The facts, storylines, and subplots of Shaq to Cleveland

Wow.

A blockbuster trade sending Shaquille O'Neal to Cleveland is being finalized. This is just too ticklish. There are so many story lines and subplots and egos and things to prove and legacies and careers hanging in the balance that it would take an entire book to hash them all out.

But I'm going to try and cover some of this filled story.

First of all I don't think this trade carries as much value for Cleveland as it does in star power.

Shaq changes the way the Cleveland offense is going to work. Remember, this offense won 66 games last year, so this is a risk they are taking. Shaq clogs up the middle in ways that LeBron has never had to deal with, and will slow down the offense in a big way. He also doesn't bring the outside shooting and spacing that Z brought at center.

He does bring good things on offense as well, like someone the Cavs can run it through other than LeBron, an offensive rebounding presence, and a markedly missing low-post option. LeBron doesn't have a good post game yet, and their best option last year against the Magic in the playoffs was Delonte West.

Butttt, Shaq is 37 years old. He is entering a contract year, but he has been carrying around a huge amount of weight for a lot of NBA years. He is known to have a lax work ethic and only plays well when motivated. The good thing here is that he might have enough motivation to be effective, but at this point his body may not be able to respond in ways it has in the past.

Shaq is an attention whore, and both him and LeBron are alpha dogs. What happens when two alpha dogs try to co-exist on the same team? Just ask Kobe and Shaq. It was a marriage built by success, and their bond broke apart once the success started fading.

If the Cavs don't do well, or don't do as well as last year, look for problems to come up between the alpha dogs. If they do well, all should remain well on this front unless they lose unexpectedly in the playoffs. Then Shaq is a free agent, LeBron is a free agent, and blame will have to be put somewhere. This story will not end well for Cleveland fans who are pinning all their hopes on getting LeBron back at any cost.

Let's face one simple fact. This was a desperation move by Danny Ferry, the Cleveland GM.

Shaq was dominant for a long time and he is one of the greatest centers ever. He had a short good stint on Phoenix when he was motivated to prove he could still do his thing, but he can't sustain that ability for much longer. This is similar to the move the Lakers made to get Pau Gasol for Kobe, but the difference is that Pau is young and has a bright future, and has no problem playing second fiddle. Shaq doesn't share any of those traits.

Danny Ferry had to give LeBron a reason to believe that Cleveland can give him what he wants not only in terms of love and money, but in terms of a supporting cast. Last year they called off the move before the trade deadline thinking their team was good enough as is. They were wrong. LeBron was obviously upset.

They needed to get him help for this year, and instead of getting Tyson Chandler who they were avidly pursuing and could have had, they went the safer route of getting Shaq who only has one year left on his contract, leaving cap room for the 2010 free agent sweepstakes.

That is fine, but the problem with that thinking is that it assumes LeBron is coming back in 2010. And he might only come back if he has a trusted sidekick already in place this year. Shaq won't be that guy who will be his sidekick long-term.

If the Cavs had gotten Chandler, a young, athletic, big, and they did well, LeBron would have a much easier time staying in a settled, long-term situation than starting over some place else. The problem for the Cavs is that they have basically leveled the playing field, as every other team coveting him is also looking to start fresh with him and whoever he wants.

The obvious counter to this is that the Cavs need to keep it open to make sure they can pursue a big free agent to convince LeBron to stay in Cleveland. If Chandler doesn't work out, they are stuck with his contract and much less room to pursue someone else for LeBron.

Both ways are risky and scary situations for Cleveland fans, but with this move they are basically just using Shaq for one year to get back to the same position they were just in, a year from now.

This seems intelligent, but if I were Ferry I would have used the fact that I have an advantage in the LeBron sweepstakes in that I have him on my team right now. I would have gotten some big that was younger, and less risky than Shaq. I wouldn't have just settled for staying even and waiting for next summer.

But, hey, I'm not a GM of an NBA team so that's just my two pennies worth.

Moving on now to the more fun stuff. The underlying subplots for a bunch of key characters. The stuff that doesn't really pertain to actual basketball:

For Kobe...

This could turn out one of three ways.

1) The Cavs don't do as well as they need to for this trade to be a success, and the Lakers do well. Shaq will look like extra baggage for the second time. Kobe will be spared all the comparisons and probable unfavorable media news cycles. He will gain another notch up on LBJ and Shaq. He was way behind Shaq before this fourth championship, just moved up to right behind even, and this would put him past Shaq. This would also move him further ahead of LeBron.

2) The Cavs win the championship or do well and the Lakers don't. This would be semi-bad news for Kobe. Shaq would move ahead of him and would become the Great Deliverer of championship rings. LeBron would enter the discussion with his first ring, but would probably still be a little under Shaq's shadow, so that would still have to be played out a little bit more.

3) Both teams do equally well or equally badly. If they both do badly, Kobe won't be able to ride last year's championship and will take heat, and the Cavs trade would be a failure. If both do well then Kobe is par per expectations and adds to his legacy of consistency, and the Cavs trade is a success and both LeBron and Shaq look good.

For Dwayne Wade...

1) If LeBron can't win with Shaq, he'll have a leg up on LeBron (even though that sounds weird, I know). Shaq is obviously older now than he was with the Heat, but still, this story would play out like "Dwayne could do it but LeBron couldn't, he got his help and still came up short." All the usual nonsense.

2) If LeBron does win a ring, he'll solidify his ranking above Wade and start challenging Kobe in terms of legacy and championships.

For LeBron James...

1) If he doesn't win, then he should take the blame. I don't know if he will because he is the face of the NBA and a media darling (imagine how much flak Kobe would have taken if he pulled a no-handshake stunt), but he should take it.

In '07, he was young and the team wasn't very good, so making the Finals was more than enough. In '08 they lost to the eventual champions and again expectations weren't that high. In '09 it was the FIRST time in LeBron's career that he underachieved. All through high school and the NBA he had overachieved and surpasses expectations.

In a sense we saw him fail for the first time in relation to expectations when he didn't shake Dwight's hand. This would be a failure and a tough one, so he must exceed whatever expectations the team has, which is probably at least making the Finals.

2) If he does win, he'll become another one in the class of Wade and Kobe who have won with Shaq. It will be his first ring so his legacy will begin, but Shaq's shadow will still be pretty strong (my guess). Regardless, it'll be his Finals MVP and his ring, and he'll have all the media attention from Kobe/Wade and whoever else, and for the first time for the ultimate reason.

For Shaq...

He wants to prove a lot of people wrong. He thinks he can still do it. He wants to win another.

1) If he does win, he'll cement his legacy and would have brought rings to the three best wingmen in the game. He'll be able to boast about how he could deliver rings and teach people how to win and carry teams and blah blah. I'm sure he'll have a lot to say about it. The good thing is that Wade got Finals MVP and LeBron probably would as well, so he wouldn't talk as much as we know he can.

2) If he doesn't win, and HE doesn't play well, he'll take the blame for not delivering for LeBron and his career is basically over.

3) If he doesn't win, and he does play well, he could continue on possibly with LeBron in Cleveland or elsewhere if they don't re-sign him. As long as he isn't the clear-cut reason they don't win he'll be able to maneuver his way into playing longer.

As we can clearly see, a lot of things are on the line for a lot of big-name people. I'd say the most is on the line for Shaq, then LeBron, then Kobe, then Dwayne. Shaq needs to prove he belongs. LeBron has a lot to prove and redeem, but he is still very young and could be starting a new career someplace next year.

Kobe has only recently severed ties with Shaq, but all the talk about their partnership in LA will live on through the LeBron/Shaq partnership and the Kobe/LeBron comparisons. I can't wait to see the puppet commercials on this.

Dwayne is mostly out of the picture because he has gone through injuries and his team badly needs help, but if the Heat can threaten in the East next year, this could get a lot more fun.

Stan Van Gundy would probably take extra pleasure in beating the Cavs in the playoffs again with the guy who called him the "Master of Panic." But that is an if and mostly a caption story.

It is still so ironic and weird to me that the same nutty, talkative, great big man is going to get to play with Kobe, Wade, and LeBron. They will be at similar points in all their three careers and he is going to have such an insight into the debate between the three. He is scarily going to be the most qualified person to speak on the Kobe vs. LeBron vs. Wade debate.

He could compare them in so many ways and create enemies as well as friends. No matter what they might say, you know Kobe and Wade rolled their eyes when they heard about this trade happening, solely because of what they'll have to put up with just knowing the Big Fella and his new situation. He always finds a way to put himself in the discussion. And here's just another example.

Will the Cavs be better for it in 2009-2010? I don't think so, and even if they are it will be marginal all else being equal. Regardless of what analysts will break down and project nobody will really know until the preseason in October and the first few months of the season.

Until then, let's just wait and see how many story lines we can pluck out of this thing.

Basketball Anti-Christs: Kobe and LeBron

Michael Jordan. The greatest basketball player ever. Fine. Nobody really disputes that.

Now, why do Jordan fans seem to hate Kobe Bryant?

Why do Kobe fans seem to hate LeBron James?

. . .

I've followed Kobe Bryant from the beginning of his career to this point. I watched Jordan win six championships as a small boy in Malaysia and was a huge fan, as the Finals were the only games I got to watch (on tape delay, as the games were on when I was in school). I respect and love both of them as competitors and basketball players.

Both have their shortcomings off the court, and on. One is an addicted gambler and one an admitted adulterer. Both are selfish, narcissistic, competitive maniacs on the court, demanding too much of their teammates.

Why is it that the loyal Jordan followers can't seem to find a place in their hearts for Kobe Bryant? Kobe, the guy who never got the benefit of the doubt Jordan got. They guy that never got the media to look the other way. Why?

I'll tell you why. Part of loving a player like Jordan is embracing his image as the best. Everyone wanted to "Be Like Mike", but nobody actually could be. That was the whole point. If people could be Mike, Mike would be irrelevant.

Fast forward to 2000. Jordan is done with the prime of his career. All those fans are still caught up in his mystique. They are still busy hyping him up to a Christ-like warrior that could never lose. Now comes along Kobe Bryant, the apparent heir to the throne. Kobe wins a ring with Shaq. Is he the next Jordan?

No way in hell. Jordan wouldn't be Jordan, and the love for him wouldn't be the same, if somebody else could just come along and be like him. Could it? Some tried. They really did. But Kobe was too introverted, unlike Jordan. He stayed away from the media, unlike Jumpman 23. He played second fiddle to Shaq's dominance and antics and could never be the leader Mike was.

So they gravitated away from him. Whatever Kobe was, they were the opposite. Fans didn't take to him. In turn Kobe was forced further inward, a vicious cycle punctuated by his off-the-court legal battle in 2004, Shaq leaving LA, and his demands for a trade in 2007.

Jordan fans feel as if even allowing someone else into the same conversation as him is blasphemy; it is an attack on Jordan's image, his very being. It's ridiculous to even think it.

Fine. Kobe isn't Michael Jordan. He probably never will be. But he is Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant. Kobe. Bryant. A once-in-a-generation player. At least respect that?

No. Respect isn't forthcoming for the guy who thinks he could be Jordan, even though he's never actually said that. No, they're going to treat him with scorn. He can't win on his own. He's selfish. He can't win without Shaq. And then when he does, he can't win without Phil or Derek. Couldn't have done it without Gasol. When someone gets too close, Jordan loyalists have to do everything in their power to push him away. To defend their messiah.

Fast forward to 2009. LeBron James has taken the MVP title from Kobe. He has elevated his game to a new level. His game is unselfish, his personality likeable, his image branded. He's a nice guy, and he shares the same lethal combination of ridiculous skill and burning competitive drive (see not shaking Dwight's hand) that is impossible to replicate and few are endowed with (aka Jordan and Kobe).

Why do Kobe loyalists HAVE to hate LeBron James? For the same reason most Jordan fans have to push Kobe away. Part of being a Kobe fan has evolved to believing he is the BEST. Maybe not the best ever, but definitely the best in the game right now. He's the Black Mamba, after all. If that isn't true, part of being a Kobe fan is lost. Putting LeBron in the discussion or saying he is better is an attack on the core of Kobe fanhood.

So what happens? Kobe loyalists have to push LeBron as far away as possible. They take joy in the Spurs' succinct sweep of the Cavs in 2007, but Kobe was still the man back then. They revel when Pierce outclutches LeBron in Game Seven in 2008, but Kobe's Lakers lose in 6 to the same team, and LeBron has to be put back down where he belongs. They celebrate the Magic taking down the King in six games in 2009, and call him out for not shaking the Magic's hands when in their heart of hearts they know Kobe Bryant is capable of exactly the same thing.

And to me, this is ridiculous. Three talents. Three supreme talents. Some of the most amazing combinations of size, talent, drive, skill, work ethic, physique, and circumstance. But Jordan fans, by definition, can't like Kobe. Kobe fans must, in turn, reject LeBron's success.

Loving someone that is the best in turn becomes love OF the component "best". Without that component, the love is somehow less.

I'd ask all Jordan fans to sit down for a minute and think about Kobe. He is basically the same demanding, competitive, selfish, ballhog, obsessed player that Jordan was. HE IS THE SAME. There's no two ways about it. Where's the love?

Kobe fans: LeBron doesn't even play the same position as Kobe and has a different game. But it is beautiful to watch. It is beautiful. LeBron can do certain things better than Kobe can, and the opposite is obviously true. There's no reason you can't appreciate both. He's just pushing himself to be the best he can be, a trait that you admire in Kobe. You want Kobe to take down whoever stands in his path, so why can't you respect that in LBJ?

You don't HAVE to hate the other guy. Kobe isn't Jordan. He doesn't even want to be Jordan. LeBron doesn't want to take away from Kobe. They are all friends. They all respect each other. If they do, why can't you?

Kobe: From The Best, to Best Closer

Whenever a great player is mentioned, people like to have a catchphrase or nickname to go with. Most players will carry their nicknames on forever, and there are usually two types of nicknames for each player. One based on personality (this one usually lasts forever), and one that applies to their game while they are active, which they eventually pass on (think most dominant, best scorer, best rebounder, etc).

For Michael Jordan it is the "greatest of all-time". He was the best in the game when he was playing, and retained the all-time aspect when he retired, and has since kept it.

For Jerry West it is "Mr. Clutch" or "The Logo", and for Bill Russell it was "Most Dominant" when he was playing, and "Winning-est Center Of All-Time" after he was done.

For Shaq he was considered the "Most Dominant Player" in his prime, and "The Big Aristotle", one of many self-coined nicknames that will live on with his legacy.

Kobe Bryant, in creating his image and brand, had his people come up with "The Black Mamba" to describe his snake-like killer instinct personality.

Recently the vague title of "best closer in the game" has been bestowed upon the Black Mamba. It seems like this season, both regular and playoffs, every time Bryant is mentioned, there’s also a plug for how good of a closer he is. It is reaching a point of absurdity, as almost every article or talking head out there says it like they’re getting paid to do it with every mention of Bryant.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that Kobe Bryant is the best closer in the game. I also believe he is the best player right now. But it’s interesting that it has become basketball fact in such a short span of time. Not one major writer or talking head has disputed this "fact", and it’s very rare that you see an entire community of fans and media agree on something in professional sports.

I haven’t seen one media member question this title. It would probably be impossible to trace the beginnings of the spread of this well-accepted title, but the acceptance stems from the fact that most people want the ball in his hands at the end of a game.

But Kobe has been the best player in the NBA for a few years before this, so how come he only recently became synonymous with this "best closer" title?

I have a theory for why:

For the past three or so years most people recognized Kobe Bryant as the premier player in the NBA. He didn’t win the MVP award until the last of those years (2008), but poll upon poll in the last few years has shown that coaches, players, and general managers alike would take Kobe Bryant over any other player if starting a team. Those same polls also indicate that if there was one current player they wanted taking the last shot of a game, it was Mr. Bryant.

With the introduction of LeBron James this year as the new de facto "face" of the NBA, it is harder and harder for people to maintain that Bryant is almost unanimously the best player. In fact, most would select James for that title.

It used to go without saying that he was the best period, and the best at the end of games (closing). But now, there is a divide between those titles, with most people giving James the" best player" title, and Bryant the "best closer" title.

However the distinction is not so clear-cut. Many Kobe loyalists and analysts still believe that Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA. They cite his more refined game as an advantage over James, and his more established career as a backbone that James has yet to earn.

That is why you hear Bryant referred to as the best closer by the ABC commentators, ESPN talking heads, sports writers, and radio broadcasters. While the "best player" title is in dispute, the media have found another less controversial hyped-up title, which is seemingly important and weighty, to grant Bryant.

The odd thing is, I've never heard of this title existing on its own, it's usually just synonymous with the best player or the most dominant player. The title has been invented for Kobe Bryant, who presents a unique case now that LeBron has elevated his game.

The reasoning makes sense. Bryant is too good of a player to not have a title to go everywhere his name does. All great players before him have had titles to go with every mention of their name. Kobe now has his. It used to be simply the best, but now he’ll have to settle for best closer.

When he retires, he will recede back into the Black Mamba shell, just like all the greats before him who pass on their playing-day titles to the next generation. He has already passed on the "best player" title to LeBron in most people's eyes, and in a few years will probably relinquish the "best closer" title to somebody else.

But for now, he is Kobe Bryant AKA the Black Mamba. The best closer in the world.

Kobe Bryant meets Roger Federer

Even though Kobe Bryant isn't in the Gillette ads with Tiger Woods and Derek Jeter like Roger Federer is, the comparisons between the two couldn't be clearer today. Federer captured his first ever French Open title, cementing his legacy by finally winning the Slam that has eluded him for so long. Before Sunday, he had lost to Rafael Nadal three straight years in the French final, while only managing to win a total of two sets. Federer brushed off the Roland Garros demons cursed unto him by the Matador of Spain by handling Robin Soderling convincingly in straight sets in the championship match.

Roger Federer has now won 14 Grand Slams, and at least 1 at every major Grand Slam event. He has tied Pete Sampras at 14, but has something that Sampras never achieved: a Career Grand Slam (winning all four major championships at least once). Most in the tennis world consider him the best of his era, if not the best of all-time. A younger, flashier, rising star in Rafael Nadal is clipping at its heels, having taken chunks out of Federer in the last few years. Federer has lost 8 times in the relevant years of his career after he matured into a dominant professional. 5 of those losses have come at the hands of Nadal in Grand Slam Finals. Their 2008 Wimbledon Final has been lauded as the greatest match ever played (which Nadal won).

You might ask why Kobe Bryant is even in the title of this article with so much about Roger Federer?

Because it's actually about both of them.

Federer had lost 3 straight French Open Finals, Kobe? 2 straight NBA Finals.

Kobe Bryant is looking to exorcise his demons from Finals past, by redeeming the Lakers of their loss to last years Celtics on the NBA's biggest stage. We can't forget 2004 either where his Lakers lost 4-1 embarrasingly at the hands of the up-and-coming Detroit Pistons in the Finals. Roger needed to win the French to cement his legacy and it seemed to be slipping away from him the last few years as Nadal became more and more dominant on clay. But Federer finally did it in 2009. Kobe needs to win this championship in 2009, without Shaquille O'Neal, no matter what he or the media will say, to finally cement his championships and legacy as legitimate. He won't be mentioned in the conversation as the greatest ever if he can't win one being the best player on his team. Federer needed the French to make the "greatest-ever" debate between him and Sampras a little easier.

Federer is unwillingly passing the torch to Nadal. Kobe? To LeBron James.

The younger, flashier nemesis? Watch any sports channel for about 5 minutes and you'll see his face about 13 times. He goes by simply "The King", or LeBron James. He's flashier, he's more outgoing, and he's right there. Most consider LeBron the best player in the game today, a title he snatched from Kobe who held it for about the same time as Federer held the No. 1 ATP Ranking. LeBron's rise is validated by the fact that he won the Most Valuable Player award this season. Most tennis pundits consider Nadal the best in the game today, validated by his No. 1 Ranking which he took away from Federer after a record 237 consecutive weeks for the Swiss.

Both need to silence the critics, but...

Sadly, because Federer didn't beat Nadal (who lost to the guy Federer beat in the Final), some don't consider this championship legitimate, contending that he must go through Nadal, the King of Clay, to truly cement his reputation. Kobe and the Lakers can't fully redeem themselves either as they never got a chance to go through the Celtics that thrashed them last year and brought Kobe to tears at the conclusion of last years' Finals. The Celtics suffered a knee injury to arguably their best player and never had a chance to make it to the Finals to face the Lakers. Ironically enough, Nadal was suffering from a knee injury as well.

But Kobe doesn't care, and neither did Federer.

Both have time catching up with them as they age, and can't rely on youth to get them by. Both have younger challengers to the throne of their respective sports. Both need to validate something this year. Both need to lay claim to their respective sports' title of the best-right-now. Both have legacies to build, cement, and protect. Federer did his part on Sunday, June 7th, 2009. Can Kobe do the same?

We'll know before the month is over.