Lebron Not Ready for Prime Time

Self-centered jerks tend to make up a very high percentage of top athletes.

 

I'd say his interest peaked at some point after his interest was piqued.

 

Simmons weighs in:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100709

As does Taibbi:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/179533/83512

 

Yes, clearly there is no difference between breaking someone's heart and breaking someone's heart, rubbing their nose in shit, and in the most tone deaf way possible, giving yourself fellatio on national television while the people who have lavished you with all the attention and praise you so desperately needed since you were 14 years old twist in the win.

If it makes you feel really smart to pretend as though there is no difference, and that Cleveland should have known better, then you're viewing sport from an emotional disconnect that might make you feel intellectually superior, but it's not reality. People pay large sums of money they probably can't afford to watch sports -- and spend huge chunks of time watching sports that they could put to better use -- precisely of the emotional connection they form with teams and athletes. There's no doubt in my mind it hurt Cavs fans and Clevelanders more because he handled it he way he did. And frankly, I'm really glad people feel that way. Because if they didn't, I wouldn't have a job. No one would give a shit about athletes enough for newspapers to devote millions of dollars to covering their every facial twitch.

It's fine if you want to essentially sneer at the stupidity of sports fans who make such a heavy investment into young men who, with rare exceptions, have a total disconnect between the zeros in their paycheck and the fans in the seats, so desperate for a tiny slice of who they are. In fact, it's a logical position to take. But it doesn't reflect reality.

So, yes, it did make a difference that he essentially dumped Cleveland on national television and hooked up with someone hotter. He did handle himself poorly, immaturely and selfishly. He didn't damage "his brand" permanently or become the No. 1 villain in sports, as some are suggesting. He probably even made the right move for his career, both professionally and personally.

But he also lifted up the curtain -- though not on purpose -- and showed us just what a farce professional sports can be. And in a way, the whole thing can't survive without the farce. We kind of need to connect emotionally with sports or guys like LeBron James don't get paid $50 million a year to play basketball and be a spokesman for corporations.

So to more or less say, Jeez, don't take it so seriously, is silly. If we didn't take it so seriously, people like LeBron James wouldn't even exist in our conscious. And I'd be writing long-winded posts on "English-Teachers.com."

 

I didn't see anything in his post that said people shouldn't take it seriously. I took it as saying "people were going to take it hard no matter what."

 

Of course they were. But the idea that "Oh, he's have been criticized just as much for going to Cleveland" is bullshit. Total contrarian bullshit. Again, if it makes people feel smart to think that's the case, that poor LeBron was damned if he did, damned if he didn't, then so be it. But it's false. The way it went down mattered.

 

If we're going to play the "I'll tell you why you are posting because I can read your mind" game, then the only reason people are angry at LeBron James is because decrying the obvious moral decay of elite athletes has been a pastime as long as there has been sports. It makes them feel better about themselves.

 

What James did wasn't immoral. But it wouldn't be hard to argue that it's unseemly and pretentious.

 

Windhorst lays out what looks to me like a rough draft overview of what will probably make a fascinating book by he and Terry Pluto in the next year.

Windhorst lays out the case that Pat Riley has been grooming LeBron for this move for about three years. Riley and Michael Jordan met with LeBron a few years ago under the guise of honoring MJ by not wearing 23 anymore.

Excerpt:
That won't be comforting for Cavaliers fans who still are reeling from what many considered James' stunning departure. But it appears to be part of a complex master plan that was the trio's desire for much of the past four years.

Now that the move has been made, the veil of secrecy is being raised to a degree as people are beginning to talk. The Plain Dealer talked to numerous sources to piece together a picture of how James ended up in Miami.

http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2010/07/inside_the_decision_miamis_cou.html

 

Why would anyone outside of Cleveland (masochistic as the fans are) want to read a book about LeBron's decision? Haven't we had enough already?

 

Again, more contrarian, faux-Freudian nonsense. As if criticism, or the mere act of commentary on current events, is always personal. Saying LeBron James acted like a douchebag doesn't make me feel better about myself. I doubt Woj's beautiful rip job of a column made him feel better about himself either. Had I been raised in a bubble of fame and ass-kissing, I might have reacted similarly tone deaf. I really don't give a shit about the alleged moral decay of professional athletes, because I'm pretty certain a lot of them were egotistical douchebags long before I was born. That's kind of wired into your DNA if you're going to be a professional athlete, to be honest. Humility isn't part of the package, generally. But I do believe it's bullshit to imply there is no standard of class with which LeBron James could have conducted himself and avoided criticism. It was seedy. It was immature. The way it was handled did make it hurt worse for a fanbase that was already a little insecure about its status. I don't feel any better about myself acknowledging this. In fact, I feel worse because I'm admitting I'm a cog in giant farcical Wizard of Oz smoke machine that is sports commerce.