I can't speak for anyone else, but my contempt for James stems for his refusal to consider a third option: "I want to win championships, but I'd rather win them here in Cleveland. I haven't really done all that I could to try to get another star here to play alongside me, I'll try harder to make that happen, before I consider leaving Cleveland as an option."
To hear him tell it, he did. (First thing that happened is Carlos Boozer stabbed Gordon Gund in the back, but that's neither here nor there.) He tried to get Bosh to Cleveland, and Bosh wasn't having it. The Cavs couldn't get Amare Stoudemire the year before. I can go back and make a list of the players that the Cavs did bring in over the past two or three years, when they knew LeBron was going to opt out in 2010, and you'll be unimpressed. So now, he's finally a free agent, and he can either resign to a team that hasn't done anything worth mentioning in the last three years other than put the ball in his hands, or he can go sign with a team that has the cap space to sign him and two other really good/great players.
I think, for the sake of his image and the way he'll be remembered over time, your option was the best. Obviously, right? Bill Simmons broke it down by saying we all wanted LeBron to make a run at being the GOAT, and now, no matter what happens in Miami, he'll never be the GOAT, because Jordan would have never left to go team up with Patrick Ewing and Isiah Thomas. So people are upset that we've been robbed of a legitimate shot at all-time greatness. I get that. I agree, to an extent. But still, he wanted to win, and he's getting killed because of it.
You may notice that I don't have any ill feelings towards Dywane Wade. Why not? Because he did what he was "supposed" to do: get star players to come play with him. If James had done what he was "supposed" to do (according to me, I'll unapolgetically admit), it would have happened the other way around.
Not that your opinion is without merit, but I don't see what the difference is, at the end of the day. The only reason Wade didn't leave Miami is because LeBron (and Bosh) agreed to come play there. Not because of loyalty to Miami. He was on his way to Chicago. They wanted to play together, and Miami is better than Cleveland (to them), so that's where they went. It's not really the major consideration to me.
AFAIC, asked and answered.
Fair enough.
WHAT?
LeBron and Bosh left Cleveland and Toronto. After the fact, they worked out sign and trades, which benefited Cleveland and Toronto. Those deals were not in place when they decided to leave. They could have signed outright, with less of a cap hit, less money, fewer years on the contracts, and it would have been better for Miami. Their old teams got involved only to receive draft picks in return. Otherwise, they get nothing.
Well, as the B.C. posts remain unrecoverable, I suppose that you'll have to take my word for it that I was against that trade, too.
On the basis of a sign and trade? If it was on the basis of not wanting to pay Brad Miller $70 million, that's a horse of a different color. I don't remember, but like you say, I'll have to take your word for it, if you're saying you were opposed to a sign and trade on principle.
That's fine, in the ideal, but it doesn't seem to me that it always works out in practice: Milwaukee built a literal championship team around Lew Alcindor, before he forced his way out of town, and they have since had what has essentially been forty years of irrelevancy. Was that their reward? What was Orlando's reward when O'Neal walked? What will their reward be when Howard walks?
Alcindor forced his way out of town. That's not what I'm talking about.
Shaq got Orlando to the Finals. I would argue that has something to do with Grant Hill and Tracy McGrady signing there as free agents (that and a lot of zeros). It certainly has something to do with them being able to pay those contracts.
As far as the free agency question is concerned, While I have mostly tried to keep quiet in this particular thread topic, I think that my past history will show that, if I ruled the world, I would completely eliminate free agency. To the extent that I would allow it, it would be completely restricted. I think that, if the home team is capable and willing to match any contract offer, they should always be allowed to. It's one think if Tyreke Evans leaves Sacramento to go to Philadelphia because he wants the max, and Sacramento is only offering ninety percent of the max; it's quite another if Sacramento is offering the max, and he leaves to go elsewhere for the same amount of money.
You have established the opinion that, all things being equal, in a dispute between labor and management. the benefit of the doubt should always go to labor, and it would be fair to say that I don't particularly agree with that.
And we're on different sides of the table there. I don't like the idea of taking free agency away, or severely restricting it.
My bad; didn't know we weren't allowed to be partisan...
Someone else started the partisan issue. I said I wouldn't call it partisan.