LeBron, Bosh to Bulls?

This would be a coup for Chicago, if it pans out:



The NYT has the original story on Chris Bosh moving from the Toronto Raptors, and free-agent-extraordinaire LeBron James from the Cavs, moving in tandem to the storied Chicago Bulls.

ESPN has the follow up, along with the above video.

The Rumor Mill

Now that the Cleveland Cavaliers have been eliminated from the playoffs, the rumors about LeBron have begun in full force. Some of the rumors aren't even related to his free agency. Personally, I am not a fan of the rumor mill. I would rather wait-and-see than speculate endlessly. And, obviously, rumors are just that: rumors. They range from "a credible source within [the organization/LeBron's inner circle/the ownership group/the coaching staff] tells me" to something some media member cooked up in his head.

Despite my aversion to the rumor mill, the consequences of the LeBron Sweepstakes are very interesting, and I'm not talking about the team that ultimately signs him. When this is all said and done, the teams that have sold out on everything and everybody to sign LeBron only to come up empty handed will be devastated for years to come. Teams are already attempting to position themselves as the front-runner in the LeBron Sweepstakes by making moves that will have a long-lasting effect on the organization, whether or not LeBron decides to end up there.

One of the biggest examples of this is the recent firing of Cleveland coach Mike Brown. Now, I am not a big Mike Brown supporter. His offensive "schemes" were dribbling around the perimeter and/or isolation with #23. He was unable to get his team to focus and get serious when it mattered most, and he underachieved in the playoffs. But, he was the winningest coach in Cleveland Cavaliers history, had the best record in the NBA the past two seasons, went to the playoffs in all five years of his tenure and even took the team to the NBA Finals in 2007. To fire a coach that has shown a track record of success in the hopes of signing LeBron James to a max deal so he can pick his coach is a little short-sighted. Now, obviously much of that success is because of LeBron James. But it would be foolish to give Mike Brown no credit for the team's success. If you're going to blame him for his failures, give him credit for his successes. If LeBron leaves the Cleveland, what is next for the Cavaliers? They are left with no on-court leader, no coach, Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison. Good luck getting any marquee free agent to sign there at that point. The Cavs are all-in for LeBron, and if they come up short, it's going to be a long, hard road ahead for Cavs fans.

Of course, the first team to go all-in for the LeBron Sweepstakes (or the 2010 Free Agent Class Sweepstakes, more appropriately) was the New York Knicks. They slashed and burned like rainforest loggers and now have the ability to sign two players to max deals. In the process, they have basically given the finger to their fanbase for the last four seasons, expecting the fans to wait until 2010-2011 for a remotely competitive team to root for. They are a complete embarrassment and are now not even seen as the front-runner for signing LeBron James because the franchise is such a mess, even though it is the #1 media market in the world. Of course, in this internet day and age, it's a little ridiculous to assume that James has to be in New York to be a marketing phenomenon. So all of that for nothing? Well, not exactly. So all of that for Joe Johnson and Chris Bosh? Great. Joe Johnson, Chris Bosh and David Lee do not a championship contender make. Enjoy another 5 years of mediocrity, Knicks fans.

Then there's the Chicago Bulls rumors. These rumors make sense, since Vinny Del Negro is on the way out. If LeBron can't work for a hands-off, carefree Mike Brown, there's no way he's going to want to work for a detail-oriented, in-your-face Del Negro. So we've got another team firing another successful coach for the potential of signing LeBron. The most hilarious part of all of this is the rumor that Phil Jackson is going to return to coach LeBron on the Bulls. From the article:

There has been no direct contact between Bulls officials and Jackson, according to the sources, but people close to both parties have spoken and come away with the belief that Jackson would be open to a potential reunion in Chicago next season.

Note the "no direct contact" and "people close to both parties have spoken and come away with the belief" language. That basically means that somebody who knows PJ and somebody who knows a Bulls official think it could probably, maybe happen. Well, it won't, and here's why: Phil Jackson has discussed, in pre- and post-game interviews, his reasons for considering retirement. They have nothing to do with not feeling challenged, or not wanting to take a pay cut: he doesn't want to take 2-week road trips to Charlotte and Oklahoma City. Guess what? That doesn't change in Chicago. Furthermore, he is in a serious relationship with Jerry Buss' daughter, Jeannie. And who wants the MJ comparisons for 82 games plus the playoffs? I doubt Phil is excited about that prospect.

So Chicago is selling out its future to sign LeBron James, which may not happen. Unfortunately, like the Cavs, they did not have the foresight and intelligence to refrain from firing their coach before getting a commitment from LeBron. They can kiss that 8 seed goodbye.

The LeBron Sweepstakes is upon us. And after it is all over, you're going to see a number of teams who have mortgaged their future and come away with nothing. All because of the availability of a certain special 25-year-old basketball player. He can name his price, and his terms, because the example has been set. If you're not willing to let go of everything to sign LeBron, well, you're not a true contender. That's unfortunate, and it's going to leave a lot of teams in a weakened state for an extended period of time.

As for me, I'll just wait and see what happens come July 1. But I won't feel sorry for the organizations that foolishly courted a player at the expense of their team. That's on them.

Baller-in-Chief: LeBron Would Fit In "Pretty Well" In Chicago

Marv Albert interviews President Obama about basketball, broadcast at 8pm EDT on TNT:

If LeBron James isn't sure he can win in Cleveland, President Barack Obama thinks there's an opportunity with his hometown Chicago Bulls.

"You know, like I said, I don't want to meddle," Obama told TNT. "I will say this: (Derrick) Rose, Joakim Noah it's a pretty good core. You know, you could see LeBron fitting in pretty well there."

[...]

"I think that the most important thing for LeBron right now is actually to find a structure where he's got a coach that he respects and is working hard with teammates who care about him and if that's in Cleveland, then he should stay in Cleveland," Obama said. "If he doesn't feel like he can get it there, then someplace else."

NY, NJ, or CHI?

Some people tell me that The Chosen One is a closer. I have yet to see the evidence.

The question now is, after losing for a second consecutive year before reaching the NBA Finals, despite having the best regular season record, what is LBJ going to do in the offseason?

The popular thinking is that, not being able to win with Cleveland, he's going to take his free agency and get the hell out of there. Only three teams really have the space under their cap to afford him: the NY Knicks, the NJ[Brooklyn] Nets, and the Chicago Bulls.

Safe money is on the Knicks, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that between Jay-Z and the new multibillionaire Russian owner of the Nets, and the promise of a Brooklyn franchise, it may be NJ/Brooklyn at the end of the day.

Thoughts?

Does Domination of A Sport Help or Hurt Popularity?

The L.A. Times profiled the UConn Huskies Women's Basketball team, the overall top seeded team in the women's Final Four and three games away from their 6th national championship in 15 years. They are also 13 games away from tying the all-time winning streak record, established by John Wooden's UCLA Men's Basketball team.

The story poses and interesting question: does too much winning hurt a sport's popularity?

Are the Huskies good enough to be considered America's most dominant team? "They're making a case for consideration," Burke said.

But their success raises another question: Are all those blowout victories hurting a women's game that must fight for respect and attention?

Even [TV sports analyst Billy] Packer, who admires their style, concedes: "To be quite honest with you, because so many of the teams they play have no opportunity to be competitive, I don't watch many of their games."

[UConn Coach Geno] Auriemma offers a different perspective. He talks about Microsoft's dominance of the computer software market.

"Eventually, other people have to catch up," he says. "You either compete or get out, so everyone will compete."

It's hard to think of teams that have been as dominant in recent history, but I'd tend to think that assigning low-popularity to over-dominance is a pretty flawed claim. It's not like people stopped watching the NBA during the Bull's two Jordan-led three-peats from 1990-93 and 1995-98. And the dominance of Tiger Woods clearly single-handedly exploded the popularity of golf-as-spectator-sport.