Tommy Craggs counterpoint on LeBron: He's not a [cork soaker]

Interesting how A-Rod can be used as an example for two different free agency choice models discussed the last couple days. He's a nice example for the "only cared about max money and not winning" model when he jumped from Seattle to Texas, and he's a nice example of the "hitched his wagon to other superstars who'd already been there just to get a ring" model when he went from Texas to the Yankees.

However, NEITHER model applies to what I'm talking about in this thread in reference to the Reggie Miller, John Stockton and Steve Nash examples. Those are guys who turned down opportunities to chase BOTH the easiest path to a ring or fattest check opportunity to try to finish what they started and stay loyal to their current team. A-Rod was NEVER that. Lebron had a chance to be that, and for his hometown team no less, but he emphatically spit in the eye of that opportunity.

 

Not sure how Nash fits into your equation. Cuban maxed out Dirk Nowitzki and Michael Finley and gave a midlevel-plus deal to the Mormon Mantis, did the math versus the luxury tax, and realized he fucked up. Ergo, ciao Nash.

 

I'm not talking about 2004, when Cuban stupidly gave Nash essentially no choice but to sign with Phoenix. I'm talking about the Summer of 2009 when Nash surprised nearly everyone by signing an early extension that likely ensures he'll end his career with the Suns.

Perhaps you've forgotten, but Nash was supposed to be a part of this mammoth 2010 free agent class. And based upon the amazing performance he's racked up these last 5 years in Phoenix, he would've had tons of suitors. New York, Cleveland, Miami and god knows how many others would've been offering him whatever they could to come and be their point guard. He could've sold himself out to the highest bidder and made more money, or he could've sold himself to the team with the best chance of winning a title just to get the easy ring.

Instead, he did NEITHER and surprisingly signed a multi-year extension with the Suns a year before he was supposed to become an unrestricted free agent. Which was awfully damn nice considering that the Suns ownership has been quite cheap and likely blown his chance for a ring with their frugal ways. THAT loyalty over rings/riches decision is what puts him in the Reggie Miller and John Stockton club in my book.

 

There are plenty of teams who have dumped players who have spent years with them so they payroll will be more manageable, or they can find a cheaper replacement. There's nothing noble about staying with one team, when the reciprocation is so rare unless the player is a sap (e.g., Nash). James, Malone or Payton had no obligation to stay anywhere.

 

Um, Steve Nash was 35 in the summer of '09 and he is 36 now. Cuban fucked up in '04 by wasting five of his prime years. Anything Nash does from here on out is career gravy.

 

and that would be highly pertinent if Nash hadn't just had an AMAZING season at the age of 35, racked up better overall numbers than any point guard in the league, and led his team to a COMPLETELY unexpected 54-28 record and run to the 6th game of the conference Finals.

I don't care how old he is, you're deluding yourself if you don't think there'd be massive demand for Nash's services if he was a free agent after the season he just had. Any team looking for one more backcourt piece to push them over the top would've been desperate to sign him. He could've picked and chosen who he wanted to play for next year. He was supposed to be a part of this FA class and have that option, but he voluntarily turned it down to sign an extension with his current team despite knowing that it had no reasonable chance of winning a title. That wins him loyalty points in my book.

 

A player has no duty to have loyalty to a particular team. And I don't begrudge James for leaving. I think there was a bit of a perfect storm to why all fans and Cavs fans are mad. He was drafted (by no choice of his own) by his quasi-hometown team. It appears that he quit. He made himself the center of attention instead of going through his business. Most importantly, in a sport where only five guys are on the court at a time, and thus a single player can do more to influence a team than any other team sport, he chose to go to the team of another top 4 player which is only a few years removed from a title and one who plays a similar position. It was a coward's move and you don't need an ESPN special to say that you want to be a second banana. No one says that he has to join a weak team, but going to Wade's team seems unmanly.

As to Nash, frankly his move is a bit stupid in a basketball sense. The team cheaped out way back since the Joe Johnson departure and had numerous moments of cheapness when they could have spent to get the team to the next level. Good for him if is happy there, but unlike Reggie or Stockton, the Suns were not a serious title contender when he signed the extension.

 

While there are Cavs fans who begrudge LeBron for leaving, I'm not one of them. Well, I'm also not a Cavs fan.

I only begrudge how he did it. NO ONE has felt the need to do a primetime special to announce where they're going, and he chose to do it to a town that has supported him for 11 or more years. Just a BS move, to me.

 

This might be a silly question. But if it really "wasn't about the money" couldn't LeBron, Wade and Bosh have signed for much, much less than they did (say, whatever the minimum was for their status) and given the Heat more wiggle room to fill out the roster or even snag another top free agent? If those three signed for, say, $10 million a year instead of $13 million, they're not exactly hurting.
I know they did sign for less than the max and the union might have some issues with its high-profile free agents giving owners a half-price discount, but if it really wasn't about the money it seems like they could have done even more to help their situation.

 

Dead-on -- which tells you all you need to know about the prevailing
noxious memememememememememememememememe poisonous
gas currently permeating the National Bore Ass-Nation.

 

And lets not trash anyone who trashes LeBron. It's OK to hate his self glorified ass, in the sports context. LeBron James is nothing but an entertainer. He's well paid and performs live. It's not an easy job, but it is essentially a meaningless occupation that provides 'real' people with a diversion from their daily lives and is interesting as athletic competitions. It may even be an art form as it's subtext is man's struggle to over come.
But it is nothing more than entertainment and people are entitled to have their villains and counterpoints. LeBron became a villain. He's General Zod, he's Hans Gruber, he's Agent Smith. LeBron James exists for our paying pleasure, as long as its not personal. For Him, it's a business, for us, it's mindless 2 hour entertainment to divert our attention from the regular horrors of life.

So get off the backs of the public that Hate On LeBron. He's getting paid well to dance.