Ever since the Lakers were first mentioned as a potential candidate, I had a sinking feeling that Dwight Howard would end up in Los Angeles, wearing those ugly purple and gold uniforms. Sometimes you just know, right?
Alas, there he is. He got what he wanted, by acting like a spoiled brat - the poster child for an entitled athlete with delusions of grandeur. He wanted money, and perhaps he wanted more recognition (aka: fame). Now, he has his opportunity.
And the Lakers now have more opportunities at a championship. Not only did they manage to get two-time league MVP Steve Nash, but now they have Dwight Howard, to boot. The Lakers, who had slipped down a notch or two (but no more) since those distant days of 2009 and 2010, now overnight find themselves not only title contenders again, but likely the favorites to win the championship. Perhaps favorite now to have a huge run at the top as a renewed dynasty, for that matter.
It must be what the NBA wanted. What Dave Stern wanted. They must really like the Lakers in particular, because the Lakers get these breaks all of the time. I mean, really, they seem to consistently get every advantage that other teams simply do not get. So, their success comes at the price of the rest of the league. It comes at the price of a fairer dispensation of talent.
Yes, the big market and ever flashy Los Angeles Lakers, who won five championships in the 1980's and the in first decade of 2000, now look like they will make a run at five more in the upcoming decade.
This was a deal involving four team, and there is a long list of players that the Orlando magic will get in compensation for Howard. But these are not marquee names, and the Magic will likely not be contenders again anytime soon. The Sixers and Nuggets were also involved in the deal, but is seems unlikely that the deal will affect them strongly, one way or the other. Nobody in this deal save for one team acquired an obvious impact player, and that would be the Lakers.
Again, the Lakers. I remember the controversy revolving around the trade to acquire Pau Gasol some years back. That was another time when Los Angeles seemed to acquire some incredible, fortune changing talent for very little. Then there was last year, he Lakers had appeared to get Chris Paul, also pretty much for nothing. But that was put to a stop when perhaps the league went through the formality of not appearing to so obviously favor their favored franchise in sunny Los Angeles.
Now, they made it up to their favorite team, in a big way. Steve Nash and Dwight Howard? Really? Who gets that lucky? Only one team ever seems to get that lucky, and can you guess who that might be?
If you picked a certain franchise with the butt ugliest uniforms in the league, and perhaps in sports, that also happen to represent sunny and relatively wealthy southern California, then you guessed right. Hole in one.
Only the Lakers.
Oh, sure, the Miami Heat and Boston Celtics both picked up a pair of tremendously talented players in recent years, and they both made it to two NBA Finals as a result, each winning a series and losing a series. While the Celtics acquisition of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen changed the teams fortunes, they were not getting players on such a status as Nash and Howard. Hell, even when the heat acquired James and Bosh, they only got one truly game changing player. Bosh is a very good player, don't get me wrong. But he could not single-handedly make an otherwise poor team competitive, like Nash and Howard did. Plus, the Lakers already have Kobe, right? You just have to wonder sometimes how a team gets this lucky.
Obviously, the league is trying to cash in with their star-studded favorite sons. They will win NBA Championships (yes, in the plural). Perhaps, years from now, when they start to get too old, there will be another shocking deal - shocking! - like this that brings yet more incredible talent to the Lakers. Some teams just seem to get incredibly lucky, don't they?
So, the Lakers fans, who are perhaps the most arrogant fans in all of North American sports, will be boasting now for a long time, and telling everyone who will listen without running the other way that the stars just want to play for a winner, want to play for the best.
But since the league so obviously seems to want this to, I personally am losing interest. Sports should have some measure of parity and unpredictability. Sure, there could be dynasties, and there are in every sports. In football, you have the Patriots. But they won three Super Bowls in a four year span, and that last one was seven seasons ago. The great Cowboys dynasty of the nineties also won three Super Bowls in four seasons, and that was it. The 49ers on the 80's? Four Super Bowls in nine years, and they added a fifth in the thirteenth. Not exactly on the same level. In hockey, there has not been a dynasty on the same level as the other sports.
There is one team - but only one - that reminds me of the Lakers, and that would be the Yankees in baseball. They also are a flashy team in a very big market, and always seem to get their man, because the price is always right. No one else can really compete. Yet, even the Yankees have won a total of five World Series titles since the 1980's.
The Los Angeles Lakers? Ten since the 1980's. Ten, and still counting. Not because the same talent that won it in 2009 and 2010 are still playing on that level. They are not. But because they get the deals - they always get the deals - that bring the biggest names (except for LeBron, and who really knows what the future holds?) to this team. In turn, these players deliver the goods,the trophy and the championship rings. That is how it has worked now for some time.
The Lakers of the eighties at least were a team, and as a team, they had their ups and downs (mostly ups), and won five titles. But they were largely the same team, winning over and over again. More recently, however, the Lakers always seem to find the breaks. It happened when Shaq and Kobe both (somehow) wound up in Lakers uniforms. It happened when Kobe got Pau Gasol to help him bring more titles. Now, it will surely happen again with Nash and Howard. I actually liked Nash, and thought he brought a strong measure of class to the game. But this made me lose some respect for him, admittedly.
So, I reminisce about another dynasty that I watched rise and fall: the Chicago Bulls of the 1990's At first I did not like them, but eventually, they won me over. They had some personnel changes, too. Nowhere near the level of these Lakers, of course (I think this is actually unprecedented). But they got some breaks. The thing was, the Bulls had two of the greatest players in the league together, and that was the formula that worked. They got a good supporting cast around them, sure. But it was always Jordan and Pippen, and Jackson as coach, and they got the job done. It was largely the same type of team, without it being an arms race of big name acquisitions. Yes, Chicago struggled early on, kept losing to the Detroit Pistons, who were the champions at the time. But the Bulls got better and better, learned how to win, and when they finally did win, you had to feel good for them. Who knew that they would prove to be so capable of hanging on to the extend that they did? They got greedy and won six titles in an eight year span. Jordan earned it, leading all of those championship teams.
Kobe? Well, he certainly got help, although he did not seem to want to admit it. Shaquille O'Neal, at first. Gasol later on. Now, Nash and Howard. Surely, that's just a coincidence, right? The league never seemed as huge as when they had Jordan in the nineties, and he became more than a household name. Now, they are forcing Kobe on us, but it does not seem quite the same. Some of us are not as into basketball in the post-Jordan era, and yes, I am one of them.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game. But there is one aspect that is boring: it's almost always a dynasty that wins the title. The Lakers and the Celtics in the eighties, and the Pistons right at the end. The Bulls in the nineties, with Houston winning a couple in a row in between. The Spurs in 1999, and then three more titles (none in succession, though, strangely enough) in the next decade. The Lakers in the early 2000's, and again in the late 2000's. From 1981 until 2004,when the Pistons broke through (scoring a major upset against the heavy favorites - yup, you guessed it - the Lakers) with one title. Miami won it in 2006, but they managed to win it again in 2012, seemingly on the verge of a potential dynasty. The Celtics managed the one title (again, after scoring a major upset against -can you guess - the Los Angeles Lakers). Then, the Lakers.
The Mavericks won in 2011, but that was a shocker. There have been a few one year title holders, but not that many (and it should be noted, that each of those teams that won only one title made it to the Finals and lost at another point in time in recent years).
Now, it's the Lakers. Once again, as always, the Lakers.
I don't know about you, but I've just about had enough. I'm not awed by this move, not impressed with the Lakers ability to manage to acquire this talent. It seems that they are not only allowed to get strange deals where they get huge names and talents for virtually nothing, but that they are actively assisted by outside forces. That force, I believe, is the NBA itself, pushing a new Michael Jordan, a new dynasty, a new hot and popular brand. A new wave of profits, of ticket sales, of television contracts, and of merchandise. Nothing new about it, just a new approach, focusing on one team to constantly win and win and win.
Maybe the league hopes it will make the league more entertaining, and a hotter draw. But perhaps they went too far, and this will backfire.
And I, for one, am one step closer to losing all interest. Is it really possible that I am the only one? Is everyone interested in basketball somehow supposed to be entertained by seeing the same team that has won 10 championships (more by far than any other team in any of the other major North American sports leagues) win an 11th, or a 12th, and so on, and so forth.
It seems hard to believe that I am alone in finding this less than entertaining. Basketball games will likely not be on my television nearly as much now in the upcoming season. Not being a fan of either the Heat or the Lakers, and actually finding it a bit offensive, this notion of essentially buying a championship, the only very good team I can pull for would be the Thunder, and although impressed by them, I am certainly not going to be a bandwagon fan for the new hot team of the moment (and maybe, after a couple of seasons now near the top, they may be overshadowed by both the Lakers and the Heat).
So, I, for one, am going to tune out. If the NBA Finals winds up being the Lakers and the Heat, I will make a point of not even watching a single game. That's how tired I am of teams buying championships. It's not much in the way of entertainment anymore. Just a rerun of past events, with slightly different names and faces in the same uniforms.
And nobody buys championships like the Lakers. Too bad no one else can afford to keep up.
No comments:
Post a Comment