Another thread, another philosophical, open/ended question. I have mixed feelings about superstars maneuvering themselves into their destination of choice. The purist in me thinks they're being narcissistic and selfish and lacking the character of the stars of yesterday. Another part of me chides the previous part of me for getting caught up in nostalgic bunk. NBA stars, like everybody else, find it much easier to communicate with one another and are more in tune to the possibilities available to them. They haven't gotten more bratty, they've just gotten smarter. Smarter to what types of situations are optimal for them, and smarter to just how much they're worth. The truth of the matter is that the top 5-10 players are bargains on max contracts, and every other type of success in the league flows downhill from having one of those guys on your team. Guys like Lebron and CP3 are probably worth several hundred million dollars (especially Lebron). So when guys like Lebron and company hold out and wait for the best offers, and when teams subordinate their identity and operations to kowtow to them, it's not a sign of moral demise, but just the league naturally evolving to recognize how much these guys are actually worth. In that sense, what's happening is only normal. What do you think?
Good question. The superstars of today are more spoiled than in the old days...but superstars were spoiled then too (unless you go way, way back to when they didn't make much more than regular people). Money and fame do that to people...or so I've heard. But I don't think what's happening here has much to do with being spoiled. To me, what's happened here is that, since superstars can't get paid their economic value, they're seeking additional non-monetary compensation in the form of a higher likelihood of on-court success and location...in other words, more control of their basketball and personal lives. If you're going to make around the same amount of money, would you rather try to carry the Cavaliers on your back to a title or up your odds by surrounding yourself with better players? Would you rather ply your talents in Cleveland or take them to South Beach? Both James and Bosh took significantly less money than they could have signed for in Cleveland and Toronto to join Wade in Miami, so no one should say that they're money-grubbing brats (you can still say their brats, though). The players might as well enjoy this while they can 'cause there's going to be some sort of "franchise tag" thing in the next CBA.
I don't think there is an answer, except, I guess, that it's going to vary from player to player. I look at a guy like Lebron James and see a guy who, I think, is exactly what I'd consider spoiled. He know's it's just a game and he's set either way. I look at Derrick Rose and think there's a guy who'll play the next game like his life depended on it. That could always change... I used to see that in Wade, and now his personal life looks like Vincent from Entourage. I really don't think it's changed at all though, no matter how far you go back in time. Sure, players made a lot less, but regular people also made a lot less. Maybe the relative difference was smaller, but I think in general the NBA players certainly were first in line for weed and women. Which is usually a good indicator of relative standing. I mean, whatever happened to that Lew Alcindor fellow that played with the Bucks? He turned into Kareem, who basically forced his way to LA. Where he replaced Wilt "I slept with 10,000 women" Chamberlain. These guys are currently #2 and #3 on BBR's all time community rating system. By the way, who were Wilt's teammates on the '69 Lakers? Oh yeah, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor!
I think it's like everything else, it goes in cycles. Guys did it 30 years ago, but I don't remember hearing about it as much in the 80's or 90's, but that might be because I wasn't noticing. It seems like elite players today have the upper hand with respect to getting what they want. I am pretty sure that will change with the next CBA. Today showed how freaked out small market teams are by the ability of elite players to hold their teams hostage. Utah pre-emptively dumped a player arguably better than Melo, a guy who hadn't really even started trying to work the system in his favor. Both Denver and Utah had gone well into the Luxury tax to surround Melo and DWill with other all-stars and quality players and both had recently been to the conference finals. If building a winner and a contender isn't enough to fend off a year plus of ugly, franchise killing contract negotiation, then things are going to change drastically so that teams don't have to worry about that.
I think you present two bookends for purposes of illustration that are flawed. I like to pigeonhole pop historians into two camps. There are those who take the we're constantly getting smarter and more advanced, junior high textbook crowd; and conversely, the nothing is great as those ole' timers, golden generation, Ken Burns crowd. There must be something in human nature that makes us want to celebrate both the new and the old, and not see change as change. I think you're right to look at the recent trend of players joining together in destination cities, if it's even an exclusively recent trend, as reflective of the underlying power contours. The one situation that may have had an impact on this generation of stars' mindset is USA Basketball. I couldn't get enough of the World Championships this summer. All of the players were going balls to the wall alongside their primary NBA competition. That experience has to impact they way the players approach each other and their competition in the NBA.
This is nothing new. Steve Francis didn't want to play for the Grizzlies. Vince Carter forced his way out of Toronto. So did TMac. Heck, so did Pippen. If anything, the players have paid their dues and deserve to have a say where they want to live and play, IMO. They're effectively slaves while on rookie deals. Look at Gordon - he went the FA route and was 26 by the time he could choose where he wanted to play. He was 21 when he started in the NBA. So I say sacrificing 5 years of a short career is more than fair enough to be able to choose where they want to play. It obviously doesn't work out for everyone - you do have to be a pretty good player to have your destination team choice even want you, and then there's the issue of the destination team even having the cap space to sign you to a worthwhile contract.
Speaking of the underlying power structure, I know this is taking things in a separate direction, but if I were the NBA, I'd pretty seriously consider dramatic changes. My crazy plan for how to do things would be to go after that big, corrupt chunk of revenue known as college basketball. While folks in small markets (I live in one) bemoaning the lack of attention pro basketball gets, college basketball works great in small markets. And like I said, it's an incredibly corrupt system... I won't be sad to see it go. If you make changes like this... ... I think you get rid of a lot of the problems, or at least you make them less of a problem. Perhaps you need to go further (more revenue sharing, even fewer guaranteed contracts, some NBA teams demoted to D-League affiliate status?), but the underlying ideas could provide a lot of interesting competitive scenarios.
