Roundball Roundtable: Does LeBron Need to Leave Cleveland?

Over the weekend, none other than Magic Johnson made the case for Cavaliers/Planet Earth superstar LeBron James to cut the Cleveland cord this summer and make haste for Madison Square Garden. LeBron 2010 discourse has almost reached broken record status, but Earvin actually added a nice wrinkle: can LeBron ever become an icon in Ohio?

FanHouse's NBA team weighed Magic's arguments.

Will Brinson: This makes me hate Magic. What a frontrunner.

Brett Pollakoff: I've never been a fan of Magic (remember, I grew up hating those '80s Lakers teams), so I can't believe I'm about to defend him. But honestly, he's right.

Like it or not, teams like the Lakers and Yankees are iconic, so it's true: being a part of continuing the tradition (as Magic was winning those five titles in L.A.) is going to put you in a more "legendary" historical context.

Now, to a certain extent, players like LeBron and A-Rod are obviously going to be remembered regardless. If LeBron stays in Cleveland and wins multiple titles (or even if he just stays and continues to, you know, be the best player in basketball) his Hall-of-Fame status will be guaranteed -- and in fact, it probably already is. But for him to be a transcendent sports figure, or a "global icon" who is recognized by people who don't give a crap about basketball, being a part of a major market or a team with decades of winning behind it will only make that easier.

Besides, Magic is just speaking from personal experience: the guy was a Laker, and has stuck around in a part-ownership role to see the team continue to win after he was gone. This doesn't make him a jerk; it's just his perspective.

Matt Moore: I agree with Brett.

Nate Jones: Magic is just keeping it real.

Remember, Magic wasn't always this way. He was going to play out a 25-year, $25 million contract with the Lakers before some of the front row fans got to him and told him he needed to negotiate a new deal. The same fans then started teaching him about business and inviting him to invest in their properties. More than anything, I think Magic is speaking as a businessman that once thought like a player.

And you know this advice was from the heart, because if it were about his own interests he'd tell him he should sign with the Lakers for the mid-level for three years and then max out.

Ziller: I don't disagree necessarily -- Magic is probably right. But it's a depressing thought in that there will never be other iconic teams if the iconic players keep flocking to the extant iconic teams in order to ensure their future iconic status.

If LeBron spends 15 years in Cleveland, wins 3-4 titles ... how long until Cleveland is a marquee franchise? Can it never happen?

I think there's something else to be said about new markets, i.e. the Bulls in Europe (and North Korea!) due to MJ, Rockets in China due to Yao. At what point does the fact that no one outside of the United States gives two craps about the Knicks factor in?

Jones: NYC is still an international hub. The reason no one outside of NYC cares about the Knicks is because they have been a terrible, terrible franchise. But if you were to combine a once-in-a-generation player, with championships in Cleveland vs. the same thing in NYC, I think that player/franchise would be bigger globally in NYC. How many people around the world have ties to NYC vs. Cleveland?

I'm as big of a small market advocate as there is, but LeBron would be bigger than Kobe right now if he played in a major market.

Ziller: So which cities qualify by those standards? Just New York, L.A. and Chicago?

Bruce [Ciskie] makes a good point privately: while he's not transcendent the way Kobe and LeBron are, Tim Duncan never had any of this outside pressure to go to a bigger, more financially stable market. Why? Because he won in San Antonio. If LeBron wins (and had won) one, does all this disappear?

The last major star I can think of who won a title in a small market and then fled for a bigger market is ... Kareem. More than three decades ago.

Jones: Kareem was also already big from UCLA. And Duncan is not big. He's a blip on the global marketing radar. Great, great player though.

Brinson: I'll repeat what I've said before: what "tradition" do the Knicks have? Outside of Willis Reed and Clyde Frazier and never beating Jordan?

Jon Weinbach: Don't knock the Richie Guerin era or the King/Grunfeld/Orr/Sparrow/Walker/Cartwright/Hubie glory years of early cable.

Jones: Knicks have no tradition. But the Cavs don't either (other than MJ ripping their hearts out). The Knicks do have a city that houses eight million people, an advertising, financial and media hub and a population that is truly representative of the world that we live in (people from everywhere).

Brinson: Well, of course NYC is *bigger* than Cleveland (and almost assuredly better sans proximity to Cincy and spaghetti covered in chili) but should LeBron be more inclined to bringing tradition back to the biggest city in the world or cementing his legacy in his home state?

Ciskie: Since Ziller quoted me (pretty much), I don't have to say a lot. Nor am I an NBA writer, but I really think the answer to all of this is how an athlete perceives him or herself. If LeBron wants a worldwide legacy of greatness, he is not likely to attain that by coming JUST SHORT of titles in Cleveland. Now, if he plays the same way on 30-52 Knick teams for seven years, I'm not convinced he carves out that legacy there, either.

No matter where he goes, he isn't known as a transcendent figure in his sport without at least a couple titles.

However, the NBA isn't the same now as it was in 1985. Pretty much every game is televised live. People are streaming games of their favorite team if they can't get them on TV. There is instant coverage of every notable event that happens, no matter what market it happens in.

Yes, everything is bigger in New York. But bigger isn't always better.

If LeBron's ultimate goal is to win, there isn't an argument alive that he is better off in New York than he is in Cleveland. Hell, that guy could play in Milwaukee (remember, Rob, I'm a 'Sconny, too, so no need to be insulted!) and still draw huge crowds, huge marketing dollars, and huge TV ratings.

It's the same reason I argued that there was no way the NHL "rigged" the draft lottery after the '04-'05 lockout so Crosby would end up in Pittsburgh. That franchise was dead. Gone. Practically buried. There was no need for the league to take a chance on saving it, because even Mario Lemieux couldn't save it. If they were worried about marketing and stuff like that, the Rangers, Islanders, Bruins, Blackhawks (who were WRETCHED at the time and really needed a shot in the arm), Maple Leafs or even Kings would have won a rigged lottery over Pittsburgh. After all, Gary Bettman is a snake, not a complete idiot.

Rob Peterson: Nate Robinson and David Lee were in the top 15 in jersey sales last year because they played for the Knicks. LeBron in NYC would be gigantic.

As for a guy winning a championship and then bolting for a bigger stage in the time since Kareem was traded in 1975, I can't think of any mainly because San Antonio is the only "small market" team to have won. With the exception of the late 70s, when the NBA Finals were on tape delay, only large market teams have won.

Since 1980, it's been this: Lakers, Boston, Lakers, Phil, Boston, Lakers, Boston, Lakers, Lakers, Detroit, Detroit, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Houston, Houston, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, San Antonio, Lakers, Lakers, Lakers, San Antonio, Detroit, San Antonio, Miami, San Antonio, Boston, Lakers

That's Boston (four), Philly (once), LA Lakers (nine), Detroit (three), Chicago (six), Houston (two), San Antonio (four) and Miami (one). I guess San Antonio would be considered the smallest market but, San Antonio has 1.3 million residents, or 900K fewer than Houston or is twice the size of Milwaukee. I know they do it by television households, but San Antonio is a big city.

Living in NYC, I'm biased. Though a Bucks fan to my core, I selfishly want LBJ to come to NYC. It would be good for the league (the Knicks aren't as much a marquee franchise as they are a team that plays in a marquee arena with starving fans), and frankly, I'm selfish about it. I think it would be good for FanHouse. We could have someone trail LeBron all year long, file blogs, take video and then write a book about his first year in New York. That would be sweet. Not that I'm lobbying for that gig, cough, or anything. Cough, cough.

AS for the Clippers would work too, but you know what would happen in his first game. That's right, LeBron would blowout his PCL, MCL, ACL and ACLU.

Moore: It was really interesting to watch the conversation unfold.



Will's argument seemed that staying in Cleveland and taking them to their first championship and making hem into a dynasty potentially would make his legend larger. Tim Duncan was also brought up as an example. But I think Nate's right that Duncan's not as big in terms of global identity and market size has a lot to do with that.

What would I rather have happen, being from the small-market defense team? (GO TEAM NO ONE CARES ABOUT US!) For him to stay in Cleveland, lead them to championship upon championship and end their suffering, while putting Cleveland on the map while the larger markets stew in their own overpriced juices. And that could happen. But if his goal is to be a global icon, the biggest he can be, then that's not what he should do.

Staying in Cleveland makes him a hero. A hero to millions, someone that will be talked about differently from others, even beyond his immeasurable skill. It means that he did something truly special in taking a team that had no history of victory and brought it to them. But being a hero is different from being an icon. One is based on the public's need to attach some level of moral character or value to an athlete's contribution beyond the actual on-the-floor numbers and facts, because the casual person likes a good story.

The other is a business move, which needs resources. You can run the best damn paper mill in Central Arkansas and be a hero to those people, but if you want to be known throughout the country, you need to move your offices somewhere bigger and diversify your investments.

Going into New York (or LA or Chicago), he is faced with history, in being yet another in a long line. But that's only if he's not truly great, which he is.

For example, one of the biggest reasons I'm personally disappointed when LA wins the championship, like they will in June, is that to their fans, it's just another championship. There's no way for it to be as special to them as it would to anyone else. But Kobe has been so amazing, so transcendent, he's staked his claim as arguably the second best player of all time, and the second best small guard in league history, ever. Sure, Pau Gasol's going to be a footnote to Kareem and the rest of those guys will fade into history as 'one of the Lakers,' but Kobe will endure. And he'll endure in a way that he couldn't if he were from another team, in a way Tim Duncan won't, as unfortunate as it is.

Take this Celtics team. They're great, an amazing collection of stars that have put egos aside and are playing together. But are they going to be spoken of above the 80's teams? No, they're just another chapter. There's not a guy on there that transcends. LeBron transcends, he can cross over into popular culture.

I was just goofing around on HP when I found a movies-in-frames post about Space Jam. And I asked if there was anyone that could possibly do that now? And isn't the answer LeBron? He's got the personality, which Kobe doesn't have, he's got the identity, which no one else has, he's got the star power. And playing for a market of that size brings him further into the global consciousness.

We're at a point where being popular is more powerful than being a sports-hero. And from all indications, LeBron wants to build an empire, not a village.