Friday, July 9, 2010
My own views of Lebron's decision are a bit different than others. I think he should have gone to Chicago -- with Rose and Boozer and the others, he would have been the leader who could have led them to a championship.
Going to Miami shifts the payoffs: If he wins, people will say, of course, they had the players. If he loses, he will be seen as not even being able to win with other superstars.
Of course, I can understand him wanting to play with Wade and Bosh -- I am sure it will be fun and I will certainly be looking forward to watching them.
I am not sure if we have ever seen anything like this. The closest I can think of is Wilt Chamberlin, Elgin Baylor, and Jerry West -- but Wilt and Elgin were not in their primes. They didn't win any championships either -- losing to Russell, to Reed, Frazier and Debusschere, and then to Jabbar.
Update: Bill Simmon on why Lebron should have chosen Chicago:
What should LeBron do? Pick Chicago. That's where the rings are. The fact that he didn't say to Bosh, "Come to Chicago with me, we'll play with Rose and Noah and win six titles together" was the single most disappointing outcome of the summer. That team would have been a true juggernaut with pieces that actually complemented each other, unlike this pickup-basketball situation that's brewing in Miami. Even with Boozer there in Bosh's place -- and I think he's a great fit for them, with or without LeBron -- it could still translate to multiple titles, because Rose could have been the best second banana since Kobe in 2001.
Just know that Kobe would have caught a whiff of those rings and gone to Chicago. Same with Jordan. Same with Magic and Bird. Chicago had the biggest competitive advantage of anyone: room for two max guys along with an under-23 franchise point guard and one of the only elite defending/rebounding big men in basketball. How can you care about winning and NOT go to Chicago?