The Inevitable Tandems

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.

Some Scattered Melo Thoughts

Carmelo Anthony's year-long trade saga had been dubbed "The Melo-Drama," mainly because it needed a flashy title to save it from an otherwise predictable result. That's not to say this horse and pony show didn't have melodramatic tendencies. The way Melo has handled his impending free agency is far less exception than the rule, with Lockout Summer, coming this July, approaching fast.
What bothered me about this entire situation is how forced it seemed, lending credence to its title. It's like watching a movie when you already know the ending. The apparent twists and turns aren't nearly as exciting when you know that road is in fact a dead end, and not an intersection.
For all the hate The Decision has received, and deservedly so, it was still a landmark NBA moment. While ESPN was reporting all morning that LeBron was going to the Heat, it still seemed a little too unbelievable. I have no doubt in my mind that every Bulls, Knicks, Cavs, and Heat fan watched The Decision with a bit of nervous energy. Sure, we all were supposed to know LeBron was going to the Heat, but there wasn't the 100 percent certainty of Melo to the Knicks. For that reason, among many other more important ones, The Decision was significant. It was proper dramatic conclusion to the 2010 free agency period. The Melo-drama just wasn't interesting, and maybe it wasn't meant to be. Carmelo isn't the player LeBron is, and probably didn't deserve that type of attention anyway.
I've heard two angles on this story come up more than any other. The first being that Melo's move represents the eventual doom of the small-market club, and the second being that the Knicks still aren't title contenders. To the latter, I say, "Duh!" Despite the buzz around the trade, Melo's acquisition was was a means to an end for the Knicks, rather than the end. This trade wasn't meant to make them contenders today. In fact, it's unclear if they're even a better team today than they were yesterday. The Knicks hope to add either Chris Paul or Deron Williams in 2012, assuming the new CBA makes that possible. Basically, the Knicks took a chance. Some people agree with taking chances and others don't.
Seeing as I root for a big-market team I may be a bit biased, but I think LeBron, Carmelo, and Co.'s relocations aren't motivated solely by playing in big markets. Miami isn't even a big market, but does have an advantage over other cities because it is a desirable place to live. Miami was a unique situation because it was three guys who wanted to play with each other. Miami was the only place able to make that happen in 2011.
Big-market Chicago had the best nucleus of any major free-agent player this summer and didn't even come away with a top 5 free agent. I think, more so than anything, an organization that drafts well and has built a team capable of contending will attract big and small-name free agents, regardless of where the team is located. The Nuggets drafted Carmelo and built their team around him. They made some mistakes along the way, but I think most can agree, although they probably weren't going to win a title, they were capable of making a playoff push and failed to do so. The problem here could be Melo, not the Nuggets organization or the city of Denver. I'm not buying the "death of the small market" argument. If Carmelo can't get it done as the centerpiece in Denver and thinks things will change in New York, then he was probably worth getting rid of.

Despite the saltiness of Denver and other small markets, the NBA is better off with Melo in New York. Madison Square Garden has been called The Mecca of Basketball since before I was born. The Knicks franchise has won two NBA Championships, tied for 8th most in NBA history. The "Mecca" title has long been ridiculous. But ridiculous or not, it still exists, and we can't deny that great players have elevated their game when playing against the Knicks in Madison Square Garden.
The Knicks aren't perennial losers anymore, even though they haven't won a ring since 1973. Melo's acquisition alone gives us the impression that they've won something on the court, even though they haven't. Look at the Heat. It seems that most team's fan bases get more joy out of beating them than the Lakers or Celtics. The same will happen to the Knicks, and the undeserving cloud of importance that constantly surrounds them will at least by somewhat justified. The NBA will be more fun this way. Trust me.
Not to mention, the Eastern Conference playoffs will be...well...indescribable. I've long maintained that the Celtics, Heat, and Bulls are the only true contenders in the East and I stand by that. But just looking at the potential first round match ups, there won't be an easy series for any team. Regardless of what team I root for, that's what I want to see. That's one of the reasons I like this trade. It brings some much needed excitement to an Eastern Conference, that save for a team or two, has been absolutely mind-numbingly boring the last decade.

Ariza Deal Doesn't Make Sense For The Hornets

It appears the Hornets have made the same mistake the Cavaliers once did. They've catered to their superstar player with the hopes of keeping him happy and in uniform for the rest of his career. The sad reality is that, just as in Cleveland's case, this will blow up in their faces.
Chris Paul has made no secret about his desire to leave New Orleans. He said he wanted to play in New York if Carmelo ended up there, then changed his stance, and directed his attention towards Orlando.
Paul has two years left on his contract with the Hornets and a player option for a third year. In that short time frame, the Hornets can do all they want to try and build a contender around Paul, but this simple point remains: Come 2012, Paul will likely opt out of his contract and take his talents elsewhere.
After examining all aspects of this trade, the only way to justify it is if the Hornets were trying to please Paul. They added an athletic wing man who can likely compliment Paul in the uptempo fast break game. They also get rid of the rookie point guard who stepped in after Paul's injury and proved he could play just as well as Paul did. Don't underestimate this point. I doubt Paul wanted Collison around taking minutes from him. Paul and Collison are too small to start in the same back court.
Essentially, this is what the Hornets did. They gave up their most valuable player not named Paul and a solid contributor off the bench. They added 5 million to their salary cap, despite downgrading their talent. They will also be stuck with Ariza until the 2014-15 season, when he will be making 7 million a year. In the two years after Paul is likely gone, Emeka Okafor and Trevor Ariza will account for 20 million dollars a year. Terrible.

Even if Ariza does fit in with the offense and makes the team better, this trade still won't make sense. Ariza is not the missing piece to a playoff push. With the possibility of David West opting out of his contract next year, this looks like a bad team two years from now.
The Hornets should have traded Paul this offseason. While it hurts the team's image and makes it look like players have all the power, this would be the best thing for the Hornet's long term. They can begin to build their team around Collison. With Paul gone, Stojakovic and Songaila's contracts expiring, coupled in with West opting out, the Hornets clear 35 million from their payroll next year.
Obviously, there's some uncertainty about the CBO for next year, but the Hornets would be better off starting fresh as soon as possible, instead of suffering for two more years, only to lose Paul in the end.
Instead, the Hornets gave up their best young player, will likely miss the playoffs the next two years, and see Paul move on.
Unless if Paul signs a long term extension, what he wants shouldn't be part of the equation.