Pic from the 2010-2011 NBA season?
Profilic blog poster Chris Hall and I have been arguing this point for some time now, and our arguments have spilled over to the point where I feel like I should blog about this topic to see what the general public thinks.
(Side note: I used the word "arguing" versus "discussing" because as anybody who has discussed something with Chris can attest to, it is hard to discuss things without them developing into all-out wars. Anybody remember, as kids, when Chris and MMG would discuss points in the MMG/Side Bar basement, and neither one would concede any points by the other, nor let any other bystanders into the discussion? Sorry, I digress.)
So here's the question: As all of us know, for some time now there has been much discussion about LeBron James coming to the Knicks next season. Clearly it would make the Knicks immediately much better, and depending on the cast around him, possibly a playoff team.
(Side note 2: If the Knicks make it into the playoffs this year, the NBA should re-do divisions because that's how inferior the East is.)
(Side note 3: Gilbert Arenas is a cocksucker and I'm glad he's gone from the NBA. He's been a cocksucker for some time now, and it's cocksucker karma.)
(Side note 4: If LeBron comes to the Knicks next year, I'm going to conveniently forget that I lost my Knicks allegiance for 4 years ago and be a die-hard Knicks bitch again in 2010.)
So here's the question: How would LeBron's legacy be affected by playing in NYC versus playing in Cleveland?
My contention, basically, is that in today's world, it makes little difference what market somebody plays in, as NBC and ESPN cover the best teams with their star athletes. That's why Cleveland and Miami and Los Angeles and Phoenix are always on the nationally featured games, as opposed to New York and Chicago. LeBron can also get endorsement deals regardless of what city he's in. Therefore, his legacy / status is largely independent of his home city.
Chris' contention, basically, is the opposite - that playing in NYC adds a level of allure and je ne sais quoi which will ultimately raise LeBron's status as a global icon and consequently will add to his legacy in a way that having the same on-the-court success in Cleveland would not afford him. (Chris, correct me or elaborate if desired.)
We've reached an impasse in our discussions. Any thoughts?
6 comments:
I have to agree with Chris here. You can be big anywhere but you're ceiling is much higher in NYC.
He would own NYC and that beats the shit out of owning Cleveland.
Also, I'd be interested in the Knicks again if he comes.
That's what I'm saying, Luke. The King of New York beats the King of Cleveland or San Antonio or even LA for that matter, ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. And Luke proves another of my points: that even the most cavalier of sport fans (pun intended) would be intrigued by Lebron's star shining in NYC, versus any other city, and be drawn to watch. Non-sports fans worldwide would be drawn to watch this story play out. Non=basketball fans would tune in to see him excel in NYC. My point is largely that there are untapped NBA fans worldwide that would be compelled to tune in if the greatest player in the world is winning in the greatest city in the world. NY news is global news in any city worldwide. When Boston wins the championship this year, there are mad countries that will not air the Celts cutting down the net in Game 7. It just wouldn't be news. If Lebron were to win a championship in NY, the media covers it in every village and every hamlet worldwide. Being at the pinnacle of your game in NYC is news EVERYWHERE, no matter what your game happens to be. Being at the pinnacle of your game in many other cities is dependent upon many other factors.
The market has changed, sports are global, and it makes little to no difference where you play now. The argument about winning in New York was a big deal like 50 years ago, but who cares today.
Sports are a huge business, and as long as you can market someone, and people make money, the location does not matter. Think about athletes who have been marketable over the past 20 years, the location did not matter. Wasn’t Michael Jordan the biggest thing ever in sports? He didn’t play in New York. Michael Jordan could have played in Alaska and the NBA would have found a way to market him because he was the best and they can make money. Every game on TNT, Sportscenter, etc… always has the most marketable players, not the biggest cities. On TV this year, TNT, Sportscenter, etc… carries almost every Cavaliers game and no Knicks games. Why are the Cavaliers on TV and the Knicks aren’t? Because outside New York people want to see Lebron, they can care less who he plays for.
Good point on Jordan, Ev. But my point is that Jordan would have been bigger if he won 6 chips in NYC versus Chicago. I know it's hard to imagine, but c'mon. Don't you think Bird would have been bigger in NYC? I could go on.
According to the NBA store, Knicks merchandise is the 4th most popular of all NBA franchises. And you know who sells the most Knicks jerseys? David friggin' Lee. David Lee. He ranks #13 in the NBA among active players. Why is this? Is it because he's the 13th most talented/excited player? Heck no! It's because NY is the media capital of the world. If David Lee were playing in Cleveland, he wouldn't have the 130th best selling jersey. More people have a connection with NY, whether it's reality or wishful. That hasn't changed. That's the reason they rank #4 in merchandise sales even though they suck.
I read The World Is Flat and I get that we're a more globalized society, but that still hasn't changed the fact that NY still is ground zero for what's hot. If Kobe won his rings in Cleveland or Portland or San Antonio, he wouldn't be the worldwide icon that he is today because of the fact that he won with half of Hollywood on the sidelines. Sure he'd be well known among those who care about sports, but do you really think he'd have the #1 selling Jersey if he won all his rings in Milwaukee? That's the reason he has the #1 selling jersey outside of the U.S. even though Lebron is arguable the most compelling superstar to come along in this generation. What's hot in NY and LA is news all around the world, even among those that could give a rat's a** about basketball.
Bottom line: Yeah Lebron will be a superstar anywhere he wins, but it's just silly to think that he wouldn't be any more well known and recognized if he did it in NY versus a much smaller media market.
Look at Albert Pujols. He's widely recognized as the best baseball player in the world. Some analysts even say he may be the best to ever play the game. But ask a non-baseball fan who the best player is and see if he's even among the top 5 players mentioned. You don't think that'd be different if he played for the Mets? And don't tell me it's about championships, because Pujols won the Series with St. Louis in 2006. But who outside of the baseball faithful even knows that? They'd know if the Mets won, which is my point exactly.
A couple points.
First, David Lee is awesome. Based on any measure you've got, he's one of the 20 best players in the league. He's a jump shot away from being a superstar. That is not hyperbole.
That leads into my second point. I know nobody but me is watching, but the Knicks aren't that bad. I'm not contending that they are better than Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta or Orlando, but they are as good as every other team in the East. And they're not gonna win the championship, but they can play with any team in the league on any night. I'll take it a step further than saying I would not be surprised. I actually expect them to make the playoffs.
That leads into the third point. If LeBron hypothetically signed with the Knicks and they hypothetically kept David Lee, Gallinari, and Harrington, and then got a real point guard instead of Chris Duhon who's the suckiest suck that ever sucked, they catapult up the ranks in the East at the same time as Cleveland would shoot down.
With all that being said, LeBron is not coming to New York. Mike Lupica is under the impression that Nike is going to essentially lead him down the path to New York, but I really don't see it. And I, not Mike Lupica, am the expert on these things.
OK. So my goal is to name 20 players better than D. Lee (or at least that the Knicks would take in a straight up trade for Lee, in a heartbeat):
1. Kobe
2. Gasol
3. Lebron
4. Wade
5. Duncan
6. Nowitzki
7. Stoudemire
8. Bosh
9. Chris Paul
10. Kevin Durant
11. Dwight Howard
12. Carlos Boozer
13. Carmelo Anthony
14. Steve Nash
15. Brandon Roy
16. Paul Pierce
17. Kevin Garnett
And admittedly, it gets a bit difficult to name people that are CLEARLY better than him, cuz I want to avoid throwing in too many guards since it's hard to compare guards to bigs. Also, there are players that can't put up huge #s because they play on teams that don't suck, like:
18. Rashard Lewis
19. Al Horford
20. Joe Johnson
21. Rudy Gay
And I've left out mad clowns, obviously...I dunno, I think Zach Randolph has put up David Lee type #s for his whole career and nobody talks about him as a top 20 talent. Lupica may have you on this one, Chuck. I'd put Lee on a level with third tier type players like a Gerald Wallace.
Post a Comment