Lebron to Golden State, For Parity's Sake

First off, let me begin by stating that I am an Adam Silver fan and for the most part support all of this “parity” shit he’s pushing, even while a number of other pundits are vehemently complaining.

TAX APRONS

Concerning all of this “tax apron” shit, first of all, the way I remember it, NBA teams have always been more or less empowered to spend as much as they like - that is to say, within their respective budgets.  So it’s not like that’s actually changed now, but more like the more dough you spend, the higher the “tax” penalty.

So now, finally, you see that organizations across the board are truly shook.  But still, this isn’t a perfect system, and indeed, no worldly system is.

For instance, let’s say someone like Elon Musk were to buy an NBA team.  Would he be as reluctant as James Dolan to venture into the ‘dreaded second apron’.  Would he be reluctant to spend at all?  The richer you are, the more you can buy.  That’s not the NBA; that’s financial reality.

And in terms of promoting equality across the league, let’s be frank.  There are some teams out there, money or no, that have a much harder time attracting stars than others.  That’s something I’ll get into a bit later, when talking about Lebron and Detroit.

Well now, the better teams won’t be able to pay everyone who may want to play for them.  So since “the NBA is a business”, more players will be compelled to go to the less popular teams that can actually afford their worth(?).

That said, I think it does sorta suck that now, players are being more or less forced to take pay cuts.  We had a few years there where C-listers were commonly making $10+mil/year, but now, those days appear to be over (i.e. the Dort situation).

ANTI-TANKING

While teams are being forced to penny pinch, they’re concurrently being disincentivized from intentionally losing which, unlike other professional sports(?), is actually a thing in the NBA.  So now, everyone is being pushed into the middle, so to speak.

You can no longer rationalize stacking a team to your heart’s content.  And let’s be honest - do superteams statistically work anyway?  More have failed than succeeded, and even the ones that have won sometimes still have to rely on the NBA powers-that-be(?).

And at the same time, you can no longer rationalize intentionally losing either -  at least not with the goal of landing the highest draft pick possible.  Or more simply put, what Silver and co. have done is made the league more competitive.

The way I foresee it, we fans will no longer be treated to scab games, i.e. teams fielding a bunch of D-listers while stars are resting or whatever, because popularity = sales, winning = popularity and losing ≠ high draft picks like it used to.  So there’s really no reason to stash a favorite on the injury list, unless maybe he’s truly hurt.

EXPANSION IN MIND

And when arguing against Silver, one thing pundits always seem to forget is that soon, the NBA will be expanding to 32 teams.  I personally believe that’s the primary reason why the powers-that-be are now taking “parity” more seriously, because the league already has an issue when it comes to disseminating talent, and it’ll only get worse if you add a couple of more squads to the mix with things remaining as they were.

So what am I now predicting?  That the NBA will continue to trend towards youth, as apparently there’s a plethora of talented youngsters popping up in the past couple of years.  However, in terms of these youth movements, it’s like a team will be really competitive for maybe like five years and then fall off.  Part of the reason will be organizations not having as much money to throw around anymore, so once stars age and start getting injured, it’ll affect them more adversely than ever (i.e. Jalen Williams).

NO SYMPATHY FOR OKC

No, I don’t feel sorry for the Thunder.  I’m a strong advocate of stacking teams, in terms of having as many above-average players on your roster as possible, not in terms of blowing out the competition but because now, in the NBA’s “tender age”, dudes are getting injured more than ever.  So better to have as much roster insurance as possible.

But at same time, look at OKC in the playoffs.  Like the old saying goes, ‘there’s only one ball to go around’.  Yet you have a team of like 10+ players who deserve extended court time.  And despite their depth, the Thunder still failed to repeat regardless.

Since acquiring what’s-his-name from Philly, OKC had more dudes than they could field anyway, even with a couple of injuries.  Players want to win, but I would venture to say even moreso, they want to actually play.  So yeah, spread the wealth a bit.

EFFECTIVE BRAINTRUSTING NO LONGER AN OPTION

So what Silver has done is made it such that having a quality braintrust is now perhaps more important than ever.  Luck is very much a factor, as injuries can derail even the best laid plans.  But now, payroll departments have to work overtime to make sure every penny spent is put to good use, and GMs have to think harder about compatibility, i.e. maximizing role players instead of over-relying on superstars.

LEBRON TO THE PISTONS?

That said, the Knicks are heading into next season as a superteam.  They may not be in the traditional big 3 sense (unless Anunoby is now considered a superstar).  But they are in terms of having two perennial allstars, buttressed by two or three players who may be allstars if they were on lesser teams.  And by that definition, there are also arguably other supersteams out there, such as the Spurs, the aforementioned Thunder and even the Cavs, as they currently stand without Lebron.

And speaking of Lebron, as readers of this blog know, I’ve been most strongly advocating the idea of him going to the Pistons, even though they aren’t on his shortlist or even apparently on his long list.  Obviously, it’s not someplace James wants to go, and who know if they want him either.  But I made that assertion based solely on fit, i.e. of all eight teams who at least made the semifinals last postseason, they’re the ones who most need Lebron and vice versa, in terms of actually winning a championship.

And on that note, let me ask this.  When was the last time an A-list, coveted NBAer voluntarily went to the Pistons?  I’m sitting here racking my brain, spanning over the last 30-40 years and literally can’t think of anyone.

I have no idea why this is so, since they aren’t like a small market team.  Detroit is one of America’s premiere cities, and unlike most franchises, I mean yeah, the Pistons have their eras of sucking (i.e. the 2010s), but unlike most at least they have a couple of (modern) championships under their belt.

So now, they’re going to be forced to overpay Jalen Duren.  That’s right, I said it - overpay.  Dude is a stud, like you can just look at him and see that.  But he reminds me of one those types who's like really tall and athletic but doesn’t know how to actually play basketball.

Duren is a star based solely on physicality, so to speak.  And I mean it’s all good; I’m not hating.  Dennis Rodman, arguably my favorite player of all time, also falls into that category, even more than Jalen.

But Duren doesn’t strike me as the kind of C that can lead a team to a championship.  But that said, there’s a number of max players out there, regardless of position, who can’t lead a team to a championship.

GOLDEN STATE OF MIND

But now, the reason I’m writing this post is in support of Lebron going to the Warriors instead.  Do I think Lebron + Steph, buttressed by the Dubs’ current roster, can win a championship?  Hell no, unless maybe Butler comes back at reinvigorated, 1000% strength and furthermore is able to stay on the court.

But with that in mind, for parity’s sake, it looks like these guys are really going to suck.  So at the heart of my argument is this.  Even if Golden State doesn’t win games, at least with Lebron - unlike the past couple of seasons - they’ll be must watch.  So if you can’t achieve parity in competitiveness, at least try to do so in viewership.

Another reason Lebron + Golden State may be a match made in heaven is because neither appreciates youth.  I knew the day would come when the Dubs would regret not taking the likes of Poole and Kuminga more seriously, making more of an effort to incorporate youthful standouts instead of writing them off, and that day was already last season.  So as they currently stand, things definitely aren’t looking pretty heading into 2027.

CONCLUSION

I’ve slept on the Warriors off in the past only to later eat my words.  But things reach a point where even if you’re unable to accept reality, you at least have to respect it.

Steph is still must watch, when it’s the postseason and he’s actually playable.  But otherwise, nobody really gives AF about the Dubs anymore, and you know, we fans want a reason to care.  That issue would be instantly rectified with the acquisition of Lebron.

But obviously, you know, the King wants to win besides just pleasing fans.  In terms of actually winning, based on his shortlist, I also recently argued that the Sixers would be the best choice.  They wouldn’t be a better fit than the Pistons, but again, there’s no indication he wants to go to Detroit.  And it seems that LBJ may have recently dropped a hint that he is likewise leaning towards Philly.

Lebron and the (Forced) Waiting Game

I understand why Lebron is waiting things out, even more than usual.  Despite the fact that he's likely going to get paid around $10mil - i.e. more than most people earn in their entire lives - for a single season, he's 'no longer playing for the money'.

Even more than when he teamed up with D-Wade, now he wants an instant championship, as time is no longer on his side.  So instead of chopping some team's financial reserves and forcing them into a position where they can't properly flesh out the roster (i.e. what happened with the Lakers?), sit back, let the braintrusts prove their own worth and then, after the smoke has cleared, choose the team that best looks like it will win with your (aged) presence.

WHAT ABOUT THE KNICKS OR SPURS?

The media, including Rich Paul, makes it sound like the ball is all in King James's court, but idk. And the reason I say that is because, if he wanted to win a championship now-now-now, the best bet would of course be going to one of the two teams that just made the Finals.

That's the beauty of Lebron's game, in theory.  (Offensively) he can play any position, 1 through 5, at a superstar, impactual level. But the reason I say in theory is because even though he can still, to this day, dominate the post, he seems reluctant to go down there on a regular basis.  So a lot of times, you have LBJ chucking up threes like he's a little guy, despite there being actual little guys on the team (who can't play in the post like he can).  Though, in Lebron's defense, he's definitely clutch.

The Knicks just lost Mitchell Robinson, so they actually have space for another big.  That's not to say LBJ can defend Wemby or anything like that.  But now, out of all NYK's notable bench players, none of them are frontcourt - no disrespect to Drummond, who can average 10rpg in his sleep, but you know what I mean.  And that's going to be an interesting alternate look anyway, i.e. the times KAT can't play, and NYK starts Andre instead(?).

The Spurs would make even better sense.  When they lost to NYK, even before Lebron made himself available, I was saying that what they needed is another low-post presence besides Wemby (and Kornet).

Champagnie is an amazing shooter but, for a 4, appears as if they can't really do shit in the post.  Players like Castle and Harper make more noise downlow than Julian does.

San Antonio went out and got Harris, which is a sound move, i.e. potentially starting him alongside Julian.  You know, the two of them together makes sense rather than having one or the other, as Tobias also, given his size, is a shooter who's more or less a nonfactor downlow.

Lebron would be perfect because he shoots just as good as Champagnie(?) or Harris but furthermore can dominate in the post, while Victor is out on the perimeter.  His presence would free Wemby up to truly play like a guard sometimes, without having to worry about the consequences of not being in a position to get a rebound (i.e. that last-second play against the Knicks in Game 4),

But the way I see the situation, it reminds me of a saying one of my mentors used to have - "familiarity breeds contempt".  From the outside looking in, we all love Lebron.  But the people who actually know him, i.e. his colleagues, maybe all of them don't feel the same.  In other words, I find it interesting that the Spurs especially never seemed to entertain the idea of bringing the King in.

DETROIT PISTONS

The one team I've been pushing for Lebron to join, even before the offseason began, has been the Pistons.  At this point in his career, he's exactly what Detroit needs - "a secondary scorer" as the media puts it, i.e. someone who can put up points at will, but playing defense is a bonus.  It sucks that they got rid of Isaiah Stewart, but the Pistons, with Ausar Thompson may still have the defensive weapons to mitigate elder Lebron's deficiencies.

That's also presuming that Duren actually comes back.  Of late, the media has been bemoaning the idea that restricted free agents are powerless in negotiations, but I don't know.  Any contract where you can get paid tens of millions of dollars whether you're able to take the court or not sounds like a definite win on the part of the employee.  That's like being a don't-give-AF CEO of a big corporation.

But this appears to be another case where both sides aren't particularly interested.  Lebron didn't put Detroit on his list of preferred destinations, nor have they expressed an interest in having him.

And that's the interesting thing about those teams he did list.  Going to the Sixers (now with Brown) or the Heat (now with Giannis) may result in an instant championship, but neither is really guaranteed.  Philly may have depth issues (in light of the less-than-ideal health of Embiid), and Miami lacks shooting.

The teams that could more visibly slot LBJ in and instantly win - the Spurs, Knicks and Pistons, interestingly aren't even on his list (and vice versa).  Dude is feening but apparently ain't feening like that.  And the reason I didn't mention the Cavs, to reiterate, is because even though having the King buttressing Allen + Mobley would be ideal, I'm still having a hard time envisioning him and the Beard(?) playing together.

TORONTO RAPTORS

Toronto is a team which, even though they lost in the First Round, it was apparent that Cleveland wasn't necessarily better squad, and the Raptors are only one player away from being contenders.  Ideally that player would be a big, someone who could potentially play the 5 instead of Barnes, now that the NBA is embracing tallness again.

Quality, traditional-like bigs, as I foresaw years ago, are now in high demand but short supply.  So the next best thing, if you want a 4 who can play elite defense (keeping Scottie at the 5), would be to bring in Kawhi.  We were almost there, and shoutout to Steve Ballmer, who's always one step ahead in the game. Like you see how he tried to get Leonard out of there quick.

And after Kawhi, the next best available option may be Lebron.  He may not be an elite defender anymore.  But the thing about the King, besides being a giant, is that he also has a presence.

There's not many players, including some superstars, you can say that about.  LBJ may fall asleep, like a grandpa on his rocking chair, sometimes.  But when he's really vested, he always makes an impact.  James just getting a steal or dunking these days makes the crowd go crazy, even if he's away.  And all of that said, imagine if the Raptors somehow managed to get him and Kawhi(?).  Yet another reason for the King to sit back and wait.

HONORABLE MENTION: GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS

I haven't really been pushing the idea of James going to Golden State, but I'm not hating either.  If that's where he really wants to go, to finally compete in the NBA besides Curry, then the implication would be that even when they lose, you know, he won't really be vexed, since that's something they both want to do (and both have already won numerous championships).  And the only reason I remembered the Dubs is because just yesterday, Steph made some comment about wanting Lebron to come over.

The King would really have to want to be there also because, even though their roster doesn't suck, like dudes are old AF.  And this isn't even about the league trending young or anything like that.  It's about, oh shit, Butler and Porzingis?  The way Golden State's roster is designed, if they lose Jimmy again, that would be more or less akin to the Sixers losing Embiid.

It's really sad when you think about, how with some players, you can't really enjoy watching them for fear injury.  Players like Draymond, Butler and even Porzingis would help mitigate Lebron's defensive deficiencies.  But besides Green, long-term injury is more or less inevitable.

So on nights when, say, neither Jimmy or Kristaps can play, or the latter is playing but a nonfactor due to his plethora of ailments, how would this team look?  Imagine Lebron + Steph + Draymond, sans Jimmy (not to mention they recently lost Looney and Post), against a team like OKC or SA?  Like I don't even wanna see no shit like that, and they better re-sign Payton Jr.

The best way for a superstar to age is like Kareem, surrounded by younger stars, on a team that can win without always demanding too much out of him.  Lebron has been an allstar forever and probably will be this coming season also.  But still, at this point you don't want to force the onus on him.

CONCLUSION

King James is one of the few players in the NBA who could literally help any team on the court, due to his variety of styles.  And what he now lacks in defense, he makes up for in offense and ticket sales.

But that doesn't mean every team actually wants him.  It ain't like dude is some humble G-Leaguer trying to make it big.  He's the best player ever.

So yeah, it's understandable, since he's dealing with a shortlist instead of picking one specific squad and since he's willing to play for relatively nothing, that Lebron waits to see what his preferred destinations can put together without him.  None, as it currently stands, are definitively champions.  And none, as it currently stands, would have all of their shortcomings solved simply by bringing in the King.

Trade Talk: Brown vs. George + Draft Picks

I'm writing this post while neglecting other trades that recently occurred, because I'm tired of people making it sound like trading Brown for George + a couple of prime picks is like some historically bad deal.  In fact all things considered, outside of Boston now having to pay Paul's contract, this actually looks like a good trade.

WHAT WENT WRONG IN BOSTON?

Of course I don't know what exactly went wrong with the Celtics, but based on what I've observed, I can speculate.  As far as this past season goes, it all started with the team overachieving and looking more or less like contenders, even without Jayson Tatum.

Now I don't really want to get too deep here.  But there can be confusion - for lack of better word - if a successful team is able to achieve even without its franchise player.  We've seen it happen before, with the 1990s' Bulls for instance.

So the season is winding down, and Boston is like what, the second seed?  This is despite virtually no one, when it all began, expecting them to be competitive without Jayson.  So why rush him back once he did become (briefly) playable?

This is something I recently wrote about, and it's not an easy fix, because no one can see the future.  For instance, a couple of months ago I was arguing that Cunningham should just take the rest of the (post)season off instead of coming back immediately after suffering a "collapsed lung"(!).  But he came back anyway and proved instrumental in the Pistons at least not being totally embarrassed in the playoffs.

Tatum came back, and I remember he had one really heroic game against the 76ers in the postseason.  People were actually predicting, when he returned, that the Celtics would make the Finals.  That foretelling didn't age well at all.

So what I'm imagining, when Boston did get eliminated, is Brown, who had like his best regular season ever, was like 'did they really have to bring him back so soon?'  You know, dude coming into the lineup - starting even - and then getting re-injured at the time it matters most.  Is that actually good for the on-court chemistry of a team that was overachieving without him?  Considering that they had a better regular season record than Philly, is it possible that could have beat them without the distraction of Tatum's unpredictable health?

To be totally honest no, I don't think the Celtics would have beaten the Sixers, and the series might have been even worse for them without Tatum.  But I'm trying to make a point.

JAYLEN BROWN VS. COLORISM

Also, as I've been noting for years, Brown is a regular victim of colorism.  Dude is unapologetically Black yet plays for the only team in the NBA with a White male mascot.

The Celtics are an 'Irish' organization, and their most-popular iteration of the modern era was with a core of White players.  So who do you think is going to get more love, not only from Boston but the NBA at large - Jaylen Brown, or yellow-ass Jayson Tatum?

So you see, this isn't a Jordan vs. Pippen kinda of comparison.  As for Scottie, yes, I believe he'll never be truly recognized for how great he was.  He was more versatile than Michael, and he almost led the Bulls to the Finals - if not for a controversial call in favor of the Knicks - without Jordan.  But you'll never ever - ever, ever, ever - hear anyone argue that Pippen was actually a better player.

The same is not the case with Brown vs. Tatum.  I've been saying for years that they're just as good or, if anything, Jaylen is better, if even only slightly.  He may not be as marketable or popular, but he isn't an inferior player, even if Tatum gets more love.

So what all these people who're criticizing the trade are saying under their breaths is something like 'wow, these guys actually traded away their best player'.  And the further implication is that if anyone were to be swapped in a major trade, it should have been Jayson instead.

PAUL GEORGE ≠ BUM

Paul George may be overpaid AF, but he isn't a bum.  Under his current contract, PG13 is making $50+mil/year(!).  He signed that deal as recently as 2024, not way back in the day, when he was considered a potential MVP.

As of the mid-2020s, we're now later in George's career, whereas has never led a team to the Finals and is regularly injured, to the point of him being out is disappointing but not unexpected.  So why give him so much money?  Remember that the Clippers, aka Steve Ballmer, also gave dude like $200mil back in 2020.  And I'll just leave it at that.

This past postseason, Paul managed to suit up for all Philly's postseason games and averaged an admirable 16p.  He may not be the PG13 of old, but he can still score prolifically, as displayed in a couple of those playoff contests.  He's still a threat that opposing defenses have to acknowledge or, you know, ignore at your own risk.

AND DON'T FORGET THE DRAFT PICKS

Also the Celtics got what, two first-rounders and two second-rounders out of the deal?  So they traded one future HOFer for another, albeit the latter aged.  On top of that, they got draft picks which, to my understanding, are unprotected.  So Brad Stevens and co. gave up a disgruntled two-way star for a palatable one-way star and got some strong future security in the process.

When trading a superstar, there's really only two options.  You can swap him straight-up for another superstar.  Brown for Giannis may have been fair and square.  But TF wants to go to the Bucks, an organization not only in the boondocks but also one that doesn't look like it's going to win anything soon?

Or you can trade him for a lesser player(s) or/and some picks.  PG13 is still an offensive A-lister.  Meanwhile, Tatum, White, etc. are around, and Boston also acquired Mitchell Robinson, i.e. teammates who can help mitigate George's defensive deficiencies.   Is that really a bad trade?

Brown + Tatum have been together what, eight seasons, but only produced one championship.  So yes, it's possible that maybe now, all things considered, having both of them around is overkill.  We need to finally prove who's the superior player.

And that's the best part about it, imo.  Now we're finally going to see Brown vs. Tatum, head-to-head, in meaningful, competitive games - not some Lebron Era allstar BS - while both are still more or less in their prime and on teams with championship aspirations, not aged and symbolic, like Jordan was when he competed against Pippen later down the line.

CONCLUSION

After all this time, Jaylen Brown needed to go to a 'Black' team.  He won Finals MVP a couple of seasons ago and also just made a strong case for regular-season MVP, on a team that no one expected to do shit.  But as you can see, Tatum is still Boston's favorite, so apparently there's nothing Jaylen can do to change that.

It may all sound petty, you know, when dudes are getting paid gazillions of dollars.  But we're all still human, i.e. emotional beings, nonetheless.