Between LeBron, Chris Paul, and practically everyone else in the NBA any time there’s a trade of any significance, I’ve come to a strange conclusion: I’m sick of hearing about championships.
I don’t mean to say that I believe NBA players shouldn’t be thinking about winning or trying to win. By their very nature, every professional athlete should be wired to compete, to dominate, to conquer. If they’re not, they should be making their living doing something else instead.
My problem is with the way championships are now perceived. From what I can tell, the title of every professional sport has become a check box—something that every player with an eye toward his legacy believes he must be able to mark off. If not, the thinking is that the player automatically becomes second-rate.
Since it’s always the default comparison in this case, just consider the difference between how Charles Barkley (off-court issues aside) and MJ are perceived. Barkley’s empty ring fingers seem to have made him a cautionary tale to every pro basketball player of subsequent generations. Yet, during his career, Chuck was an absolute monster. If you don’t believe me, check his stats—and keep in mind while you’re doing it that he was putting up those numbers at power forward while standing a mere 6’-6”.
Unfortunately, the first thing that comes to mind at the mention of Chuck’s name is the glaring lack of a championship on his resume. Now, players like LeBron, Chris Paul, and everyone else born after 1980 look at Barkley like the poster child of some kind of pro basketball “Scared Straight” campaign. (“Don’t lift the Larry O’Brien trophy, and you’ll end up like him!”)
Championships have somehow become the be-all, end-all in every sporting discussion. There’s an entire segment of the population that believes the “Kobe vs. LeBron” discussion is idiotic simply because LeBron is ringless. Therefore, how can he even be considered in the same breath as Kobe Bryant, 5-time champion?
As a result, the possibility of potentially doing something historic, of assuming greater risk for the possibility of greater reward, has become irrelevant. There is nothing—not loyalty, not an emotional connection to a place or a fan base or teammates—as important as a championship. Because without one, what are you, really?
This, I believe, is the primary motivator behind the power moves this generation’s superstars are now pulling. LeBron willing to go to Miami to play a supporting role to Wade? Better than not winning a championship. Chris Paul making every effort to burn the sports fans of one of the most unique and real-life ill-fated cities in the country? At least he won’t be the failure who could never win the Finals.
This isn’t necessarily the fault of the young players themselves. It’s the inevitable result of how we as a sporting culture have set our priorities. In team sports, the teams are obviously made up of individuals. Especially in the case of baskestball, where only 5 men are on the court for a team at any given time, the impact of a single player can be enormous. At the same time, no player is ever alone on the court, so pinning the ultimate success or failure of the team on one person is inherently illogical.
There’s a paradox at work, too, because we certainly honor individual greatness. But in a bizarre way, we respect the individual’s impact so much that his team’s failures become the individual’s fault. It’s even evident in the language when we discuss this topic. Very seldom do we say “Charles Barkley’s Suns never won the title.” We simply say, “Charles Barkley never won the title.” After all, why skirt around the damnation by acknowledging reality?
This is why I’m disappointed in Chris Paul’s trade demands, and in LeBron’s decision to merge with a rival rather than try to knock him out. On some level, I feel like those guys are surrendering. They would rather diminish their own greatness, the possibility of what *could* happen, for what they believe is a guarantee that they’ll be able to check off the championship box. They’re playing it safe—and doing it partially because we’ve all made them believe that that’s the only thing that matters.
It’s also why part of me wants to defend Mo Williams, who begged not to be traded because Cleveland has become his home and he believes the Cavs can get it done; or Byron Scott, who took the Cavs’ coaching job without any security that the team would be a contender next year. For all their other faults, these are men who believe in something greater than popular opinion. They understand that there are possibilities but no guarantees. (As Shaq said this past year, “I won four championships. Three of them? Lucky as hell.”) And above all else, they have values or desires that exceed catering to the fans and analysts and past greats blinded by jewelry. They stand for something.
I wish I could say the same for more of the players who make my favorite sport run.
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.
Since the Cavs broke off contract talks with Brian Shaw earlier today, I have no real news to discuss right now. Instead, I’m going to take this time to address a half hour of TV that thousands of sports fans watched tonight—ESPN’s Free Agent Summit. Or, as I like to call it, “4 Guys Ignore Reality for 30 Minutes.”
In case you missed it, the show consisted of ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser, Mike Wilbon, Dan Lebatard, and Bill Simmons discussing the ins and outs of the Summer of Money. The problem is that apparently, none of them understand anything about the salary cap, let alone some basic things about the players involved. But what do you expect from a guy who, as far as I can tell, now only watches golf (Kornheiser); a guy who’s too busy being friends with the players and coaches to actually report on them objectively (Wilbon); a South Beach homer (Lebatard); and a reality TV scholar (Simmons).
It would take me all night to try to address every mistake or misconception this esteemed panel proclaimed, so instead I’ll just try to hit a few of the high points. It’s the best way I can think of to try to combat the dumbing down of American basketball fans.
1) It’s fiscally possible for LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to all play for Miami without anyone taking a pay cut
A max contract for the above players next season will be 105% of their 2009-10 salaries, or $16,568,908 according to cap sorcerer Larry Coon. Also per Coon, Miami will have $27,596,072 of cap space after re-signing Wade. That leaves Miami roughly $5.4MM away from being able to accommodate three max guys. Even if they manage to shed the radioactive Michael Beasley (guaranteed $4.9MM for 2010-11), they’re still short.
Further, a sign and trade isn’t possible because Miami doesn’t have the assets to match salaries for a third max contract. As of this moment, the only other players besides Beasley that are even on their roster are Mario Chalmers ($854,389), Joell Anthony ($885,120), and Kenny Hasbrouck ($762,195, unguaranteed). It may be possible via getting a third team involved, but what third team is going to want to help enable that deal? Oh, maybe the Wizards, since they seem to just want to help other teams clear cap space. But even that seems doubtful.
Bottom line: this scenario can play out, but only if one of the three stars voluntarily takes a pay cut. There’s a minimal chance of that happening with so many other teams willing to dish out max money.
2) Dirk Nowitzki should be the next player mentioned in all free agent talks (behind the guys mentioned above)
The amount of time that the panel spent on this topic was just remarkable to me. To Wilbon’s credit, he admitted what makes this subject so ridiculous: Dirk’s not going anywhere. His opt out just means he gets to negotiate a longer, higher-dollar extension with the Mavericks. This is the same scenario as with Paul Pierce, who opted out of the final year of his Boston contract tonight.
Beyond the dollars and cents aspect, I got a good laugh out of the notion that Dirk is such an important player that he should be in on the alleged face-to-face talks with Wade, James, and Bosh. Just think about that room for a second: the three supposedly tight-knit buddies in the primes of their careers…and then the 32 year-old German guy. For the record, Dirk would probably be a welcome presence in that room from a personality standpoint, since as far as I can tell he’s hilarious. But he’s not repped by CAA and can’t know any of those guys very well, let alone the fact that he’s on the complete opposite side of his career. It’s a little absurd.
Kornheiser really took the cake on this one. He predicted that Nowitzki would end up in Miami when it was all said and done. Frankly, I was surprised that Kornheiser was even aware that Miami had a franchise, but part of his reasoning for Dirk’s move may have been projecting how well he would fit alongside the likes of Rony Seikaly and Glen Rice. So I’m holding back the credit.
3) High quality veteran players will take the league minimum to play with a “Super Team”
I say this over and over again, but this is my favorite idea in the entire free agency discussion. I especially like it when pundits spout this minutes or seconds after declaring how ridiculous it is to think that in this crucial final year before the new CBA, the big-name free agents will opt for less money. I agree with that statement. But the notion that the little guys—the ones who aren’t making any endorsement money or getting any other major perks—are going to have a different mindset on the same issue is just unrealistic.
Think about it: Tarence Kinsey and Dorell Wright—both low dollar role players in 2008-9—both got cited for traffic violations in Bentleys they’d bought that same season. It may be unfair to project that every guy in the league is living this far beyond his means, but I’m willing to bet that many of them are. Factor in their wives/girlfriends, kids, friends, and other expenses, and every dollar counts. Yes, chasing a championship is great, and some guys may take less money for the opportunity. But the notion that really high quality players who could easily command a bigger contract this summer—say, Ray Allen—are going to voluntarily opt for a veteran minimum contract…please.
4) The Nets will be shut out in free agency because “if you want to play in New York, why would you want to play for a team that stinks?”
Yes, the Nets were the worst team in the league last season with an abysmal 12-70 record. But they have the highly productive Brook Lopez, #3 pick Derrick Favors, and former All-Star Devin Harris. The Knicks were 29-53, traded their first round pick to the Rockets at last season’s deadline, and will lose their most productive player, David Lee, to free agency so they can clear cap space to chase a bigger star.
Bottom line: the Knicks had more than twice as many wins as the Nets last season, but they were still sub-30 wins. Does that mean they’re good, or just good by comparison? Plus, when you take the cool factor into account (Nets: charismatic billionaire owner, Jay-Z, upcoming Brooklyn move vs. Knicks: incompetent owner, decaying MSG as home floor), the Nets have to be considered a more appealing option. But maybe that’s just me.
5) LeBron will skyrocket to multiple titles as soon as he changes teams, because he’ll “finally have a say in who his teammates are”
A lot of preposterous comments were made tonight. But this one, from the Miami Herald’s Dan LeBatard (whom I normally like), may have been the crown jewel. I really wish that Woj had been able to call into the show so he could set the record straight on this, but obviously it didn’t happen.
If the reports that came out at the end of this season were true—and I have every reason to believe they were—no single player in NBA history has had as much say in the roster around him as LeBron James. We know that LeBron approved the Shaq trade. He supposedly told the front office to go out and get Antawn Jamison mid-season. Multiple deals that Ferry had constructed were allegedly vetoed by James, and thus, by Dan Gilbert. To blame Ferry for the failures of the roster is a near-preposterous exercise.
In fact, if LeBron does end up winning a title or titles with a team such as Miami or Chicago, it will be precisely because he does NOT have a say in who his teammates are (beyond the obvious initial choice made by the switch itself). If Riley couldn’t be strong-armed by Wade, he won’t be strong-armed by LeBron. And if Jerry Reinsdorf couldn’t be strong-armed by MJ, he won’t be strong-armed by LeBron. For James, an iron-willed owner and/or team president may be the best thing. The question is whether or not that’s what he really wants.
I could go on forever about more topics. For instance, the “summit” spent an entire segment analyzing who would be a better pick-up between Shaq, AI, Jermaine O’Neal, and Tracy McGrady, but the phrase “sign and trade” never came up a single time in any of the talk of the marquee free agents. However, I have better things to do with my life than continue to talk about all the ways in which the mainstream sports media once again missed the boat.
My advice: til signatures start going on contracts, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. Especially if Kornheiser, Wilbon, Lebatard, or Simmons is involved. Good night and good luck.
Here are three words I never want to hear in sequence again: Free. Agent. Summit.
It probably goes without saying that I’m referring to the fabled meeting of the minds first advertised by Dwyane Wade about a week ago—a not-so-secret session where the supposed best and brightest of the 2010 free agent class (James, Wade, and Joe Johnson) would hold court over what the future would hold for all of them when the Summer of Money officially begins on July 1.
First, Chris Bosh wasn’t mentioned as having a seat at the table. Then, a source made clear that the RuPaul of Big Men would be involved.
Then Amar’e—likely at the behest of his agent, the one and only Happy Walters—verified that he would be there. After all, how could a guy angling for a max contract be seen as outside of this particular circle?
In his upcoming Larry King interview, LeBron confirmed King’s intuition that he was the “ringleader” of the group, and by logical extension, the key note speaker at the most important conference since the G8.
Meanwhile, sports pundits such as Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser advocated for other “major” free agents, such as Carlos “Last Time I Was in This Situation I Stabbed a Blind Guy in the Back” Boozer, to join the talks as well.
Then Tuesday, Wade’s agent denied the “summit” was happening in any kind of formal way, likely because such a meeting would be perhaps the only clear-cut case of player collusion in league history.
My point is, there have already been hundreds of stories written on this thing by hundreds of sportswriters. Most of them, from what I can tell, are viewing it in the most grandiose possible terms. Phrases like “a meeting that will determine the future of the league” or “a redrawing of the NBA map” are being used regularly.
And even though I began this entire post thinking I couldn’t be any more tired of hearing about this thing, recapping all of that just took me to a whole new level of exhaustion.
So in the usual JMID attempt to cut through the smoke screen and see if there’s any actual fire, here’s a brief primer on why the “free agent summit” is the most overhyped, overestimated non-story of the 2010 offseason.
Point 1A) The core group of these guys (James, Wade, Bosh) are friends
Point 1B) All three are now repped by CAA
CBS Sports’s Ken Berger covered the agency story at length right after it happened. Definitely worth a read if you want more of the gory details.
The gist, though, is this: because of their friendship and the joint affiliation of their agents, the three players at the top of every team’s list were going to be working in tandem anyway. Whether this ultimately happened in a conference room at CAA or via a series of conference calls, it’s not going to change the outcome. James, Wade, and Bosh will plan their attack together.
Point 2) The expansion of the ‘summit’ to include more players is inconsequential
Free agency is a line of dominos that begins with LeBron and Wade, then goes to Bosh, and then trickles down to the rest of the available free agents. Until those first two decide where they want to play, the rest of the market is going to be a glacier. It’s only logical. Are the Clippers going to call ahead and offer Amar’e a max contract if LeBron is still in play? Are the Bulls going to hammer out a deal with Joe Johnson if Wade’s signature isn’t on a contract in Mickey Arison’s office? Uh, no. So the idea that even if this summit were to happen, these guys are going to sit around and carve up the NBA landscape like they’re playing a game of Risk is completely ignorant of how business works.
Even if this meeting were to happen in its most grandiose, inclusive form, what’s going to happen? Is Carlos Boozer going to dial up Donnie Walsh and say, “So the guys and I all talked, and we decided that you’re going to sign me.” Walsh’s reaction would be something on the order of, “Uh, thanks Carlos. But I already have a high-scoring, high-rebounding power forward who can’t play a lick of defense that I could re-sign for less. I’ll get back to you.”
Look, deal-making is a two-way street. It’s ludicrous to think that the owners and GMs of the league are going to just have the courses of their franchise dictated to them by a bunch of over-excited employees with nothing to do but daydream until July 1st.
This is even more true when you consider that…
Point 3A) The number of teams with max cap space is a known quantity
Point 3B) None of these guys is taking less than a max contract
For whatever reason, a collective of sports pundits still seem to buy that some subset of these players will decide to take less money to play on a veritable All-Star team. This seems to be the real fantasy of the people talking up “the summit.”
To those of you who believe it, please, just stop. It’s getting embarrassing.
Regardless of whether or not they deserve max contracts, every big-name free agent this summer has a max ego. They have all convinced themselves that they can go somewhere else and make that franchise a champion. Obviously, it’s not going to work out that way. But perception, after all, is reality.
I don’t think that any player mentioned in connection to the summit has the self-awareness or the priorities to say, “What I really care the most about is winning. I can’t do it with just a bunch of role players, so I’m going to voluntarily turn down a max deal being offered to me by my existing team so I can jump ship to not only be a sidekick to one of these other guys, but be PAID like a sidekick to do it.” At least, not when we’re talking about a delta of tens of millions of dollars.
Don’t believe me? To review, here are the teams that are projected to be able to offer max contracts, along with the number of such contracts they can offer:
MIA: 2
NYK: 2
NJ: 1
CHI: 1
LAC: 1
WASH: 1
MIN: 1
OKC: 1
SAC: 1
Total: 11
TIER 1, a.k.a. Players who justifiably “deserve” the max:LeBron, Wade, Bosh
Total Tier 1 players: 3
TIER 2, a.k.a. Players who *think* they deserve the max:Joe Johnson, Amar’e, Boozer, Dirk, Rudy Gay, David Lee
Total Tier 2 players: 6
In short, even if you combine both of those two tiers, there’s too much money coming from too many sources for any of them to seriously consider turning it down in order to load up on one team. And that’s using a break-down that doesn’t even include the teams that can use the Bird Exception to re-sign their own free agent. So not only could Amar’e get a max contract from, say, Miami, he could get a BIGGER max contract to stay in Phoenix and play with Nash and a bunch of other guys that just got him to Western Conference Finals.
The bottom line is that unless you’re talking about the ’92 Olympics, the Dream Team concept is fiction.
Of course, if this huge meeting were to happen, some of these guys might be able to convince themselves in the moment that they’re willing to sacrifice, willing to try to be great. But then there’s this problem…
Point 4) When they leave the room, all bets are off
It’s easy to get wrapped up in the emotion ofa moment, in camaraderie, in talking about what ifs. But no contracts are being signed in that room. Which means that “the summit” has to adjourn, and everyone in on it has to go home.
This is the place where grand ambitions have a tendency to fade away—not in the moment among others, but in the quiet with your own thoughts.
These players are all grown men. Most of them have families, some of them large families. They have a lifestyle they’ve grown accustomed to. They know the world’s economy is fucked up, and they know the NBA’s new collective bargaining agreement is going to make this offseason potentially the last enormously profitable one (for players) in the history of the sport.
It’s one thing for these guys to say while they’re in the room with their boys, “Yeah, screw it. I’m gonna be bold. I’m a man. I’ll take less money so we can play together on one of the great teams of all time.”
It’s entirely another for those same guys to go home and say it to their wives, the mothers of their children, and their agents—who, let’s not forget, are paid based on a percentage of what their clients make.
How many wives are going to say, “Great, baby, you take that pay cut to be 2nd or 3rd in command! The kids and I are really looking forward to uprooting ourselves and starting over in a completely new part of the country so we can cut back.”?
How many agents are going to say, “Absolutely, killer. I would love for you to garnish my own wages so that you can maybe get a couple of trophies for team achievement that mean nothing to my life. Please, by all means, take the mid-level exception and reduce your own stats in the process so you can cripple your next contract too.”
In short, the summit is a grand idea. But even if it were to actually happen, it’s still a fantasy land. Reality hits when the players leave that room. And reality takes the wheel in most financial decisions.
As I think about it now, some part of me wishes that this summit would happen—but only if the players were to stick to the promises they made each other in that room. I wish that some of them would sacrifice money for a chance at greatness, a chance at a dream they’ve all had since they were kids. Part of me wishes that they would defy what’s in their best monetary interest in order to create something truly special, truly memorable, truly inspirational. As a fan, that would mean something to me. It would mean more to me as grown man chasing after my own dreams. I expect it would mean even more to thousands of kids on blacktop courts in worn-out shoes hoping for a better tomorrow.
And the rest of me knows it will never happen.And in the end, it’s not the media blitz over “the summit” that upsets me. It’s knowing that even if the summit happened, the outcome would be no different.
To paraphrase a great philosopher on another topic, “Summit or do not summit. Both are equally worthless.”
I only wish some of these guys would prove me wrong.
Now that we’ve all been able to recover from the fury of the trade deadline, I wanted to try to sort through what this summer may look like.
I’m referring, of course, to free agency. Which is not a topic that I normally like to think about. I’m the type of person who can go down the rabbit hole if he starts dealing with a situation where too many unanswerable “what ifs” are in play. As I stated on this blog about a week ago, I was almost more concerned over whether or not the Knicks were able to clear enough cap space to sign two max free agents than I was about the Cavs’ getting Jamison.
And yet, here I am…
I’m not the only one thinking about this topic, obviously. Mike already posted a link to ESPN’s breakdown of the franchises in play in this upcoming free agent season. Brian Windhorst wrote an article about the inherent gamble involved in staking your team’s future on free agency in the PD this Sunday. (Worth a read if you haven’t seen it already.)
I’m not entirely on board with some of the specifics that B-Dub uses—for instance, citing Gilbert Arenas as a positive pick-up for the Wiz seems dubious, especially since he then goes on to call Carlos Boozer a disappointment to the Jazz. But I do agree with the general sentiment. As I’ve said before, cap space is pressure. If a front office whiffs on the guys actually worth the money, they are automatically in peril of overpaying someone undeserving just so they can argue to the fan base that they got something for the money and the sacrifice it took to earn that money. Hence, the 2005 Larry Hughes signing after Ferry couldn’t convince Ray Allen or Mike Redd to walk away from re-signing with their then-current teams.
With all that in mind, though, I haven’t yet seen an honest, in-depth breakdown of the pros and cons going for each of these franchises who have cleared the cap space to make a run at LeBron this summer. So over the course of the next week or two, I’m going to do it team-by-team. Starting with…
CONTESTANT #1: THE MIAMI HEAT
*Note: I am going to run w/the assumption of a $53M cap and therefore a max contract value of $16.56M in the first year, but all of the analysis in this series could be rendered moot if the cap comes in higher or lower than that figure.
The Sell Job: In many regards, it could be argued that Miami is the most dangerous of the suitors vying for Bron. Players love South Beach and warm weather climates in general. Unlike some of the other potential free agent destinations, the Heat are a perennial playoff team. The young players still likely to be on the roster—Michael Beasley, Daequan Cook, and Mario Chalmers—have talent. Also unlike New York, the Heat have draft picks and will be far enough under the cap that they will NOT have to fill out their roster entirely with minimum salary players. Wade and Bron are close friends, and the lure of playing together every game is tantalizing. Pat Riley has built a championship team as recently as 2006, and the man is a legend of the game that a young stud like LeBron would naturally gravitate toward as a mentor figure. With the right roster, he could even come down from the box and back to the bench.
The Reality: Though not as much of a desert as New York (who I’ll look at on Wednesday), the Heat’s roster—other than Wade—is hardly one to motivate a smart player to jump ship from a contender. Beasley has talent (averaging 19 PTS/ 7.8 REB per 36 on 48% shooting), but has also had off-court troubles. With the exception of FT%, STL, and TOV, his per-36 numbers in his second season have either plateaued or declined. Cook won a three-point contest a year ago, but is only averaging 37% 3FG and a dismal 36% FG overall for his career. Chalmers, meanwhile, is the guy who chucked up a half court shot in the middle of a 4th quarter run by the Cavs last year because he thought a non-existent TO had been called. Apart from that, he’s only getting 25 minutes of playing time per game this year, though his per 36 stats aren’t…well, they’re not good (11.1 PTS on 42.6% FG / 5.4 AST / 2.3 TOV).
Then there’s the Alpha Dog issue. If Bron goes to Miami—which has been Wade’s team for the past 7 seasons—how does that work out? Officially, Wade is a shooting guard and Bron is a forward. But in terms of how frequently they want the ball in their own hands on the perimeter, they essentially play the same position. Bron is clearly not ready to make a living posting up, mostly because he doesn’t want to. So would he be able to co-exist with Wade on the same team? Probably. But I don’t know that he’d love it long-term.
Meanwhile, Wade has even said himself that if he could play with anyone in the league, he’d choose Da-wight over Bron. Considering that Wade won a title by combining with a powerhouse inside presence, this should shock absolutely no one. It’s also not a coincidence that Riley’s primary trade targets in the past two seasons have both been big men—Carlos Boozer and Amar’e Stoudemire.
What about the lure of South Beach? There are a lot of players in this league that this venue would make a difference to. I don’t necessarily think Bron is one of them. Though I’m sure he’s not a clergyman in his off-hours, I feel comfortable saying that Bron’s priorities are truly winning, improving his game, and building himself into a global brand. The idea that he’d immediately flip for the opportunity to play in Miami so that he can hang out in South Beach is ludicrous. Look, if the guy wants to go to the beach, he can charter a plane and be there in a few hours. If he wants prime night life, he can be in New York or Vegas or LA just as easily. If he wants beautiful Cuban women, I’m willing to bet that he can have them flown in via a quick phone call to World Wide Wes or Maverick Carter. But the idea that the commute to the beach is going to be a major factor in LeBron’s decision-making on where to play is just incredibly naive to me.
Then there’s the great Pat Riley.
Yes, the man is a basketball legend. Yes, he’s won multiple titles as a Hall of Fame coach and GM. But look at how the team has done since winning the 2006 championship:
2007: 44-38, swept by Chicago in first round of playoffs.
2008: 16-57, worst record in the NBA.
2009: 43-39, L to Atlanta in first round of playoffs.
2009-10: today, the Heat has a 29-28 record and will have to fight like hell to hang onto the 8th seed in the playoffs, where they will undoubtedly be bounced in the first round yet again.
This leaves their cumulative record since 2006 at a sobering 132-162. The franchise has died in the first round of the post-season twice, missed it entirely once, and will do either one of those or the other again this year. Since dealing Shaq to the Suns in 2008, the biggest-name running mate that Riley has given Wade in Miami has been either a past-his-prime Shawn Marion or Jermaine O’Neal, who by this point has had more operations than Frankenstein’s monster. (If I had to guess, Wade’s most productive teammate in terms of advanced stats has probably been Udonis Haslem, who the Heat will likely not retain when his contract expires this summer.) I don’t normally argue for the merit of big names, but in this case, it’s not as if Riley can point to the franchise’s record over the past 4 seasons and argue with a straight face that he’s complemented Wade with quality role players.
Of course, Wade and Riley have been in a protracted staring contest over the roster for years now. Their owner is widely renowned as one of the cheapest in the league. Compare that to what Bron has gotten from Danny Ferry and Dan Gilbert.
Then there’s the issue of draft picks. Yes, the Heat have two in the first round (one of their own and one from Toronto from the Jermaine O’Neal trade). But barring a total shift in those teams’ outlook for the rest of this season, both will be mid-rounders. And it’s not as if Riley has exactly been setting the world on fire with his draft prowess since plucking Wade at #5 in 2003. Yes, Beasley is a potential complementary piece, but it was pre-ordained that whomever ended up with the #2 pick last year was going to take him. It’s not as if Riley did some clandestine research to uncover an unknown gem. Meanwhile, the other players he’s drafted since Wade are as follows:
2003: Jerome Beasley (#33 overall)
2004: Dorell Wright (#19) and Pape Snow (#47)
2005: Wayne Simien (#29)
2006: no picks
2007: Jason Smith (#20) and Stanko Barac (#39)
2008: Michael Beasley (#2) and Darnell Jackson (#52, traded to Cavs)
2009: Marcus Thornton (#43) and Robert Dozier (#60)
I rest my case.
Finally, there’s the cap space itself. Under the assumption of a $53M cap, the first year of a max contract for a player w/Bron’s or Wade’s tenure would be $16.56M. So two maxes = $33.12M. Beasley, Cook, and the team option on Chalmer’s combine for ~$8M. Two mid-first rounders, according to ESPN, maths out to another $2.5M total. This all adds up to $43.62M, which leaves the Heat with ~$9.5M to fill out the other 5 roster spots required to get to the minimum 12. According to the NBA minimum salary scale, that leaves the Heat with some room to get creative—but not much. They will mostly have to rely on other players taking lower salaries for the opportunity to play with their imagined two max contracts, which may or may not be realistic.
Add all this up, and what do you get? A middle of the road roster that is going to have to rely on players choosing winning over money to fill out into complementary shape. A geographical / off-hours destination that probably doesn’t matter all that much to the guy in question. A GM with weak draft skills and an ego that will motivate him to play hardball with the only player keeping his franchise from contraction, even to the extent that he will completely waste 4 years of that player’s prime to prove a point. A star player basically already occupying the position Bron is used to manning. And to top it off, he wouldn’t even be able to wear #23 because Riley decided to retire the number of a competing player in his own arena’s rafters.
Prediction: Miami signs Amar’e and Wade to max deals, condemning the franchise to an annual #4 seed and at best, a single conference finals appearance after both players battle injuries for the remainder of their careers.
