The King Is Dead

[This originated as a response to Scoop Jackson's column (here) defending LeBron James' decision and handling of his flight to Miami.]

In the wake of LeBron James' decision to choose to play in Miami and pair with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, many have made the argument that the competitive spirit of Michael Jordan, to whom many considered James heir apparent, would never have allowed him to ally with a rival such as Wade. Jackson argues that because Jordan and James occupy distinct eras in the history of basketball and free agency, it is wrong to assume that Jordan would not have done what James did. He further speculates that, had he had the opportunity, Jordan may well have done what James did. Such an argument has several flaws in logic. If one argues that the reason James' and Jordan's situations are fundamentally distinct (and incomparable) is because each occupied a distinct era, then speculation as to what Jordan might have done in an anachronistic time is irrelevant. We know that Jordan elected to spend most of his career and his entire prime with the Chicago Bulls, despite some personal differences with the organization's leadership. Perhaps this was influenced by the limitations of his era; perhaps not. We also know what LeBron did, which was to lure four franchises and cities, including his hometown Cavs, into thinking that they had a chance to sign him, smokescreen the public while building suspense to a fever pitch, and then opt for the route of least possible resistance toward a championship.

I think this is what fundamentally troubles people most about LeBron's decision: that he chose the most comfortable path to Glory. After seven years of carrying himself like a King and barking big, we found out that he is, in fact, most merry sharing power and that he is not an Alpha Dog after all. These revelations come as disappointments to those hoping James would take up Jordan's winning mantle, not just his advertising contracts and charisma. In sports, it remains the collective belief that the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude does not hold for those who wish to be true champions. James' diaspora to Miami constitutes a tacit confession that he is not as cutthroat competitive as Jordan was, or we would have him be.

Jackson also casually glosses over the fact that LeBron stabbed Cleveland in the back—with unprecedented brutality, in fact—as if that fact did not bear on public opinion. To ignore that is to ignore the facet that makes this situation complicated and unique. James had said all along that his goal was to bring a championship to Cleveland. Yet, he bailed at the most convenient and comfortable opportunity for a championship and opted not only not to honor his commitment to his hometown, but not to challenge himself by competing against the rest of the cream of the crop. He left a local fan base that felt as if it had played a role in his development by virtue of always supporting him, and he did so on national television without any advance notice and from a distant and neutral location.

This was decidedly un-king-like behavior. Instead, it is behavior that justifies anger on the part of his fans. A true basketball king should win championships by building a kingdom around himself, not absconding. James' decision to switch from jersey #23 to #6 further ruptures the comparison between Jordan and James. Jordan had to be the one on top of the mountain; LeBron seems most content to hike with company.