LeBron’s Choice: Winning, Loyalty, or Immortality?
Bill Simmons nails the essence of the updated LeBron melodrama. Stick with his hometown team (loyalty). Join the Bulls (most organic fit for winning ASAP and long term). Or bring a championship to the greatest city in the world (Salt Lake, stand up!).
I’d add two more notes I didn’t see with Simmons or the initial ESPN roundup of chatter:
Per *LeBron’s Choice*, if James forgoes the loyalty angle then there’s this subplot that amounts to Derek Rose vs. NYC. You can argue drafting or signing a good-great point guard. But there’s only one New York City. On the other hand, New York City doesn’t suit up. And Derek Rose would. For some, the pragmatics in choosing Rose maybe make it a no-brainer. But it is just a game. Why not make an epic poem out of it? This is different than the original choice because its a fork-in-the-road argument as to the nature of Greatness. Is it found via the record books, or via the legends/stories the people tell?
The other angle that’s implied in all the speculative mix-and-matching of superstar players is the notion of Team Greatness trumping Individual Greatness. Garnett says in hindsight he would have left earlier, but that doesn’t acknowledge the humility he learned over the years. A spunkier KG might not have fit as perfectly with the Celtics championship roster. Will a superstar like Bosh or Wade actually give up $ to team up with LeBron? (Wade, especially, poses a serious threat to the presumption that LeBron is the #1 teammate to joint.) And if you only get two of those guys you can still come up short vs. Kobe/Gasol, so do you still give up $ and *Your Team* cred to finish runner-up? The adage says if you can’t beat them, join them. But what if you can beat them, maybe? That’s why maxims suck if you’re an NBA free agent.
