LeBron James may indeed keep his promise to finish his career in Cleveland but if that is the case he will be taking at least a three year detour to the West Coast; James ended months of speculation by signing a three year deal (with a player option for a fourth year) with the L.A. Lakers. The Lakers had long been considered one of James' top prospective destinations--if not the top one--so the move itself is not surprising but what is a bit surprising is that James made a commitment of at least three years, the kind of commitment that he refused to make during his second tenure with the Cavaliers.
By refusing to ever fully commit to the Cavaliers, James limited the franchise's ability to build the best possible roster around him. Despite that, Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert assembled the highest paid team in NBA history, so James can never honestly say that the Cavaliers franchise failed him in any way, nor can James blame the franchise for not surrounding him with enough talent to win championships; Gilbert gave James the coach, the players and the support staff that James wanted.
James kept his promise to bring a championship to Cleveland and he led the Cavaliers to four straight NBA Finals appearances--but the way that James conducted his business hindered the Cavaliers from possibly being even more successful (no star was going to sign with Cleveland unless James fully committed, and indeed Kyrie Irving wanted out in no small part because he sensed that James would leave). James' second run in Cleveland was successful overall but it could have been more successful and it also could have been done in a way that did not relegate the Cavaliers to luxury tax purgatory for an extended time with little roster flexibility.
No reasonable person questions James' right to choose where to work after he became a free agent but it would have been nice to see James commit to his home town, finish his career in Cleveland and truly partner with the franchise to help the Cavaliers be a contender for the next several years as opposed to running to what James presumes to be greener and/or glitzier pastures.
Focusing on the future, are the Lakers contenders now? The Lakers went 35-57 last year. Historically, an MVP caliber player is typically worth at least 20 regular season victories, so it is reasonable to expect the Lakers to win at least 55 games next season. In most seasons, a 55 win team would be considered to be at least a borderline championship contender but that is not necessarily the reality in today's NBA. The Golden State Warriors have just won three titles in four years--each title coming at the expense of James' Cavaliers--and the Lakers are not better than the Warriors, nor is it likely that the Lakers can realistically do anything in the short term to seriously challenge the Warriors. The Lakers are also not better than the Houston Rockets. It is questionable whether the Lakers are better than the Utah Jazz. If the Spurs keep Kawhi Leonard and Leonard is healthy, the Lakers are probably not better than the San Antonio Spurs. The Oklahoma City Thunder are a flawed team that lacks depth but before Andre Roberson went down with an injury last season their starting lineup was one of the most effective in the league and the Thunder would at least be competitive with the Lakers as the Lakers are currently constituted. The Lakers may be better than every team in the Eastern Conference except the Boston Celtics.
The reality is that--despite the current media propensity of first takes and hot takes and all kinds of other "takes" that lack perspective, context or any kind of informed viewpoint--it is not possible to accurately assess the Lakers' chances until (1) we know what the rosters of the other teams will look like on opening day and (2) we know what the Lakers roster will look like. It is an understatement to say that LeBron James and Isaiah Thomas did not mesh well during their brief time together in Cleveland last season, so Thomas--who the Cavaliers dealt to the Lakers just a few months ago--will almost certainly leave L.A. The rest of the Lakers' roster consists mainly of young players who have yet to establish themselves as consistent regular season performers, much less as proven playoff performers. The Lakers ranked second in rebounding, seventh in assists and 11th in scoring last season but they were just 25th in points allowed, though they did finish a solid 10th in defensive field goal percentage.
Right now, assuming that Thomas leaves the Lakers have no other recent All-Stars--or stars of any kind, for that matter--to pair with James. Considering that James went to ready-made teams with at least two All-Stars during both of his previous free agency decisions, it makes sense to speculate that James knows or is reasonably certain that at least one other top level player is about to join him in L.A. Such a move would obviously improve the Lakers' prospects this season.
Even if that scenario does not pan out, James' willingness to commit for three years will enable the Lakers to patiently assemble a complementary roster around him, a luxury that James never provided to the home town team that he supposedly loves so much.
One other factor to consider is Father Time. The cliche states, "Father Time is undefeated" and--even though the 33 year old, 15 season veteran James had arguably his finest individual campaign last year--James will not forever be immune to the effects of Father Time. Even the greatest players tend to slow down--sometimes fairly immediately and drastically--after the age of 33 and/or past their 15th season. James' longer than usual contract give the Lakers time to build a team around him but if that process takes two or three years what kind of player will James be by that time?
The breathless question that will be debated non-stop for not just the next three or four years but for decades is, "How does this affect LeBron James' legacy?" Shaquille O'Neal, repeating something that was said to him during the latter stages of his career, recently noted that James' book is already written for the most part; James can add some pages but it is unlikely that he can rewrite the main story. That story is that James is one of the greatest players ever, a premier scorer who is also a gifted passer and a versatile defender (when so inclined). James has won three championships but he has also lost in the NBA Finals six times and he has demonstrably quit in more than one playoff series. The highs have been tremendous but the lows are significant enough that I could never rank James ahead of Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant, his two most recent predecessors as the best wing player in the game. If James leads the Lakers to a championship that would be impressive, but it would still leave him one ring behind Bryant and two rings behind Jordan--and those players do not have some of the skill set and mentality drawbacks/deficiencies that James has shown during his career.
One thing that is almost certain is that James' personal streak of eight straight NBA Finals appearances will not be extended to nine. If James never leads the Lakers to the NBA Finals, some of his critics may bring up the point that James spent most of his career feasting on a relatively weak Eastern Conference and that he may have had much less team success had he played in the West for most of his career. James can shoot down that theory to some extent by leading the Lakers to the NBA Finals at some point during his tenure in L.A. but even if he does not do so his supporters could argue that he did not arrive out West until he was past his prime.
This next--and likely final--chapter of James' NBA career will no doubt be fascinating to watch. I have often said that James perplexes me in ways that no other great player ever has and that will probably continue to be the case as he adds the final words to his storybook rise from high school phenom to all-time great.
LeBron James Spurns Cavaliers to Sign With Lakers
