Superstars change teams. A year and a half ago, following The Decision, 'pundits' tried to convince us otherwise. The most popular and definitive of statements to come from the mess: "Micheal Jordan never would have done that." 'That' being the most vile and disgusting atrocity one man could commit against another, verbalized in an all-too-serious tone. LeBron James' arrival in Miami was supposed to signify the end of competitive balance in the NBA and usher in an era were the league's superstars placed money (even though James took a pay cut), a desirable place to live, and playing alongside friends above winning. Winning, supposedly a player's sole concern in the good ol' days, is an easy concept to trumpet when players aren't making as much money or afforded the same less-restrictive free agent policies. These buzzword-driven discussions in the summer of 2010 didn't mean much. They all became different ways to say, I DON'T WANT THE BEST PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE PLAYING FOR THE SAME TEAM, unless these players happen to collude their way on to the team I root for, in which case, I'm all for it.
Carmelo Anthony was last year's high profile player attempting to switch teams. Rather than wait for free agency, he sped the process up. He demanded a sign-and-trade because he could make more money signing the Nuggets' extension than signing as a free agent with the Knicks under the new CBA. Despite his selfish motives, I still thought he was doing the kind thing. He made it be known he wasn't going to resign with the Nuggets so they could get something in return for him. Denver did acquire a nice haul and to this day, various people on Twitter brings up how successful the Nuggets have been since they traded Carmelo. Cleveland was left with Antawn Jamison and no 2010 draft picks when LeBron left. Anthony to the Knicks was viewed as another instance of superstars teaming up.
Chris Paul was this year's Carmelo. He never explicitly stated where he wanted to go, but made it known he wasn't resigning with the Hornets. When news broke he was heading to the Lakers, the same outrage directed towards LeBron and Carmelo was not there. Part of this was probably due to the fact Kobe was no longer in his prime. David Stern, by vetoing the trade, also took plenty of heat and discussion away what the Lakers team would have actually looked like. When the Paul deal with the Clippers was finalized, the reactions were anything but disappointment. People were excited. LOB CITY! This excitement, no doubt, was motivated by the potential to see exciting basketball. But why not the same complaints of superstars teaming up? Is Blake Griffin not viewed as a superstar, or did the Clippers franchise, the NBA's model of futility, ease the burden? They're the Clippers, how much of a threat could they possibly be?
Dwight Howard has always been a popular target for criticism. He smiles too much. He's too nice. He can't control his temper. He's too mean. He doesn't have a post game. His entire persona is contrived, in the same way Shaq's was. He's bolting to LA to follow in Shaq's footsteps. Like Shaq, despite dominating the league, we'll speak of Howard in terms of what he could have been. Well, Howard developed a post game. He's curbed his on-court temper. For what it's worth (nothing), he's not smiling as much anymore. Unlike LeBron, Howard and Paul have been absolved of the blame surrounding their team's shortcomings. Where LeBron is typically accused of not getting it done with a good enough bunch, Howard and Paul are victims of incompetent front offices. For this reason, in addition to the general public's desensitization to superstar movement, Howard isn't being killed for wanting to switch teams.
I can't help but laugh at the talk surrounding Howard, though. No one is mad about Howard wanting to switch teams, but they are mad about which teams he wants to go to. His wish list is reportedly limited to the Nets, Lakers, and Mavericks. In IDEAL-NBA, where winning is everything, Chicago seems like a no-brainer. The Bulls have tradeable assets, including a center to replace Howard in Orlando. They have the best point guard in the league to complete a duo that makes more basketball sense than any of the other superstar pairings. But Howard doesn't want to go to Chicago. Speculation ranging from Howard's ego to Adidas' secret motives to Rose's disinterest in recruiting have all been used to explain away Howard's 'faulty' decision-making. We're back to square one. People cannot comprehend that a basketball player could be motivated by something beyond winning a championship immediately.
Save for his free throw shooting, there is very little observers can criticize about Howard's game anymore. He's developed the low post game his fans and detractors have been clamoring for. His mere presence practically guarantees a Top-5 defense. He is the NBA's best rebounder and at times its most dominant player. All that is left to bitch about are his team choices, which feels funny looking back to the negative feelings surrounding superstar movement only two summers ago. It seems that fans of the sport have accepted that superstars will change teams to play with other superstars. Then question becomes, how entertaining will these partnerships be for me, the fan? Fans, I think are no longer falling for 'good ol' days' sentiments that were never true to begin with. They feel superstars teaming up in desirable markets is almost inevitable, and just ask that these tandems make basketball sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment