitimate title contenders at most in any given NBA season. But unlike the contenders of the past, the disparity between the talent levels of these new powers and the rest of the league would be astronomical. So astronomical, in fact, that I find it hard to believe that competition could exist at a reasonable enough level to justify the continuation of a 30-team league. What would be the point of even putting 16 teams into the playoffs if everyone knows that, for the next half-decade, only the Knicks or Heat can legitimately rise out of the East to the Finals in order to battle either LA or Oklahoma City?
On some level, I’m hesitant to push this idea too hard. For one thing, we all know that just putting the supposed pieces in place doesn’t automatically mean you get to lift the trophy. Injuries, feuds, bad luck, bad match-ups, and a thousand other factors can all ignite the wick of the bomb that blows up a paper champion.
For another thing, we have to remember that it’s been proven in years past that defense can, in fact, win titles. As Tom Haberstroh has pointed out, the best blueprint for beating super-teams like the Heat may be the type of suffocating defense that propelled the Pistons past a “more talented” Lakers team in 2004. (Note: that link is only going to be good if you have ESPN Insider. Sorry.) To create a monster of that order, you’d need talent—but not the type of high-dollar, high-octane offensive power that we’re seeing in Miami and Paul’s dream of NY.As the 2007 Cavs showed, you may only need one superstar to get there, provided that the rest of the cast is willing to chase after and rough up the opponent like prison guards.
To return to a theme we’ve covered here before, I am severely disappointed by the idea that stars will now start defaulting to making alliances as a means to winning. It’s unfair to place the blame for this squarely on Wade, LeBron, and Bosh; after all, I have to point the finger at the Garnett / Pierce / Allen combo for reintroducing the term “Big Three” into our basketball vernacular. (And Jesus Christ, do I hate Danny Ainge for that.) But at least in that case, the team was created through trades rather than three players engineering everything on their own because of a lack of confidence in their own individual abilities.
We’ll have to see where this Chris Paul story goes. But I for one am not keen on the idea of watching two or three teams run the league for the next decade, all because Pat Riley created an unprecedented opportunity in South Beach. The problem isn’t the 2010 Heat; it’s the idea that they’ve now created a precedent that could make the NBA as a whole unsustainable.
