Monday, July 5, 2010

Free Agents

Happy July 4th kids,

I hope you have been enjoying the most entertaining off-season in the history of sports (as far as I can tell) and are thanking two specific players. These two basketball superstars have indicated their willingness to leave their teams. In basketball, more than any other team sport, an individual is able to influence a team's success. Not that one person can win a championship, he can't... but one person makes an enormous impact. Two great players surrounded by several solid players are very capable of winning a championship. Three very good players surrounded by good players can win a championship. There are occasional years when a defense will be totally dominant with a competent offense allowing teams to win (like the Detroit Pistons in 2004, Duncan's 2000 trio, Olajuwon's 1st championship or the Bad Boys 2 championships.) But most of the time, teams have 2-3 great players and complementary players (Malone-Erving, Bird-McHale-Parish, Magic-Abdul Jabbar-Worthy, Jordan-Pippen, Olajuwon-Drexler, Duncan-Robinson, Shaq-Kobe, Wade-Shaq, Pierce-Garnett-Allen, Kobe-Gasol.)

It's clear there is no formula for championships, but it's also clear that having a cast of two to three great players and a solid supporting cast places a team in the best situation to win. So, if I was a general manager, I would move heaven and earth to land LeBron. A few stragglers were so disappointed by LeBron's Game 5 performance against the Celtics where it appeared he was not even trying that they are down on King James... but many great players have games like this. Kobe has had games like this in the past including one where he was tired of being criticized for shooting too much and decided to show his value by not participating in the offense, in an elimination play-off game against Phoenix a few years ago. He's human. So, is LeBron. Thus, moving heaven and earth seems like a small price to pay for such a young talent.

I'd argue that LeBron is the best player in basketball and Wade is the 2nd or third best player in basketball, but for the purposes of my discussion the exact placement is irrelevant as long as everyone is willing to concede that LeBron and Wade are 2 of the 5 best players in basketball. LeBron has 30 teams to choose from, 5 of which are in realistic contention: Cleveland, Chicago, New Jersey, Miami, New York. If all the basketball teams were exactly the same, he would certainly opt to play either in his home state of Ohio or the massive market of New York, but basketball-wise not all things are equal.

I think when a basketball player of LeBron's magnitude is considering a basketball destination, there are 3 primary concerns percolating through his mind. (1) What is best for him and the people he cares about (which is often just the player himself,) but players often consider where they can get the most money, big cities vs. suburbs, comfort level with a location, whether his family is settled, whether he likes or dislikes people in an organization, the weather... etc.? (2) where can he win the most championships, which relates to players, owners and coaching and (3) where can he best serve his legacy, whether he is beloved by his fans or hated by his fans and whether he is appreciated as a leader of a team and perhaps most importantly whether LeBron who has the talent to be regarded as a top 5 player of all time is regarded as such? (For example, if LeBron plays the rest of his career on Cleveland and never gets help and never wins a championship, and would go down in history as the best player to never win a championship and as merely a super-charged Dominique Wilkins. If he wins on a team with Wade and for some reason Wade is considered better historically, which is not likely but plausible, then he would go down as a super-charged Scottie Pippen. Neither of those scenarios would give his legacy the full appreciation of his natural ability, so optimally, he would win championships on a team with one or more other stars, which would make him more like Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson... as Magic played many of his years with Kareem Abdul Jabbar slightly past his dominant prime.)

Okay, let's start with money... because when anyone considers a job offer, that is usually at the top of the wish-list. Because of the collective bargaining agreement between the league owners and the players union, Cleveland can provide him with the highest salary, but not by as much as you think. There is an estimate that LeBron can be paid roughly $30 million more by Cleveland than any other team, but that is not accurate. There are two aspects to Cleveland's advantage (a) Cleveland can pay him a higher year to year percentage increase in salary. Over 5 years, this amounts to roughly $5 million. (b) Cleveland can sign him for an extra year, and if he is earning the maximum increase every year, than that last year would amount to something akin to $25 million.

The caveat to part (b) is that LeBron is young enough that he is likely to continue playing 5 years from now and he is good enough that he is likely to receive the maximum at that time under whatever contract he signs then... so he would be likely earn over $20 million that year anyway. Thus, the only major advantage of the $25 million is that it's guaranteed money, even though he is likely to earn most of that money anyway. The caveats to part (a) are that his salary increases in his next contract will use his current contract as a base and the year-to-year percentage increase will start from there, so if he leaves Cleveland, he will make less money in subsequent contracts. Additionally, the next collective bargaining agreement is likely to be harsher on player's salaries, so every year he has with this contract is a boon as opposed to his next contract. Basically, if he plays less than or equal to 5 years, then by signing with Cleveland he earned an extra $30 million, but if he plays more than 5 years at a high level, it's more likely that by signing with Cleveland now, he earns an extra $10-15 million over the duration of his career because his year-to-year salary increases would be larger if he signs with Cleveland now. I think the strategy of asking the best player in basketball to take less money than the maximum he can be paid shows hubris on the part of the Knicks or any organization that asked this on behalf of LeBron. People do not tend to give up free money. If he is willing to forego some of a max salary, like Tim Duncan did, that's considerate of him, but money is money whether it is his 2nd million or his 391st million. That extra million could go towards a charity of his choosing or a slightly nicer house or among the uber wealthy, each million is capable of earning many more millions. So, LeBron may choose to earn less than the max, but for an organization trying to earn billions of dollars off of him, to attempt to shame him into taking less than the maximum allotted salary is at best hypocritical.

But basketball players make a substantial portion of their income from endorsements, particularly a player as entertaining and charismatic as LeBron. According to Forbes magazine, if he came to New York, he would make a substantial amount more than he would if he went to any other location. However, the highest earning basketball players are the ones that the NBA endorses all year round, are superstars that win championships (and are supremely entertaining.) Michael Jordan was in the 3rd biggest market, but he earned the most money... even more than anyone from New York or Los Angeles because titles (and pizazz) garner attention. Being the superstar on a championship team is more valuable than being a superstar on a flailing failing New York Knicks. The Nets offer a counter-point that playing for a man who has international credentials would earn him more international money has some validity, but championships=international money, so championships come over expected endorsement money.

So, where does LeBron have the best opportunity to win championships? I would guess his best opportunity to win championships would be to play with Wade+Bosh and a collection of veterans and rookies who would want to play for a team with that core. The only recent comparison to a team like that is the Lakers 2000 three-peat. Shaq was the best player in basketball then and one could possibly argue that Kobe was a top 5 player maybe in the last year of that three peat, but their third best player was no where near as good a player as Bosh. Of course, LeBron-Wade-Bosh does not guarantee a championship, especially since the rest of the team would likely be spare parts (unlike those Lakers teams,) but that trio is certainly a championship caliber team. (Bosh could be replaced with Stoudemire with similar affect.)

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the three of them played together for 10 years and won seven championships together. (1) If it's in Miami, Wade is already the hero that brought them a championship and will be the hero that brought LeBron to Miami. (2) Wade will probably have one extra championship at the end of their respective careers. (3) It is very possible because of LeBron's unselfish play that Wade is the high scorer on the team at least some, if not most, of the 10 year time span, (4) during the end of games, it is very plausible that Wade will be the guy who takes many, if not most, of the last minute clutch shots. (5) Wade is the elder statesman with championship experience, while LeBron would be an added piece to the puzzle. All of these are arguments that would make it possible for Wade supporters, LeBron haters and to a much lesser extent, neutral fans to claim that Wade was the better player on the team and hence, LeBron was a super-charged Scottie Pippen to Wade's Jordan. I probably wouldn't agree with that, but does LeBron want even his best case scenario to be thus marred? If I had LeBron's talent, I wouldn't.

If I were LeBron, I would want to play alongside Carmelo Anthony, or Melo, as he is known because while Wade is better, and even Chris Paul is probably better, Melo complements LeBron's skill set better. Melo is a guy who, like Wade, could relieve some of the pressure off LeBron by driving and creating his own offense. But, he could also hit outside shots, which Wade is not very good at, so they could not leave him alone... which would mean that the floor would be spaced for LeBron's drives (if LeBron and Wade were on the same team, opposing teams should expend most of their energy guarding the basket and leave LeBron and Wade to shoot relatively uncontested outside jump shots.) James, Melo and Bosh might not be as talented as the Wade combo, but it might work better. So, if I were James, I would watch to see if any of the teams traded for Melo.

But, of the current teams as they now stand, Chicago is the best basketball situation, where he has a solid chance to win a championship without being overshadowed by another player. Wade's interest in Chicago has complicated the Chicago situation because Derrick Rose, Wade and LeBron all play the same way and all require the ball to drive. Further, I am not sure LeBron wants Chicago enough to screw over his friend Wade's chance to play near his children. Thus, if I were LeBron, the other situation I would consider (barring trades) is signing in New Jersey, provided they can woo Bosh or Stoudemire as well. Harris drives, Lee is an athletic shooter and Lopez is a center who has solid defense and a strong offense. Those are decent complementary players provided they have LeBron and another star to propel all of them to another level.

If the Knicks sign Stoudemire or Bosh and trade for Melo or Chris Paul, they would enter the conversation as well, but currently the Knicks do not have much to work with, other than Lee who would probably be the subject of a trade if he doesn't leave in free agency and Gallinari, who is very young and may or may not turn out to be a quality player (and also may be the subject of a trade.) As constructed, Cleveland is better than that.

But, legacy is not all about basketball. LeBron has an affinity for Cleveland. They also have been trying (poorly) to give him complementary players, but have been sparing no expense in their misguided efforts. They finally got rid of their limited coach and hired the best coach available who is also the best coach of this group of LeBron-eligible teams (aside from Riley, who is rumored to take over the coaching job in Miami if LeBron comes to town.) Cleveland may hate him if he leaves. He may hate himself if he leaves. He might rather be Dirk Nowitzki, a great player who elevates his team to championship caliber level rather than Pau Gasol, a great player whose legacy is failure on one team followed by success on another. Not to mention, Cleveland could pay more, as discussed above. AND... if he can take Cleveland and turn this bunch of scraps into champions, which is not likely but not impossible, then he would immediately belong among the greats of all time... even if he just won 1 or 2 titles.

So, honestly, if I were LeBron in the current situation, I would stay in Cleveland or go to Chicago. Similarly, Wade is trapped by loyalty to his team and a family situation in Chicago. That sounds like a much tougher situation, even though the pressure on him is not nearly as great (because he is not regarded as a basketball city savior like LeBron AND he already has a championship.) If I were Bosh, I would follow LeBron unless he stays in Cleveland, then I would follow Wade, unless neither is possible, in which case... I guess I would entertain the Houston idea, favored by some analysts, which relies on Yao and Bosh crowding the lane or Bosh to replace Ming's chronic injury issues. Stoudemire is a little more complicated than Bosh because, if I were him, I would follow LeBron or Wade... whoever Bosh does not follow. But, Stoudemire has always craved first billing after spending his entire career overshadowed by Nash. So, Stat apparently wants to sign with the Knicks and then recruit quality teammates in an effort to demonstrate leadership (e.g. Melo and Tony Parker to New York to play alongside him.) But, a guy who plays little defense like Stoudemire is not an ideal candidate for team leadership.

But, back to LeBron... before the end of the season, I thought he would stay with Cleveland. I actually thought if he won a championship, he would have a clear conscience to leave after bringing a long-awaited championship to Cleveland. If he lost in the finals, he would have motivation to stay at least another year or two to accept a conquerable challenge... but the way the Cavs lost made me think he had to leave, for basketball reasons. He had to leave because the other players on the team were bad. Mo Williams did virtually nothing on offense and made Rajon Rondo, a good player, look like a wizard with Mo's donut defense. Jamison, similarly shrunk from the moment and Shaq showed his age. In short, if James wants a title with this team, he would have to do it himself. I was under the naive view that LeBron was so good that he could do it himself, but he can't and it will take me another year to forget that fact again. So, I thought LeBron was out of the Cleve... but now, having seen how torn he is, and the complexities of the Chicago situation, which I would have otherwise considered Plan A, Cleveland does not seem so bad... or more accurately, leaving Cleveland seems kinda wrong.

What about the other guys? Boozer might end up in Miami or on 1 of these LeBron suitors, but he's not that big enough of a difference maker to make a difference. David Lee is in the same boat except he is even worse on defense. Ray Allen, JJ Reddick or some other shooter are powerful additions that could spread the floor for LeBron, Wade or Rose, possibly in a trade for a quality player like Deng.

Now, a few words on the greatest players of all time. The way I have always judged the greatest players of all time, knowing what you know about a player's skill level, effort level, longevity and ability to lead championships, contribute to championships, which player(s) would you choose first. (It's not just championships, as I'd much rather have Nash's career than Kerr's career on my team, but championships factor in because I'd rather have Isaiah Thomas than John Stockton, though not by much.) I think it's foolhardy to choose anyone but Jordan first. Then, there is probably some combination of Magic Johnson, Abdul Jabbar, Bird, Chamberlain and Russell in the next tier of players. Then, there is another tier of players with Olajuwon, Duncan, Robertson, Oneal, West and now Kobe. I have previously argued that Kobe doesn't belong in the same category with Jordan, but if he keeps winning, he may belong in the same category with Magic. He had a good finals series, despite having poor fourth quarters and a sub-par Game 7, but his team picked up the slack and he won his 5th championship and 2nd Finals MVP. But, to his defense, Boston has an excellent defense. If he wins 1 more finals MVPs with another championship or 2, his case against Magic increases, though he wouldn't match him unless his peak extends several years longer and/or he continues winning championships. So, Kobe is about the 10th best player in basketball history... even now, but I don't imagine him jumping much even if he wins another championship because as great as he is, his next championship would only be his 3rd as the best player on his team.

(Let's say Kobe and Shaq retire now with Kobe having an extra championship ring and an equal number of MVP trophies. Trying to take their careers independently, Kobe was a top 5 player for about 8-10 years, probably for about 2 of those years between Duncan and LeBron, he was the best player in basketball. Pair him with a very good cast and he could win you many championships (paired with a not good cast and he could miss the playoffs.) Shaq had 3 years when he was utterly dominant and paired with a good cast, he could win championships. He also had about 7 other years when he was a top 5 player. If I want any championships, I certainly pick Shaq... and if I want multiple championships, I certainly pick Shaq. But, assuming that the life span of my team, the quality of my team will vacillate, if I have a very good team for many of those years, Kobe could be the best player on that team that wins many championships. So, this is where Kobe's potential longevity might give Kobe the edge in the end over Shaq. If he has 2 more years as a top 5 player and than 3-4 more years as a very good player, then I could legitimately see a team building around Kobe's extended greatness over Shaq's fleeting dominance. It would probably take more than 1 additional championship to vault him over Shaq though, in my mind. This is particularly true because of Shaq's dominance in some finals series, while Kobe has yet to demonstrate such dominance. Either way, this championship put Kobe into (or perhaps just below) the top 10 greatest players ever, but 1 more probably won't make a huge dent, though 2 more... just might.)

What of LeBron? If LeBron retires now, he would not have a championship, but he would have been the best player in basketball for 2-3 years now and a great player for 4 other years, so he's already more than a regular hall of famer. Many more years of this without a championship and he keeps jumping to the top of the heap... but, all of the top 10 players I mentioned won at least one championship. Similarly, if LeBron won a single championship, particularly with a sub-par team, I think he jumps onto or adds to that list of top 10 players. The problem is that a player of LeBron's skill-level is not aiming to match the lower end of this list, he should end his career near the top of list. Some have suggested that he plays with Wade for a few years, tries to accumulate championships and then return to Cleveland to try to rebuild. It's not ridiculous, but if he wants to stay in Cleveland, he should do so and if he is concerned about winning, he could find a team with enough parts to win. But at age 25, I am not sure he should enter panic mode and lower his expectations to being Scottie Pippen 2.0 just yet. But, he's a great player and I'm not worried about him wherever he ends up.

On another note, congratulations to all the teams I was rooting for in the World Cup. You all failed me, starting with the United States, then Argentina, Argentina's Messi, Ghana, Brazil, etc... I guess, I'm now rooting for whoever emerges from Uruguay-Holland match, though reluctantly and begrudgingly.

Congratulations to Nadal for getting his 8th Grand Slam title. I have the same qualm with him as I do with Federer, he won his championships in an era of limited competition. The Connors-Borg-McEnroe era leaked into the Becker-Edberg-Lendl era. That was followed by the Sampras-Agassi era, except that Becker, Edberg and Lendl were still around and had to be overcome by their younger counterparts. Then, there were people like Courier who came along and played with dominance for awhile. By the time Federer was winning titles, Sampras was done and Agassi was... done. So, he had to beat lesser competition like Hewitt until Nadal came along. Nadal and Federer are dominant and consistent, but their strongest competition is Andy Roddick, who at best is a... Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Djokovic has not come into his own and may yet become better than a Jim Courier, but as of yet, not so much. Federer reminds me a lot of Lendl, a better version of Lendl, but I still contend that Sampras was better than that. And from what I understand, Nadal is not quite as good as Borg was, but he's young, so we'll see.

We'll see. I guess that's the theme of this blog post. I talk a lot of smack, but in the end, I barely have guesses, let alone predictions. But-I'll guess anyway. My guess: Nadal finishes with 13 grand slam titles to Federer's 17. Holland uses it's semi-home field (I'm not sure if Boers are loved, hated or irrelevant) to win it all over Spain with Germany taking 3rd. LeBron stays in Cleveland. Wade stays in Miami and brings Chris Bosh. Stoudemire goes to New York and gets Parker as a start to a NY team, but ultimately a lame off-season for them. Boozer goes to Chicago and they acquire a shooter as well. New Jersey trades for somebody to stay relevant. But, I have no inside information and a very limited understanding of the wants of these players. So, my thoughts are uneducated guesses merely to record my notions for posterity and to measure my prophetic ability. Thus, spoke Zarathustra.

Hope you enjoyed this nonsense,
ME

2 comments:

  1. Great post.
    I guess we'll know all the answers soon.
    But for the Bulls, any Wade issues aside, do you think there'd be some elements of Jordan II that would get in the way of how Lebron wants to be viewed in his city at the end of his career?
    I don't think he could ever be their Jordan, even if he won as many championships.
    Lakers, for the sake of contrast, though I know they're not in this fight, have a different sort of legacy - more like the Yankees, where there's room for another great one.
    Knicks, Nets, Cavs - the legacy is there for the taking. Knicks? He'd run this town. Nets, well, legacy-wise it'd be an easier sell if they were about to move to Brooklyn.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chicago: if he wins 10 championships as the undisputed best player on his team, he'd go down as better than Jordan (probably 8 titles is sufficient, and depending on circumstance, less than that,) but... he won't. Instead, he'll more likely go down as the 2nd best Bull ever. if that's the only consideration, I'd rather be the 2nd best Bull ever with scores of championships than the best Cav ever without any or the best Knick ever without one.
    He'd run NYC, as much as any athlete could, which is more valuable financially and probably more valuable as an ego-boost than running Cleveland. But if he didn't win a championship here, and the front office and the players have not shown an ability to create a championship caliber team, he'd be a very popular exciting player and the best player in Knicks history, but so what? He'd be limited historically. His legacy on a larger basketball scale would be tarnished and his ceiling wouldn't be 2nd best to Michael Jordan, it would be 11th best to Kobe Bryant.
    I agree with you about a team like the Lakers (or Celtics) where being the best ever on that team doesn't mean a heck of a lot because of the slew of legends that played there (and those arguments have tentacles across generations.) Thus, being the 2nd best in Bulls history is a limiting factor, but it is NOT nearly as limiting as never winning a championship and it is NOT as limiting as having a player on your team who is arguably as good as you are.
    But, I definitely agree with you about the Nets, which might change their name as well as move. How powerful of a legacy would the Brooklyn Brons be? Very... as long as he could win championships.
    Thanks man.

    ReplyDelete