LeBron's decision: What it is "about"

Photo by Keith Allison

Narratives have many elements to them.  One of these elements is that there is something they are “about,” something that partly motivates what is decisive in them and something that is decided by their ending up the way they end up.

The decision of LeBron James in his free agency is an amazing narrative.  It takes many forms. And what is most amazing are just how different each of these stories are, when you ask the simple question of what they are about.

Here are some of the distinct themes that we can find in all the talk surrounding this momentous event.  (I have of course eliminated the stupid ones: LeBron does this for revenge because Wade took his smoothie one day and whatnot):

This is about the Heat being cheap last year when they didn’t need to be, while LeBron himself is taking a paycut.  This is about not re-signing Mike Miller.  LeBron isn’t making this decision out of resentment, of course.  Not at all.  It is a calculated, savvy move by a businessman.  But—so goes the story—this is also an occasion to address grievances.  And the biggest one has to do with the nature of how underpaid the players are, while how wealthy owners and teams are.  LeBron increased the worth of the Heat by 30%, according to some estimates, when took his talents to South Beach.  How much has the Heat increased the skill and worth of LeBron James?  LeBron himself may have endorsed this theme--which was floating around right after the Spurs beat them in the Finals--when he said he would give Pat Riley a window of time to make some changes with the roster.  So far, it isn't clear that those changes have been as extensive or--and this is crucial--as expensive as they should have been.

This is about how LeBron isn’t happy about how he is being used, and about Wade getting all the attention of trainers and only playing a little over 50 games this year.  In the larger sense, it’s about Wade essentially using LeBron to extend his career.  LeBron gave Wade four more years of championship basketball when, if Wade had had to do everything himself, he’d probably have been as beat up as he was this year a while ago. 

This is about the Dan Gilbert’s petulant, infantile letter.  At least that is what J.A. Anande wrote about recently, and Stephen A. Smith keeps coming back to, again and again.  It is about overcoming the insults, and, in general, the collective resentment of the city of Cleveland that the letter encapsulated.  Resentment that was not at all justified, because LeBron is the only reason Cleveland got to be relevant in the league in the first place.  And especially because Gilbert so horribly mismanaged the team that he effectively forced LeBron to choose between getting a championship and staying in Cleveland.  In fact, perhaps resentment isn’t the right word.  Resentment is a feeling to which players in small markets are accustomed.  This was more like righteous indignation, near fanaticism, by an entitled franchise and—in some cases—entitled fans.

It’s about LeBron’s future as an owner and a player in the marketing business.  This is what Tony Rizzo suggested on ESPN Cleveland radio.  Cleveland is a good market now.  Johnny Football is there.  Possibly he can work something out with Dan Gilbert so that he can have a stake in the team. There is no possibility of that at the Heat, and so moving to the Cavs and into a smaller market will allow James some more room for future business moves.  This is a story about calculated financial risk.

Along similar lines: this is not about LeBron at all, but about his agent—or at least this is what Bill Simmons, inspired by Adrian Wojnarowski, is speculating.  LeBron’s agent, Rich Paul, has been pushed to the fore of this story hugely.  LeBron is a partner with Paul.  What is good for his agent is good for him.  All of this has largely been smoke and mirrors—LeBron will come back to Miami, and he has been toying with the hearts of Cleveland to try and get a little more publicity for Paul.

It’s about his friends and family, and what is best for his kids.  This, at least, is Brian Windhorst’s take.  It encapsulates practical, everyday concerns--the things hinted at in the bizarre rumors that LeBron’s kids were enrolled in schools in Ohio and his keeping his house there--but it is also a narrative about ethics, of sorts, a story about climate and culture.  Windhorst has stressed that Miami has been a nice place for LeBron’s kids to grow up and for his friends to do business, but perhaps that appears different, now that those kids are growing up and .  Miami isn’t the most family-values-friendly place in the world.  Nor is it as close to New York and other large media centers as Cleveland is.  Simple physical location and amenities shouldn’t quite matter to James, his friends, and his family, as he can go anywhere and do anything.  It was to Bosh that these sorts of considerations were important.   But if they did matter, this might be what this decision is about.  Now that a certain amount of business was accomplished in Miami, it might be a good time for him to simply relocate.

It’s about showing who has power in the league: not owners, but players.  Paul Shirley and Justin Halpern in their wonderful little Short Corner podcast, together with the Sklar Brothers, made the excellent point that perhaps no one, ever, in any sport, has basically ground the entire league to a halt the way LeBron has.  No one decision has ever been that decisive in the history of sports.  To flex some of this muscle is necessary, in a summer where it is clear how lucrative it is to own an NBA franchise, and how many abuses you can get away with in such a position of power—as was made clear by Donald Sterling.  Pat Riley has a lot of power and the network of influence runs deep.  But to show that it can’t ultimately make decisions for players, cannot coerce, is healthy for the league and the players, especially with negotiations about the next CBA coming up.

Then there is the claim that is one of the most intriguing, because in a way it is the most simple: this is a story that is—still—about championships.  LeBron is leaving for basketball reasons.  Cleveland was so utterly, unbelievably dysfunctional for the years that LeBron was there, that it was hard to think that the team could ever be a real contender.  The team was so bad that even the greatest player in the world couldn’t do anything with it.  But times change.  Miami isn’t exactly falling apart, but its long term prospects no longer look any better than that of Cleveland.  It would also be a change that allowed LeBron to develop: much has been made about his never playing with a dominant point guard, and how in a certain sense he might conflict with Kyrie Irving if he goes to the Cavs.  But LeBron is interested—like all players—in the evolution of his game.  He is flexible.  And having a dominant ball-handler would actually take some of the pressure off of James: we all saw what happens when the Heat stick to their point guards.  One of the reasons those last games against the Spurs were so horrible to watch, was because James was forced to run the offense for the team.  This gave him no flexibility to create shots, and thus to do damage.  It simply couldn’t work.  That sort of problem would be eliminated on the Cavaliers—or at least on any team besides the Heat right now.

This is, yet again, a story about Jordan, taken narrowly, and, in a wider sense, about is redefining the nature of success in the NBA and sports generally. While Jordan was committed to Chicago, and always played there, wasn’t from that place.  Here, LeBron actually has an advantage over him.  LBJ has the chance to actually lead the team where he grew up to a championship, and to do so repeatedly.  He may not even win as many championships as Jordan did, but to win several for your home—that would be incredible.  It would perhaps not be the most successful career in pure basketball terms, but it may be the most impressive, the most amazing.  And in the end, that is what is most memorable.  And to prove that this is what is valuable in competitive contests, that this is what we play sports for, is what he is trying to do.  Lebron is trying, in other words, to bring an age fascinated with mere statistical dominance into an age where it is the resultant collective happiness that basketball produces which determines achievement.

This story—and here is the line of thinking to which I am particularly partial, for what that’s worth—is about rethinking the dynamics of NBA salaries and player worth in general.  The deal that brought LeBron to Miami—which involved sacrificing pay for a supposed chance at a championship, was not really a good deal.  It set a horrible precedent, and brought with it all sorts of implicit expectations that LeBron could not control.  The reason we have contracts, and clear salaries, and don’t rely on promises and perks, is—among other things—because we want to eliminate something of this.  We want to be rational.  When LeBron initially made his sacrifice, he wasn’t as concerned about being rational.  He was concerned—as he always is—with more conservative, intangible values.  Times have changed, he has become a savvier businessman and a more mature person, who now values having things set in stone, clear for all to see.  He may value—ironically, given all the secrecy involving the decision itself—the transparency that comes with making clear deals, rather than the ones he is currently engaged in with Miami.

Finally, there’s of course the meta-story: this is simply about making us wait!  We all complained about the Decision last time, when it was done in a timely—albeit embellished—manner.  It was also done in such a way that it was somewhat clear what LeBron was thinking.  Now, we have no clue.  This is what we get for being so critical, and so impatient!