Looks like LeBrons not going anywhere in 2010

[Gothamite]

True enough.

Of course Cleveland would go bug:censored: crazy if the Cavs won a championship. In a way that New York wouldn't (although I suspect the next Yankee crown will come with a great deal of special celebrating).

But in terms of the general sports world, a New York championship gets much more attention. Is that fair? No. Of course not. But it's reality.

Then again, if LeBron can be the point man in Brooklyn's first championship in sixty years, it's the best of both worlds....

[infrared41]

NOne of that is relevant. Even a smaller contract in a big city offers more opportunities than anything that could possibly come out of staying in Cleveland. That's not a knock against Cleveland at all, it's just reality. Big market = big media, big exposure, bigger celebrity, much more money even if not in the actual contract, bigger legacy. Look at Derrick Jeter and Mark Messier. Heck - look at Kobe. Would he be anywhere near what he is if he actually signed with Charlotte?

The fact of the matter is that there are only a hand full of "significant" cities. Nothing against Ohio, but Cleveland isn't one of them.

Brett Favre, Dale Earnhardt Jr., Peyton Manning. Three guys that are proof you don't need to be in a big market to be overexposed.

[Starchild]

Should the Cavs win a title, it'll be forgotten relatively quickly. A few weeks of celebration, but overall, it won't be as memorable as a title in NY would be.

Remind us all when the last NYC team won a championship? 2008(or 2000 if the Giants don't count as an NYC team)

Remind us all when the last Cleveland team won a championship? 1964

If you're telling me Cleveland won't go crazy about finally winning one, you're crazy. These fans are hungry to finally get one, especially for people like my dad. He was born in 1959 and doesn't remember 1964 when the Browns won the NFL Championship. You've got to remember, the Cavs have made the Finals only once, the Browns have never made the Super Bowl albeit coming close for many years against the Broncos, and the Indians have made the World Series twice since '64, a loss in Game 6, becoming the first team in MLB history to enter the ninth inning with a lead in Game 7 and lose. Plus not to mention the Browns just missing the playoffs in 2007, and the Indians collapse to the Red Sox in 2007.

These fans have seen so much heartbreak, for them to stick with their teams is amazing and if/when they finally win one those longtime fans will go nuts.

Oh, and yes the Cavs can offer more than any other team. The NBA has a system where the team that already has the player can offer him a bigger contract AND go over the salary cap to keep their own guys. So hypothetically the Cavs could sign a player like Chris Bosh for example and have 1 million left under the cap and turn around and sign LeBron to a max contract and end up way over the cap but they'd have to sign Bosh first.

I suppose I should've clarified... my mistake (although others seemed to get my point). In terms of exposure, a Cleveland title victory is cool for a short while. They haven't won a title in forever, yadda yadda yadda... at the end of the day, Cleveland is happy and their title victory just kind of becomes a footnote in the historys of the NBA. The Knicks win a title, forget about anything else dominating the headlines for a while. That becomes THE story. And if Lebron brings a title to NY, well, simply... it's no comparison. As others have said, it's absolutely no knock on Cleveland. It just simply isn't NY, for better or worse. It doesn't matter if China or any other country has a stake in the franchise. At the end of the day, they're the Cleveland Cavaliers and in the grand scheme of international basketball, they don't hold the attention of a name like the LA Lakers, Boston Celtics, NY Knicks, Chicago Bulls. That's just how things go.

As for the money situation, I don't really think Lebron is in it for the money. If he were, the man would have (or will this offseason) sign an extension and leave that be. Nobody can offer him more, so if money is the driving force he should, by all means, remain a Cavalier. Because he hasn't doesn't mean too much right now, but it certainly plays into the notion that he aspires to bigger and better things than Cleveland can really offer him (by way of notoriety and superstardom).

[PittsburghSucks]

Should the Cavs win a title, it'll be forgotten relatively quickly. A few weeks of celebration, but overall, it won't be as memorable as a title in NY would be.

Remind us all when the last NYC team won a championship? 2008(or 2000 if the Giants don't count as an NYC team)

Remind us all when the last Cleveland team won a championship? 1964

If you're telling me Cleveland won't go crazy about finally winning one, you're crazy. These fans are hungry to finally get one, especially for people like my dad. He was born in 1959 and doesn't remember 1964 when the Browns won the NFL Championship. You've got to remember, the Cavs have made the Finals only once, the Browns have never made the Super Bowl albeit coming close for many years against the Broncos, and the Indians have made the World Series twice since '64, a loss in Game 6, becoming the first team in MLB history to enter the ninth inning with a lead in Game 7 and lose. Plus not to mention the Browns just missing the playoffs in 2007, and the Indians collapse to the Red Sox in 2007.

These fans have seen so much heartbreak, for them to stick with their teams is amazing and if/when they finally win one those longtime fans will go nuts.

Oh, and yes the Cavs can offer more than any other team. The NBA has a system where the team that already has the player can offer him a bigger contract AND go over the salary cap to keep their own guys. So hypothetically the Cavs could sign a player like Chris Bosh for example and have 1 million left under the cap and turn around and sign LeBron to a max contract and end up way over the cap but they'd have to sign Bosh first.

I suppose I should've clarified... my mistake (although others seemed to get my point). In terms of exposure, a Cleveland title victory is cool for a short while. They haven't won a title in forever, yadda yadda yadda... at the end of the day, Cleveland is happy and their title victory just kind of becomes a footnote in the historys of the NBA. The Knicks win a title, forget about anything else dominating the headlines for a while. That becomes THE story. And if Lebron brings a title to NY, well, simply... it's no comparison. As others have said, it's absolutely no knock on Cleveland. It just simply isn't NY, for better or worse. It doesn't matter if China or any other country has a stake in the franchise. At the end of the day, they're the Cleveland Cavaliers and in the grand scheme of international basketball, they don't hold the attention of a name like the LA Lakers, Boston Celtics, NY Knicks, Chicago Bulls. That's just how things go.

As for the money situation, I don't really think Lebron is in it for the money. If he were, the man would have (or will this offseason) sign an extension and leave that be. Nobody can offer him more, so if money is the driving force he should, by all means, remain a Cavalier. Because he hasn't doesn't mean too much right now, but it certainly plays into the notion that he aspires to bigger and better things than Cleveland can really offer him (by way of notoriety and superstardom).

This kind of NYC ego is why the rest of the country hates New York. Get over yourself. There is life west of the Hudson river.

[Drew22]

He's right though. The world knows of the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls. Not as many know about the Cavs. If LeBron wants to go further, he'd sign with one of those teams.

It's just like English soccer. There is Chelsea, ManU, Arsenal, and Liverpool. The Big 4. Most of the world knows about these teams. Few know of the likes of Villa, Man City, etc. If a player wants exposure, he'd go to one of the Big 4 teams.

This is business. Pure and simple.

[Burning River]

Eye yey yey... Here we go again... Yes I am a Clevelander, but I am not totally myopic. Do I think LeBron Can leave, sure.

LeBron has never said "I'm Staying in Cleveland" OR "I want to play in NY". He states that he "loves NY and playing in The Garden and biggest stage". Now, a new twist has come up. Is NY bigger than "the stage" of China and Hong Kong? LeBron has also stated that he wants tbe a Billionaire. To get there, Cleveland can offer more money than NY. That money plus being able to market in China is HUGE. Remember Tiger Woods and his Buick Deal? Everyone asked: "Tiger!! Why Buick? That's an old fogie car!" Buick at the time was HUGE in China. It was considered "the sexy car" in China. That was great marketing by Tiger Woods. Don't think that marketing in China is not part of the agenda here. Remember this is about MONEY and now being global. China = Bigger stage than NYC. There is also a thought that Yao may be interested in coming to the Cavaliers. (I have no idea if that's true) The Cavaliers will have money to spend.

Oh yeah... does China own the US? Yep. Pretty Much. That's a different topic though.

[PittsburghSucks]

He's right though. The world knows of the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls. Not as many know about the Cavs. If LeBron wants to go further, he'd sign with one of those teams.

It's just like English soccer. There is Chelsea, ManU, Arsenal, and Liverpool. The Big 4. Most of the world knows about these teams. Few know of the likes of Villa, Man City, etc. If a player wants exposure, he'd go to one of the Big 4 teams.

This is business. Pure and simple.

That's not true. I've traveled around the world. When I tell people I'm from Cleveland (I don't say Dallas. I'm a Clevelander living in Dallas) usually they say LeBron James & Cleveland Cavaliers. In this day & age people know about places like Cleveland, Indy, and Green Bay. It hasn't hurt LeBron, Payton, and Brett playing in those small markets.

[PittsburghSucks]

Another reason I think LeBron want to stay in Cleveland is he wants to send his sons to school at SVSM. Can't do that in NYC.

[Starchild]

This kind of NYC ego is why the rest of the country hates New York. Get over yourself. There is life west of the Hudson river.

Whoa whoa, slow your roll, dude. I'm going to chalk that comment up to mounting frustrations with the Cavs' performance against Orlando. Fact is, this has nothing to do with ego. This has nothing to do with what city is better or why people live where they live... whatever. This is about finding the best place to market yourself. If you truly believe Cleveland holds more weight than NYC does in that respect, then you're completely delusional.

Back on topic. I think China is certainly a player here... but I don't quite believe all the hoopla. It's not like by playing for Cleveland, Lebron would simultaneously be playing for China. He's still an American superstar playing on an American team in an American city that happens to have some Chinese associates. Marketing wise, sure, he continues to become more of a global brand - but I'm not entirely convinced China's exposure would trump playing in New York. I'll try and get past my own NY-bias for a moment... thought it can be difficult. He wouldn't be living in China. He'd, presumably, be spending his time in NY... so whatever China as a location could offer him is entirely out the window. Monetarily in terms of paychecks, the Chinese associates still have to abide by the same financial restrictions as any other team owners would. Just because China's got some fat wallets, Lebron would still only be able to make X-amount regardless of the owners. So, again, it just seems to boil down to the guaranteed exposure of NY versus the potential global exposure via China.

I mean, if Lebron wanted the non-legacy stuff, couldn't he just sign with a Chinese team and be done with it all? He'd get the money, whatever marketability China can provide him with, he'd be the biggest thing in China (trumping Yao Ming easily). Why would he stick in the states period?

I honestly think this is far more about legacy than it is about money and marketability. Lebron is clearly a student of the game and is capable of analyzing himself and other franchises. He KNOWS who the big franchises are and what they can and cannot provide in terms of his legacy as a ball player.

[Jigga]

Should the Cavs win a title, it'll be forgotten relatively quickly. A few weeks of celebration, but overall, it won't be as memorable as a title in NY would be.

Remind us all when the last NYC team won a championship? 2008(or 2000 if the Giants don't count as an NYC team)

Remind us all when the last Cleveland team won a championship? 1964

If you're telling me Cleveland won't go crazy about finally winning one, you're crazy. These fans are hungry to finally get one, especially for people like my dad. He was born in 1959 and doesn't remember 1964 when the Browns won the NFL Championship. You've got to remember, the Cavs have made the Finals only once, the Browns have never made the Super Bowl albeit coming close for many years against the Broncos, and the Indians have made the World Series twice since '64, a loss in Game 6, becoming the first team in MLB history to enter the ninth inning with a lead in Game 7 and lose. Plus not to mention the Browns just missing the playoffs in 2007, and the Indians collapse to the Red Sox in 2007.

These fans have seen so much heartbreak, for them to stick with their teams is amazing and if/when they finally win one those longtime fans will go nuts.

Oh, and yes the Cavs can offer more than any other team. The NBA has a system where the team that already has the player can offer him a bigger contract AND go over the salary cap to keep their own guys. So hypothetically the Cavs could sign a player like Chris Bosh for example and have 1 million left under the cap and turn around and sign LeBron to a max contract and end up way over the cap but they'd have to sign Bosh first.

I suppose I should've clarified... my mistake (although others seemed to get my point). In terms of exposure, a Cleveland title victory is cool for a short while. They haven't won a title in forever, yadda yadda yadda... at the end of the day, Cleveland is happy and their title victory just kind of becomes a footnote in the historys of the NBA. The Knicks win a title, forget about anything else dominating the headlines for a while. That becomes THE story. And if Lebron brings a title to NY, well, simply... it's no comparison. As others have said, it's absolutely no knock on Cleveland. It just simply isn't NY, for better or worse. It doesn't matter if China or any other country has a stake in the franchise. At the end of the day, they're the Cleveland Cavaliers and in the grand scheme of international basketball, they don't hold the attention of a name like the LA Lakers, Boston Celtics, NY Knicks, Chicago Bulls. That's just how things go.

As for the money situation, I don't really think Lebron is in it for the money. If he were, the man would have (or will this offseason) sign an extension and leave that be. Nobody can offer him more, so if money is the driving force he should, by all means, remain a Cavalier. Because he hasn't doesn't mean too much right now, but it certainly plays into the notion that he aspires to bigger and better things than Cleveland can really offer him (by way of notoriety and superstardom).

This kind of NYC ego is why the rest of the country hates New York. Get over yourself. There is life west of the Hudson river.

See, boys and girls, this is why you can't ever have rational conversations with "fans"

[BBTV]

NOne of that is relevant. Even a smaller contract in a big city offers more opportunities than anything that could possibly come out of staying in Cleveland. That's not a knock against Cleveland at all, it's just reality. Big market = big media, big exposure, bigger celebrity, much more money even if not in the actual contract, bigger legacy. Look at Derrick Jeter and Mark Messier. Heck - look at Kobe. Would he be anywhere near what he is if he actually signed with Charlotte?

The fact of the matter is that there are only a hand full of "significant" cities. Nothing against Ohio, but Cleveland isn't one of them.

Brett Favre, Dale Earnhardt Jr., Peyton Manning. Three guys that are proof you don't need to be in a big market to be overexposed.

I think football is just different. It's much more national of a game, the teams are on relatively equal footing, the fantasy aspect is huge, certain small market teams are considered "glamor" teams (Pittsburgh, Green Bay, etc.) It's just a little different.

I still think there are more opportunities in bigger markets, and maybe Peyton would be even bigger in NY, Chicago, BOS, PHI, DAL, etc. I guess in football, it's more of a benefit to the "slightly-above average" player to be in the big market.

[FiddySicks]

Should the Cavs win a title, it'll be forgotten relatively quickly. A few weeks of celebration, but overall, it won't be as memorable as a title in NY would be.

Remind us all when the last NYC team won a championship? 2008(or 2000 if the Giants don't count as an NYC team)

Remind us all when the last Cleveland team won a championship? 1964

If you're telling me Cleveland won't go crazy about finally winning one, you're crazy. These fans are hungry to finally get one, especially for people like my dad. He was born in 1959 and doesn't remember 1964 when the Browns won the NFL Championship. You've got to remember, the Cavs have made the Finals only once, the Browns have never made the Super Bowl albeit coming close for many years against the Broncos, and the Indians have made the World Series twice since '64, a loss in Game 6, becoming the first team in MLB history to enter the ninth inning with a lead in Game 7 and lose. Plus not to mention the Browns just missing the playoffs in 2007, and the Indians collapse to the Red Sox in 2007.

These fans have seen so much heartbreak, for them to stick with their teams is amazing and if/when they finally win one those longtime fans will go nuts.

Oh, and yes the Cavs can offer more than any other team. The NBA has a system where the team that already has the player can offer him a bigger contract AND go over the salary cap to keep their own guys. So hypothetically the Cavs could sign a player like Chris Bosh for example and have 1 million left under the cap and turn around and sign LeBron to a max contract and end up way over the cap but they'd have to sign Bosh first.

I suppose I should've clarified... my mistake (although others seemed to get my point). In terms of exposure, a Cleveland title victory is cool for a short while. They haven't won a title in forever, yadda yadda yadda... at the end of the day, Cleveland is happy and their title victory just kind of becomes a footnote in the historys of the NBA. The Knicks win a title, forget about anything else dominating the headlines for a while. That becomes THE story. And if Lebron brings a title to NY, well, simply... it's no comparison. As others have said, it's absolutely no knock on Cleveland. It just simply isn't NY, for better or worse. It doesn't matter if China or any other country has a stake in the franchise. At the end of the day, they're the Cleveland Cavaliers and in the grand scheme of international basketball, they don't hold the attention of a name like the LA Lakers, Boston Celtics, NY Knicks, Chicago Bulls. That's just how things go.

As for the money situation, I don't really think Lebron is in it for the money. If he were, the man would have (or will this offseason) sign an extension and leave that be. Nobody can offer him more, so if money is the driving force he should, by all means, remain a Cavalier. Because he hasn't doesn't mean too much right now, but it certainly plays into the notion that he aspires to bigger and better things than Cleveland can really offer him (by way of notoriety and superstardom).

This kind of NYC ego is why the rest of the country hates New York. Get over yourself. There is life west of the Hudson river.

See, boys and girls, this is why you can't ever have rational conversations with "fans"

He's really not that far off base though. A little harsh, yes. But not really that untrue. New York is by far the most overhyped city in the US, and many New Yorkers seem to act like anyone who moves there from around the US might as well have just immigrated from a third world country run by some fascist dictator. New York is an amazing place, no doubt, I'm not in any way knocking the city itself. But it's far from this land of infinite opportunity where the streets are paved with gold and happiness runs amok. In truth NYC is crazy it's so big, is absolutely filthy, has s****y weather most of the year, and a TON of rude people. Is NYC a place all should experience? Absolutely. It's really an incredible place that all need to see at least once. Is it paradise? FAR from it. It's a bigger version of any other city. It has it's good and it's bad. Is it the center of the universe? At one point it really was, there's no doubt about that. But in today's world due to advances in communication as well as global merchandising, that's becoming less and less of a reality.

So again, nothing against NYC.

[Epiphanic]

The notion that LeBron winning a championship in with the Knicks meaning more to his marketability than winning one with the Cavs strikes me as not necessarily true. True, NBA teams like the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls are storied franchises known around the world, but why is that? Is it because they are in global cities with major media exposure opportunites or is it because those franchises had dynasty eras where they were the team in the basketball playing world? I think it's the latter. It's the same reason why Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool are known around the world. They get their media attention because they are so good.

LeBron is already a global icon and has a large marketing presense "despite" being in Cleveland. And if LeBron can lead the Cavaliers to multiple championships a la Jordan's Bulls, Magic's Lakers, or Bird's Celtics, I don't think the fact that the team is from Cleveland is going to relegate them to the "footnote of NBA history."

I don't know whether LeBron should or shouldn't go to New York, but I don't think that LeBron needs New York to go where he wants to go.

[floydnimrod]

The notion that LeBron winning a championship in with the Knicks meaning more to his marketability than winning one with the Cavs strikes me as not necessarily true. True, NBA teams like the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls are storied franchises known around the world, but why is that? Is it because they are in global cities with major media exposure opportunites or is it because those franchises had dynasty eras where they were the team in the basketball playing world? I think it's the latter. It's the same reason why Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool are known around the world. They get their media attention because they are so good.

LeBron is already a global icon and has a large marketing presense "despite" being in Cleveland. And if LeBron can lead the Cavaliers to multiple championships a la Jordan's Bulls, Magic's Lakers, or Bird's Celtics, I don't think the fact that the team is from Cleveland is going to relegate them to the "footnote of NBA history."

I don't know whether LeBron should or shouldn't go to New York, but I don't think that LeBron needs New York to go where he wants to go.

This is the point I wanted someone to make (because I couldn't word it the way I wanted too).

Think of the Bulls before MJ, were they a storied franchise? Not at all. These teams are "big" because there were times that these teams were great. LeBron has the chance to do the same thing with Cleveland.

Think of the Detroit Red Wings, somebody said earlier in this thread that "Cleveland is not as bad as Detroit, but still." Why do big players still want to go there? Because they were, and still are, one of the biggest teams in the NHL, because they won.

[Starchild]

The notion that LeBron winning a championship in with the Knicks meaning more to his marketability than winning one with the Cavs strikes me as not necessarily true. True, NBA teams like the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls are storied franchises known around the world, but why is that? Is it because they are in global cities with major media exposure opportunities or is it because those franchises had dynasty eras where they were the team in the basketball playing world? I think it's the latter. It's the same reason why Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool are known around the world. They get their media attention because they are so good.

LeBron is already a global icon and has a large marketing presense "despite" being in Cleveland. And if LeBron can lead the Cavaliers to multiple championships a la Jordan's Bulls, Magic's Lakers, or Bird's Celtics, I don't think the fact that the team is from Cleveland is going to relegate them to the "footnote of NBA history."

I don't know whether LeBron should or shouldn't go to New York, but I don't think that LeBron needs New York to go where he wants to go.

This is the point I wanted someone to make (because I couldn't word it the way I wanted too).

Think of the Bulls before MJ, were they a storied franchise? Not at all. These teams are "big" because there were times that these teams were great. LeBron has the chance to do the same thing with Cleveland.

Think of the Detroit Red Wings, somebody said earlier in this thread that "Cleveland is not as bad as Detroit, but still." Why do big players still want to go there? Because they were, and still are, one of the biggest teams in the NHL, because they won.

Really good points. I am, however, a little on the fence about it. I'll try and explain the best I can. Jordan won six championships in the span of 8 years. By doing so, Chicago became one of the top markets and the Chicago Bulls became a globally known brand, along with Michael Jordan himself. So far so good, right? Now, take away five of those championships. Does Jordan become as big? Does Chicago? Are the Bulls suddenly this global product? If the answer is still "yes," then certainly to a much lesser degree than with six rings. Six rings is six rings, no matter where. Now, move the scenario to a city like New York. Let's say Jordan is a Knick, and wins one ring in the 90s for NYC. Would it be unreasonable to assume that Michael Jordan becomes a bigger superstar winning ONE ring in NYC versus winning ONE ring in Chicago? Would it be unreasonable to assume that Jordan's legacy as a one-ring champion is more glorified and, perhaps more significant, winning that title as a Knick instead of as a Bull? I can't help but feel that winning a single championship in city like NY - where every bit of your life is scrutinized and success isn't merely desired by its media and fanbase (as it seems to be in smaller markets) but it's EXPECTED - is more impressive and more meaningful to a player's legacy than it would be to win that same championship, under the same circumstances (# of games, teammates, coach, opponents, etc) in a smaller market like Cleveland.

Perhaps Michael Jordan isn't the best example in my argument, probably because Chicago can be as tough and as demanding on their teams as NY, LA or Boston can be - at least now anyway. But even so, slap Lebron/Cleveland in place of MJ/Chicago and I still think it works out. I feel like it takes something EXTRAORDINARY like winning six titles in eight years, having a 72-10 season, multiple MVPs, HOF coach, etc. to take a smaller market team to the heights of the "big" teams, whereas simply winning a single championship in a market like NY all but guarantees you of achieving that same level of success and stardom - especially for a franchise that hasn't won a title since 1973.

Oh, and Bucfan, you're somewhat right on the criticism of NY (somewhat because - well... I'm a NYer ). Does NY tend to be over hyped? Of course. Probably because NY and LA control the hype machine... thus, those two cities are always the first to be mentioned in most of these kind of conversations. NY has the media as a whole, the bright lights and glitz and glamor that other cities, big and small, don't... or at least not to the extent NY or LA do. NY is very much an acquired taste for those not from here. It's no paradise, but the gap between what NY's media and availability can do for an athlete and what City-X can do is quite large, I think. Again, the hype machine is a crucial element here. As for the other "negative" aspects of life in NY (I love the rude NYers... and no, I'm not a rude one myself) - its just a challenge that some people enjoy. Guys like Jordan/Reggie Miller saved some of their best stuff for NYers... mainly to piss them off, but even so. They rose to the occasion and accepted the challenge of NY rudeness/scrutiny/whatever else and excelled while doing so. Guys like Kobe Bryant and Lebron James seem to be part of the same mold and, thus, might find a kind of attractiveness to rising to the occasion in a place like NY.

[Epiphanic]

Let's say Jordan is a Knick, and wins one ring in the 90s for NYC. Would it be unreasonable to assume that Michael Jordan becomes a bigger superstar winning ONE ring in NYC versus winning ONE ring in Chicago? Would it be unreasonable to assume that Jordan's legacy as a one-ring champion is more glorified and, perhaps more significant, winning that title as a Knick instead of as a Bull? I can't help but feel that winning a single championship in city like NY - where every bit of your life is scrutinized and success isn't merely desired by its media and fanbase (as it seems to be in smaller markets) but it's EXPECTED - is more impressive and more meaningful to a player's legacy than it would be to win that same championship, under the same circumstances (# of games, teammates, coach, opponents, etc) in a smaller market like Cleveland.

I say no. Jordan winning one title in New York doesn't make him any more or less a superstar than winning one title in Chicago. On a national stage, one Jordan-as-a-Knick championship might be a bigger story than one Jordan-as-a-Bull championship due to proximity and access to the New York media/hype machine. However, by winning six titles, multiple MVPs, and other accolades, Jordan ceases to be just a superstar of the age. He becomes bigger than NBA, bigger than the game of basketball, bigger than New York and its machine. Jordan in the 90s was basketball.

Taking your example the other way, say Jordan was with, say, the Charlotte Hornets. He wins 6 titles in 8 years and has the exact same career as he had in Chicago? Is his legacy lessened because he was in Charlotte than in Chicago? Is, by being a Hornet instead of a Bull, Jordan no longer the greatest player to ever play the game of basketball? I'd say no. His legacy remains the same.

That's really my point. Should LeBron only win one title in his career and end up being a great player of the age, I could accept that a New York title might parlay into more than a Cleveland one. I'm not sure if I buy that, but I could accept it. However, if LeBron leads the Cavs to a Jordan-esque domination of the NBA and "be basketball" like Jordan was in the 90s, it won't matter where he plays.

[zmspartans]

The Chinese company didn't sign with the Cavaliers or Quicken Loans Arena. They signed with LeBron. The company wouldn't sign if Cleveland didn't have him. LeBron has also been quoted as saying,"I'm happy in Cleveland. I don't have any plans on going anywhere. These fans have done everything to support me. I'm excited about being here." Pretty big statement. Now he could certainly bolt for New York still, but why would he. New York has the same crappy cast of players that Cleveland does without LeBron.

[Starchild]

Let's say Jordan is a Knick, and wins one ring in the 90s for NYC. Would it be unreasonable to assume that Michael Jordan becomes a bigger superstar winning ONE ring in NYC versus winning ONE ring in Chicago? Would it be unreasonable to assume that Jordan's legacy as a one-ring champion is more glorified and, perhaps more significant, winning that title as a Knick instead of as a Bull? I can't help but feel that winning a single championship in city like NY - where every bit of your life is scrutinized and success isn't merely desired by its media and fanbase (as it seems to be in smaller markets) but it's EXPECTED - is more impressive and more meaningful to a player's legacy than it would be to win that same championship, under the same circumstances (# of games, teammates, coach, opponents, etc) in a smaller market like Cleveland.

I say no. Jordan winning one title in New York doesn't make him any more or less a superstar than winning one title in Chicago. On a national stage, one Jordan-as-a-Knick championship might be a bigger story than one Jordan-as-a-Bull championship due to proximity and access to the New York media/hype machine. However, by winning six titles, multiple MVPs, and other accolades, Jordan ceases to be just a superstar of the age. He becomes bigger than NBA, bigger than the game of basketball, bigger than New York and its machine. Jordan in the 90s was basketball.

Taking your example the other way, say Jordan was with, say, the Charlotte Hornets. He wins 6 titles in 8 years and has the exact same career as he had in Chicago? Is his legacy lessened because he was in Charlotte than in Chicago? Is, by being a Hornet instead of a Bull, Jordan no longer the greatest player to ever play the game of basketball? I'd say no. His legacy remains the same.

That's really my point. Should LeBron only win one title in his career and end up being a great player of the age, I could accept that a New York title might parlay into more than a Cleveland one. I'm not sure if I buy that, but I could accept it. However, if LeBron leads the Cavs to a Jordan-esque domination of the NBA and "be basketball" like Jordan was in the 90s, it won't matter where he plays.

Well put.

[Gothamite]

Sure is.

But it's also a very big "if."

[STL FANATIC]

Starchild, I think you made some legit points, but I also think you began to talk in circles a bit.

You mention that New York (fans, media, etc.) EXPECT championships on a frequent basis. But you simultaneously suggest that LeBron would be a legend for just winning one ring.

I don't see how it can be both. Either they expect championships every year and will begin to rag on the team including LBJ when that doesn't happen, or they want a single one so badly that just one will make him a legend. I think we've seen indications of the former in other sports, but I don't know.

Further, you try and attempt to strengthen one line of reason by suggesting that winning their first title since 1973 would be an additional reason for the one ring to be such a big deal, but previously dismissed a long draught as doing much to make a Cleveland championship more important.

My take?

New York initially provides a bigger stage for LeBron.

But if LeBron is really great, and if he really believes in his ability and likes a challenge, then he can win 3+ championships in Cleveland. And if he can do that, he'll get the exposure. He might sacrifice a small amount of present exposure for the larger, long-term legend of revitalizing a dormant franchise, and doing so for his hometown.

I'll say this much. I love LeBron James. With the Bulls pushing towards becoming a contender and the things LeBron is doing, I'm really interested in the NBA for the first time since Michael Jordan retired from the Bulls.

If LeBron jumps ship (assuming Cleveland makes a strong effort to keep him) for New York or Brooklyn (or really anywhere I suppose) I'll lose a lot of respect for the guy, and no doubt my interest will die back down. Maybe that doesn't matter, because maybe LeBron in NY brings lot more fans to the game than it disgruntles, but that's how the move would personally affect me.

Now a question, as I've been continually confused about it. Is LBJ a free agent after THIS season or after the next?