Texas Chuck wrote:
shrink wrote: There is no way LeBron would have come to play for a team that hadn’t even made the playoffs for multiple years, if it wasn’t the historic Lakers.
I mean except that Lebron James himself did exactly that when he signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers a team even worse than LA.....and of no historic significance of note.
That’s true, I was wrong, but it still kind of makes my point though, right?
LeBron made his decision to play for a team, not because of any basketball reasons, or any monetary reasons. We have CBA rules to encourage NBA players to stay put and build up fan loyalty, and Miami could offer more money than any other team. Miami had also built an NBA champion. What else could they do?
LeBron chose to forgo that money, to go play where he wanted. The rules entitle him to do so. But it shows that neither money, nor wise franchise moves, is the overriding thing that affects where stars will end up, and which teams have a chance at a championship, and which teams are perennial runners up. For LeBron, the incentive was hometown, then Laker lore. For Harden, and many others, it is “join a team that is already powerful and win a ring.”
The buyout market is a logical extension of where free agency can go, with big gaps between pay and expected production. The CBA knows league parity is valuable, but it was built based on expecting NBA players to go to the cities that pay them the most. LeBron shows this is not the case, and the frustration you hear from many NBA fans is that the system needs some type of change.