One of the articles was by The Plain Dealer's Brian Windhorst, who wrote a fine piece that discussed the differences between "Cleveland LeBron" and "New York LeBron." Windhorst's story is a very balanced one, providing logical reasons why it makes sense for LeBron to stay in Cleveland and why it makes sense to go to New York. I highly recommend reading it, as I do all of Brian's Cavaliers' coverage.
Then there's the second LeBron piece on ESPN NewYork.com.
This one, by former New York-area newspaper columnist Ian O'Connor, provides reasons why LeBron's only choice is New York. I won't completely summarize O'Connor's column (an opinion column, just to be clear), just click on the link and read it. Please.
Here's the basics: O'Connor lists reasons why he thinks LBJ should be NYC-bound, and he quotes several "New York icons" that provide quotes why LeBron should and will come to New York.
Though well-written (O'Connor is a very good writer), the column is littered with several instances of flawed rationale, weird, irrelevant quotes from these New York sports icons, bogus reasoning on O'Connor's part and much pure speculation and fantasy with no factual basis. It's also completely and unabashedly New York-biased, but that's a product of where the column is written for: New York and New York sports fans. So I am OK with that bias.
Before I lay out the problems I have with O'Connor's column, I'd like to clarify my position on this matter (LeBron and free agency and the Knicks) and identify my own biases:
1. I have no idea what LeBron will do on July 1 and offer no predictions, as I believe it is impossible to do so because I truly believe LeBron himself doesn't know right now.
2. I do not get offended when I see "Photoshop-ed" pictures of LeBron in a Knicks uniform (like the one pictured above from ESPN NewYork.com). I do not get offended when people predict LeBron will bolt because Cleveland sucks. I do not get offended when the New York media bashes in Cleveland as a city and sports town. I will not swear off professional sports if LeBron does leave Cleveland. This is a business, folks and it has happened in sports dozens of times.
3. I want LeBron to stay in Cleveland, obviously, and will be ecstatic if he does.
So now you know where I stand on the basic issues of this "situation". Now, on to the almost comical flaws of Ian O'Connor's column. I am going to select some passages from the column and my responses to these passages will be listed below each:
I'll start with the passage that really got to me...One of the most ludicrous, outlandish, false and plain stupid things I have ever read:
* (O'Connor in his conclusion: (LeBron) can live the dream night after night after night. He can own New York the way Jordan owned Chicago and Kobe owns L.A. He can be bigger than his cherished Yankees, bigger than everyone from No. 2 (Jeter) back to No. 3 (Ruth).
1. Yes, LeBron could own New York like Jordan ruled Chicago or Kobe rules L.A....if he wins quickly and wins a lot quickly. Jordan owned Chicago after a couple of championships. Same for Kobe in L.A.
But what happens if LeBron signs a five-year deal with the Knicks and they lose in the first round of the playoffs every year and then he leaves New York? Or they lose in the East finals, even the NBA Finals, once or twice? How about if they ... gasp... miss the playoffs (gasp)? Will he still rule New York? Or will the fans get restless? After all, isn't a winning team all they want?
These fans have had players who can score tons of points, dish out tons of assists, get rebounds and throw down sick dunks. And these fans are portrayed as miserable, tortured masses. So does that mean all of a sudden, in comes LeBron and they're happy, win or lose? How does that work? Just because he's a showman, a magician with the basketball and fun to watch, he gets a pass if he doesn't deliver a championship? I love LeBron. But he hasn't proven he can win a title in six tries. What makes people think a title is guaranteed in New York? Even winning seasons for that matter? How many games can LeBron win himself each year? 20-25? Who is going to win the other 20 to make the Knicks a .500 team? How about the other 30 to guarantee a playoff spot? And yes, I know LeBron makes the players around him better.
2. Did O'Connor really say LeBron can be bigger than the Yankees, bigger than Babe Ruth?
This is where O'Connor's bias goes from doing his job writing for a New York web site to just plain craziness. I'm sorry, but what would LeBron have to do be "bigger" than the Yankees? Or "bigger" than Babe Ruth? Win 20 titles and score 50 points per game, for 10 years? How can you possibly make a statement like that? I have no idea what O'Connor is trying to do here.
3. The Yankees have 27 championships and more history and tradition than arguably any professional sports team. And Babe Ruth is an American icon, not just a baseball icon. And the NBA is not Major League Baseball. And the Knicks are not the Yankees. And some people who think Babe Ruth is the "biggest" athlete ever don't care about LeBron James. And vice versa. And none of that is even relevant. You are comparing two totally different sports, two totally different people and two totally different levels of celebrity and impact. Babe Ruth is "big" for probably 100 reasons that LeBron can never be. And LeBron is "big' for probably 100 reasons that Babe Ruth could have never been.
4. I hate to beat dead horse... but... Did Ian O'Connor really say LeBron can be "bigger" than the Yankees? I have a feeling Ian O'Connor read that after this column was posted and felt very ... stupid.
* Instead of directly pitching New York to LeBron, Ian O'Connor talks to five chosen people "So the pitch to LeBron belongs to more prominent voices."
1. Those five people: Hall of Famer and beloved former Knick Willis Reed, former NHL star and New York Ranger Mark Messier (yes, a hockey player), former Madison Square Garden president Dave Checketts, former Yankee great Reggie Jackson and current Yankee general manager Brian Cashman.
OK. What an....odd group of New York personalties. I guess O'Connor couldn't get Cosmo Kramer, The Nanny, Andy Sipowicz, the hot detective from Law and Order SVU, David Wright, Eli Manning, Mark Sanchez, Spike Lee or Donald Trump.
* O'Connor quotes Willis Reed: "I really hope ... LeBron's wearing a New York Knickerbockers uniform. That's my wish. I mean, do you want to win a championship in New York or Sacramento?"
What does Sacramento have to do with any of this and why is it relevant?
* (In the section of the column when O'Connor talks to NHL icon Mark Messier): Messier, who is currently special assistant to Rangers GM Glen Sather, is the Greek god of hockey, just as LeBron James is the Greek god of hoops. The one who ended a 54-year drought wants the other to try to end a drought at 37 years and counting.
1. I am not an NHL fan. Not a hockey fan. But since when did Mark Messier become the "greek god of hockey" exactly? And what does that mean? And who christened LeBron as the "greek god of hoops" exactly? If there was such a mythical creature, wouldn't it be Michael Jordan? The best player ever? That analogy is big swing and miss.
2. I have a major issue with O'Connor's statement that LeBron may want to go to the Knicks to "try to end a drought at 37 years and counting." Say the Knicks get LeBron, but aren't able to add another superstar free agent (Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade). Assume that next season, it's LeBron, the current sorry Knicks roster and maybe another addition or two. I guarantee the Knicks will not compete for a championship next season or the two-to-three seasons following. The current team is beyond awful, a mis-mash of wing scorers, shooters and their coach, Mike D'Antoni doesn't believe in defense or scouting the opposition, literally. It is near impossible to win long-term in the NBA trying to outscore people every night and forgetting defense. So even with LeBron, that 37-year title drought for the Knicks isn't going to end anytime soon.
* (In the section of the column where O'Connor talks to former Madison Square Garden president and former Knicks executive Dave Checketts): The Knicks can't sell a credible product right now, Checketts reasoned, so they have to sell the benefits the city offers to baseball and football stars who have bathed in a ticker-tape rain. "When you win in New York you are immortalized," Checketts said. "LeBron will win in Cleveland if he stays and be revered for a long time, but it still wouldn't equal what winning one or several in New York would mean to him. I've been gone from the Garden almost nine years, and there's a reason I've never moved back home [to Utah]. I still have my office on Park Avenue. If LeBron ever does go to the Knicks, he'll find out there isn't a better place in the free world than New York."
1. As far as selling the tangible "benefits" of New York to LeBron: Basically worthless. Here's a newsflash: LeBron is filthy rich. Filthy rich. And he will get richer and richer. He has his own private jet. He can (and does) go to New York City any time he wants. Clubs, nightspots, restaurants, whatever. He could buy a Park Avenue penthouse. Or 50 Park Avenue penthouses. He could live in New York and fly to Cleveland on game days (just like Zydrunas Ilgauskas does right now).
2. Is that the same as actually living there, being part of the fiber of the city? I guess not. But it's close enough and if you read a lot about LeBron, you know he loves where he lives in Ohio, loves his dream house he just had built and loves to be comfortable in his surroundings. By staying in Cleveland, he can have all of that and go to New York every night and live the city life if he chooses.
3. As far as a title meaning more that is won in New York opposed to Cleveland: Wrong. Again, if you know anything about LeBron, you know that he badly wants to bring a title to Cleveland, his home town. It would mean the world to him. He has said as much several times. He takes pride in where he is from and I really believe he wants to establish a dynasty in Cleveland.
* (In the section where O'Connor talks to Yankee legend Reggie Jackson): .....In 1977, (with the Yankees) Jackson hit three World Series homers on three consecutive Game 6 pitches thrown by three different Dodgers arms. What would've been the impact on Jackson's legacy had he delivered that epic performance in the colors of, say, the Cleveland Indians? "It would be significantly smaller," Mr. October said. So would two or three LeBron titles in New York be bigger than four or five LeBron titles in Cleveland? I'd definitely agree with that," said Jackson. "If Jordan won four in New York rather than six in Chicago, he'd be even bigger than he is now."
1. How can Michael Jordan be possibly bigger than he is now? I think it's safe to say Jordan's six titles in Chicago, which inlcudes a remarkable four-peat, are universally regarded as a huge historical achievement.And ask Michael Jordan if he would prefer six titles or four.
2. "Yankees superior to Indians" equals "Knicks superior to Cavaliers." Wrong. Try again, Mr. O'Connor. The Knicks are not Yankees. Winning a title for the Knicks and adding that title to the Knicks' history is not the same as winning a title for the Yankees and adding that title to the Yankees history. Would Reggie Jackson's legacy been less impactful had he performed his World Series heroics with the Indians rather than the Yankees? Probably, but that depends on your viewpoint. Will LeBron's legacy be greater if he wins championships (one or multiple) in New York and not Cleveland? Possibly. But depends on your viewpoint. In the last 37 years, the Cavs have had almost as much success as the Knicks. In the past 10 years? The Cavs and Knicks are not even in the same league. The point is, the Yankees-Indians, Knicks-Cavliers comparsion doesn't work. Apples and oranges. And trying to put the Yankees and Knicks on the same level, as far as overall historical significance and success goes, is a massive stretch. Maybe the better comparison would have been how playing in Madison Square Garden and Yankee Stadium is different than playing anywhere else. That works.
* In the section where O'Connor talks to Yankees general manager Brian Cashman: "If you accomplish something in New York," Cashman said, "it's better than anywhere else."
1. I have a problem with blanket statements like this one by Cashman. And again, I am not sure what Cashman is talking about is the case in the NBA. Does that mean the Lakers' championships would have been "better" had then been in New York? Uh, no. How about the Celtics' championship two years ago? The Celtics are one of the most stories and successful franchises in professional sports. Would that championship in 2008 have been "better" had it been in New York? No. Makes no sense...unless you live in New York or are from there. But the same can be said about any city, any country, anwhere. It's always "better" if it happens to you or your city or your team. Right? Why is that a reason for LeBron to play for the Knicks? Another swing and miss.
* Above is ESPN.com photo illustration
No comments:
Post a Comment