Miami Heat: Passionate Fans Both For and Against, But What's The Truth?

This is a pseudo-serious article, a critique if you "wheel," in the words of the great Dusty Rhodes.

The critique isn't on the team itself. Its not on LeBron for his "Decision", nor is it on Bosh for his recent celebrity chasing ways, nor on Dwyane Wade, who really shouldn't be criticized as much as he should be lauded for helping to bring together such a big free agency coup to his team.

Then again, that's what he's being criticized for. Because of that him, Pat Riley, and the rest of the Heat organization are being criticized.

Of course they're being criticized for doing something that teams SHOULD do, try to improve their team however they can, however they want. They get criticisms like this:

It’s a punk, cowardly move. There are 5 players I never want to see on the same team in any combination. Kobe, Wade, Lebron, Durant and Melo. I would much rather see those guys play against each other. If they end on the same team let it be the doing of a great GM. I do not want to see great players getting together and plotting how they can get on one team. Call me old fashion but I like competition. It’s disappointing that we may never see Wade vs. Lebron in a playoff series.

That was in response to a question I asked in a questionnaire I sent to a few NBA fans asking: If you are bothered by the decision, what is it that bothers you so much about it?

Now here's my reply to that: its very disappointing that we didn't get to see James Worthy vs. Magic Johnson in a playoff series, that we didn't get to see Jordan vs. Pippen, or Bird vs. McHale. Those are playoff series that we could've had but didn't. (Actually yes, we could have seen series like those: Had Dominique been drafted by the Lakers instead of Worthy, Worthy would've been drafted by the Clippers. Had Red not mastered his robbery of McHale and Parrish for Joe Barry Carrol from the Warriors, how do we know there wouldn't have been a Warriors vs. Celtics NBA finals? And what if the Bulls don't trade Olden Polynice to the Sonics for Scottie Pippen?)

Here's where I get the argument back that "it was the GM's that put it together, that's ok, its players working together that I have a problem with it."

What is really the difference? Can I get an argument to that other than "that's the way it's always been done?" That's an argument seen in various comments on The Heat I've run across here on Bleacher Report.

Because of that, I decided to take it to a more personal level. In my questionnaire (which wasn't filled out by everyone I sent it to that at first agreed to the article mind you) I asked this question:

Regardless of what job you have, if you and two of your best friends had the chance to effectively do the same thing that LeBron, Wade and Bosh had done (starting up a new business in a city that all of you enjoy, creating something together, whatever it may be) would you have done it, or would you have stayed where you were and advised your friends to do the same thing?

The overwhelming majority I got to that question was a simple "yes." After all, isn't starting your own business with your friends a part of the American Dream? (By that I mean the REAL American Dream of working hard to succeed and owning your own home, running your own business, making a success of your life, not the American Dream that some try to sell us on of entitlement.)

One answer did stick out, and I honestly got the feeling that this answer came from someone who either A. answered it like they just wanted to back up what they felt, B. isn't very good in team situations and is better as an individual (nothing wrong with that, some people just work better on their own than they do in teams and can be just as successful as they would being in a team) or C. full of it. This was his answer:

I wouldn’t do it if we where in direct competition and I’m very close or already considered to be the best in the field. Why would I share the glory? (Money). I would rather have the company to myself. As far as friends go. It’s lonely at the top. There are no friends in War and business.

Now, he probably feels that thats what's best for him, which a lot of people say. In all walks of life, both mines, LeBron's, and everyone elses, there will be a group of people, be it family, friends, and in the case of celebrities, the media and various pundits who will give their opinions on whats best for them. In reality you have to do what YOU feel is best for yourself, something that everyone feels when it comes to them, but apparently not when it comes to celebrities especially. (The exception to this rule: a celeb with a drug problem. Obviously its always in the person's best interest regardless of their field to get passed their demons whether they be drugs, alcohol, sex or whatever it may be if it hinders them from reaching their full potential.)

But just because working alone might be best for you, doesn't mean its best for LeBron, it actually depends on the type of player he is. I contended in an article published prior to his game six against Boston that LeBron was more Scottie Pippen than Michael Jordan. LeBron probably saw that too, and that might have played a factor into his decision.

In fact it probably was the main factor in his decision. LeBron knows himself better than we know him, even though a lot of people, especially on Bleacher Report, think that they know him better. Even in high school, when LeBron was dominant, he wasn't really considered the leader of that team. The leader of his high school team was actually Dru Joyce III, the son of St. Vincent-St. Mary's High School head coach Dru Joyce II. This according to Buzz Bissinger, who co-wrote (a term I use very loosely because if anything he wrote the whole thing) the book Shooting Stars with LeBron about his high school years. And Bissinger himself has spoken out against LeBron on various occasions. (Two Bissinger points. A. I'm sure he'll HATE the fact that his name and a paraphrase of his quote was used in whats really a blog and B. He's even theorized that part of the reason why LeBron went to the Heat was because he wanted to relive his high school days again and the Heat, with Wade and Bosh, was his best chance. One more point I'll make, his criticisms on LeBron have actually been educated, unlike most of Bleacher Report members who's only mode of criticizing them has been to just repeat Charles Barkley's words and call him a "punk.")

Now my question again is, who else usually feels that its ok if a General Manager or coach gets them to team up and not the players themselves? Let me change a couple of words here and it will make more sense again on a personal level: What types of people feel that its ok if a boss puts together the best workers for a company, but that if the three best band together to start their own company than its a bad thing? We have a word for people like this: communists. No seriously, thats the feeling of people such as Josef Stalin, Nikita Krushchev, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Mao Zedong, not exactly people you want to be associated with.

A lot of people would rather see LeBron as the Michael Jordan Alpha-dog and feel like they're being cheated, yet at the same time say that the situation in Cleveland was good enough for him to win. First off, that's a contradiction, if the situation in Cleveland was good enough for him to win, AND he's a Michael Jordan Alpha-Dog, then he would've won. But he didn't win what mattered most: championships. Then there's the "he took the easy way out by going to Miami, besides he would've had a better shot in Chicago" sentiment. Just by saying that very sentence you're contradicting yourself. If he would've had a better shot in Chicago than in Miami, then wouldn't Chicago have been the easier way out? 

My feeling on that is a lot of it is a regional bias. I've seen it first hand, take my dad for instance. Hates Miami, loathes it, at times I've heard him say some nasty things about the area (and as a Miamian I can agree with some of them, others I believe and have told him are biased exaggerations.) He thinks that Chicago is a better city (in many instances it is, and if you're from Miami and don't believe that then that is blind homerism) and doesn't like Miami's sports teams. (I know with the Heat its because of Pat Riley, I share his opinion on the Marlins though, and as for the Dolphins, I think its mainly Dolphins fans.)

But he's not the only one with those sentiments, both in Miami and across the country. Miami is an area filled with people not native to the area, whether it be from another country, or another part of the United States (mainly New York as evidenced at many Dolphins-Jets, Marlins-Mets, or Heat-Knicks games) many of whom have no problem talking trash about the city even though they live there. (Not in the constructive criticism my dad offers, which is that and not just loathing, but in the nasty "this place just sucks" way without offering any solutions with how to fix the city, of which there are many that my dad and I have thought of.)

But outside of Miami, this is the image of the city: South Beach+Cubans+crime. For many in fact their only Miami experiences involve Miami Vice and Scarface. They also look at our city as "bandwagon" which it is but isn't. Leading the charge on this is ESPN's own Bill Simmons (we'll get to the media coverage of this later) who even wrote a piece urging Wade to leave Miami.

Why the problem with Miami? The good old fashioned "if its not the northeast or Los Angeles, its not good" mentality, especially when it comes to basketball. In fact a lot of people believe that only the Northeast, LA, and Golden State are good basketball markets. (Funny when you consider that two of the most storied college basketball programs are Kansas and Indiana, and two other storied basketball programs are North Carolina and Duke, each of them far from the Northeast save for Indiana.)

I even asked the question: Do you think that that treatment would be different had they teamed up in New York with the Knicks, Los Angeles with the Clippers, or in Chicago with the Bulls?

This one was varied, so I'll give you first the mean answer (that's mean as in the average, not mean as in douchebag) then I'll give you two others.

The mean: yes because they're bigger markets. This is true. The Knicks were clearing cap space to do such a thing, no one said anything. The vitriol started coming when Stephen A. Smith first started reporting (on June 29th of this year) that the three would team up. This despite the fact that everyone entertained the possibility of it happening as early as late-2008, when Bill Simmons even suggested that it could be a joint deal with Nike where they become superheroes in their ad campaign. But Stephen A. didn't report on it happening in New York, he reported on it happening in Miami, which was were people started to have a problem with it.

Then there's this somewhat reasonable answer I received: 

Yes, Chicago didn’t have a equal to James abilities. Miami on the other hand did. None of those other teams have a Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. Those are two top 10 players and then they add James…not fair at all.

This came from a Heat fan. He even said that it would be perceived as a bit unfair. In fact I'm sure Miami would be in the minority of fan bases saying it was unfair had it happened with the Knicks (or Clippers or Bulls.)

But I also got this response: No. It was a punk move. 

Now, he didn't have to add the "punk move" but I'm glad he did, I needed a segue to my next point.

 On plenty of comments I've seen fans of other teams actually defend him. But there are three fanbases that can't defend him, but when I name them you'll know why.

The Boston Celtics.

This strikes me as being very hypocritical. They hated that it happened in Miami, but it was ok when all of them were at the twilight of their careers and it was put together by Danny Ainge. Yet short memories come into play here. First off, before Ray Allen was acquired, the deal on the table was for the #5 pick in that years draft (which Seattle-Oklahoma City got in exchange for Ray Allen and used it to draft Jeff Green), Al Jefferson, and Sebastian Telfair. It was Garnett, not the Celtics, not the Wolves, who declined the trade. But its overlooked because eventually the Ray Allen trade came to fruition, and the Wolves, who didn't have a better deal on the table, went to revisit it and then Garnett said yes. 

Well here's a question Celtics fans: how much longer does your team, as presently constructed, really have left? Other than Rondo, who will be there for the majority of the next decade? Do you trust Garnett's knees to hold up for more than two more years? 

I'm not saying that as soon as Garnett, Pierce, and Allen goes, so do the Celtics. They do have a solid building block in Rondo, and as their current nucleus retires they'll just get more cap room to be able to reload in the future, especially if this whole "Superteam" trend that everyone is scared the three are starting come to fruition. (You mean to tell me that when Durant's a free agent in 2015 he wouldn't give the Celtics with Rondo a look? All they'd need is a solid big man, like say Greg Oden if he turns out to be semi-decent in the end and would likely be a free agent that year, or maybe even someone else who's still a Junior in High School that can make an impact and they'd be right in it. And there are many more scenarios out there.)

Speaking of Super, there's Shaq. Do you really think that a guy known for being a bit of a chemistry problem, a guy who pretty much went to the Celtics because the two other places they could've used him are places he burned bridges from (Los Angeles we knew he wouldn't go to because of Kobe's "I have one more than Shaq" comment, Miami could definitely use him but wouldn't sign him because of how he burned bridges) and also a guy who tends to get upset when he's not getting his touches (and won't and will probably only play 20 minutes a game, which will decrease when Perkins gets back) will continue to ride this happy train?

I've seen the Shaq  experience post-Lakers: Show up, promise championship, play a few good games, whine, groan and complain behind the scenes, leave on bad terms while trashing the organization and certain players, like he trashed Mo Williams earlier this year after signing with the Celtics. I've seen this movie before, and it can be better explained here.

However I'd be a fool to say that its a certainty in Boston, for if anyone can keep him in line it would be a Kevin Garnett. But why such hate on the Heat from Boston? Well actually, the hate on the Heat from Boston doesn't come so much from Boston, other than one Dan Shaugnessy, who admitted today on Rome is Burning that he's a "Heat-Hater" which is fine if you're Bill Simmons and your shtick is to talk sports from the viewpoint of the fan, but not ok when you're supposed to be an unbiased journalist, if such a thing exists in 2010. But probably the main Boston-Backers will be brought up later, first I'll give you another team who's fan base hates on the Heat and possibly why.

Orlando Magic

Ok, its more the organization. One thing is Dwight Howard saying he's tired of hearing about them. But Dwight, part of why you hear about them in the media so much is because your general manager and head coach seem to LOVE talking about them so much. It feels like every day you hear something from either Orlando GM Otis Smith and Head Coach Stan Van Gundy about the Heat. Why talk about your opponent so much? They've talked about the Heat more times since July than Rex Ryan has talked in his one and a half seasons of coaching about anything! When you're making Rex Ryan look quiet, you know you're talking a lot.

Now Stan Van Gundy is painfully honest to a fault. He's not scared to tell the truth about his feelings. But he's also an emotional guy, and he feels like he was wronged by the Heat all those years ago. I've said before he's a great x's and o's coach but isn't the type of coach that can win you a championship. I was proven right on that in 2005, when his team had the lead in game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals at home with four minutes left and it slipped away. I've also seen too many playoff games where he chokes at the end despite having the better team (2010 against the Celtics, 2005 against the Pistons.) 

This, along with Shaq, not Pat Riley but Shaq, is why he had to "spend more time with his family." In fact, and I know not a lot of you take this seriously as a source but I do because he is a credible unbiased journalist (look at his archive and read it without the lens of hate and you'll see what I mean) Dan LeBatard has even said various times that Van Gundy DID have family issues at the time.

(Here's where you say: ok, what were they and how come he doesn't say what they are. I say, that's between Stan and his family, which is why LeBatard doesn't elaborate on it. Think about it, if you quit a job because of family issues, would you want someone constantly asking you or telling the world what they are?)

One fanbase though takes the cake with it.

Los Angeles Lakers

Now, I know where the fans are coming from: they're the defending champs, and they felt that the Heat are celebrating prematurely (I'll get to that.) The fans have said some of the most ignorant of all the arguments, they're the ones calling out the Heat as "punks" for the most part.

Now why would you do that? What was "punk" about it?

Since I'm talking about the Lakers let me mention one Magic Johnson who criticized the team yet forgot that he uttered these words:

Had I the Bulls won the coin flip for the number one pick, I would've stayed at Michigan State for my senior year. I wanted to be a Laker.

 Only way to defend that is with "of course he wanted to be a Laker" arrogance. Yes the Bulls were bad that year but what if Magic was drafted by the Bulls? I'd want to play for the Lakers back then too since it meant playing with Kareem.

(Going back to the "great players don't team up" argument, do you feel like you were ripped-off because you didn't get to see a Kareem vs. Magic finals?)

So again, what was "punk" about it? Oh because Charles Barkley said that.

Alot of former players have stated their opinions on the team, but I'm only analyzing Barkley's because his is easy to poke holes through, and out of all of them, I have the least amount of respect for it AND his carries the least weight because of his past in the NBA and how he went about with his criticisms of it.

Barkley thought it was punk and said he wouldn't have done what LeBron did. You see LeBron left after seven years when he was a free agent and during his time in Cleveland didn't complain about the roster, only the coach (he was justified in that by the way) and only did it behind closed doors. 

Barkley requested a trade in year eight of his career then was dealt to the Suns for practically nothing and then did the same thing to team up with Hakeem and Drexler only four years after that.

And he's calling LeBron's move a punk move?

Oh wait no, I get it, its for the celebration (which I was a part of, seriously look for the guy with the Heat jersey in that picture, that's me.)

Well, it wasn't a celebration that we had already won, despite what Flo Rida's song would tell you. It was an unveiling.

When Ford redesigns the Mustang or releases a new model, they usually throw a big party and press conference to show it off.

Same thing here. We say sports is a business all the time, this was the unveiling of the new product from the Miami Heat, nothing more, nothing less. They never called it a "celebration" that's what the fans, ESPN and the media called it. They called it what it was, a "welcome party."

Did the Heat ask for ESPN and the National Media to cover it? Of course not! Why did they cover it? Because you, the same people who criticized it, had interest in it. Wade's quotes even echo that sentiment:

We enjoyed it, thirteen thousand fans in the arena enjoyed it. And we did it for Miami. We didn't do it for anyone outside of that. I think it was fine. Good times.

One thing as fans we forget is that in while it says basketball on the marquee, it also says tickets. How do you sell tickets? Entertainment (and yes, winning is entertaining.) The Heat, owned by Mickey Arison, have been masters at the art of entertainment since their inception. In a city where so much competes for your dollar (including beaches which are beautiful to walk on at night and are free, bars, clubs, great restaurants and other fun things) its often looked at from a business perspective to not just have a great basketball team, but to entertain and earn the goodwill of fans in the city as well.

Considering that I'm sure the vast majority of fans who were at the free rally (they didn't charge for admission by the way) will probably not be able to attend a game in the coming years, this was a good thing, it showed good will towards the fans who will purchase the jerseys and get them talking.

Which in the end goes to show why the media covers everything. If there wasn't such interest in "The Decision," then would it have happened? Well something like that was foretold, for this again I go to Bill Simmons from his mailbag:

Q: You know how when top recruits in basketball or football make their college decision, they often call a press conference and put the three hats of the schools that made the final three in front of them ... then pick up the hat of the school of choice and put it on? What if LeBron announces he will pick his 2010-11 team live on ABC on a certain date for a show called "LeBron's Choice?" What type of crazy ratings would that get?
-- Drew, Columbus, Ohio

SG: "LeBron's Choice" sounds too much like a Lifetime movie -- like, he became the first NBA player to make himself pregnant and now he can't decide whether to give up the baby for adoption or not. I'd go with something more newsy, like "Decision 2010: LeBron's Verdict" or "The LeBron Sweepstakes." Actually, it might make more sense to make this a six-episode show, along the lines of "The Bachelor" -- maybe "The LeBrachelor"? -- in which he'd start out with 29 GMs, then narrow them down to eight, then six, then four, then three, then two, then one.

Regardless, you're right -- this should be a televised event. If LeBron were smart, he would market the event through his company, sell the rights to a network and reveal his choice on that show. We know what the offers will be. (New York, Miami, Chicago, Memphis, New Jersey, the Clips and the Zombie Sonics can offer the max. Cleveland could offer the max plus an extra year. Nobody else could offer as much.) It's a cut-and-dry thing. So why not? He could even make it pay-per-view. If people were willing to pay $44.99 for a UFC 106 card headlined by Jenna Jameson's washed-up husband fighting a guy who hadn't won in two years, I'm pretty sure they'll pony up $44.99 for "Decision 2010: LeBron's Verdict."

Now I'm pretty sure he was facetious and didn't think it would actually happen when he wrote this (the date on it is 11/26/09) but he raised a good point: people were willing to watch.

Since people were willing to watch I posed this question: 

How do you think the media (both ESPN and outside of ESPN) have portrayed the Heat since “The Decision?”

Much to my surprise Heat fans felt they were being treated fair. I say that because of comments I've heard from SportsNation's Michelle Beadle like:

I consider him my enemy and I root for my enemies to fail.

A long with other comments from other ESPN members.

But non-Heat fans had a problem with the ESPN family of networks predicting a possible Heat championship. This is the first time I've ever seen such a massive fan backlash towards a prediction. Keep in mind the majority of ESPN pundits are predicting the Lakers to come ahead in a Lakers-Heat finals but people seem to be upset that they're even predicting that the Heat will go to the finals.

This is a very myopic view, to say that ESPN favors the Heat just because of their predictions. They haven't defended the Heat, they've covered them. Big difference. I'm sorry but criticizing them just for the sake of it isn't coverage, its an opinion.

Every analysis that we make on the teams is purely guess work at this time. Its moronic to say that the Lakers will win the title just because "they won it last year." The Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl in 2008-09. Yet in 2009-10, they didn't make it to the playoffs. You don't know. They're predictions.

Which is in the end what all of this is, opinions. Will the Heat even play the Lakers in the Finals? We don't know. Will Boston stop the Heat? We don't know. Could we see a Magic-Thunder finals? We don't know. 

Of course, one opinion that CAN be proven wrong is the "But its bad for the game and the league to have all of these super teams."

Now when people say that the question is, would that be any different had LeBron gone to the Bulls?

No, wait, it will start a trend of superteams joining up together everywhere.

If that happens, then doesn't the concept of the "superteam" cease to exist? And wasn't the NBA's "Golden Era" in the 1980s? A decade with exactly FOUR franchises that won championships?

This year I count Miami, Boston, Chicago (when they pick up Carmelo in a February trade and won't have to give up Noah because they'll have all of the leverage, bank on that happening), Orlando, Los Angeles, and on the fringes Oklahoma City, Dallas, San Antonio (as long as Duncan is healthy, they can never be counted out) Phoenix (Nash can will even a very sloppy put together team like that to at least the second round, and the West is pretty weak), Houston (what if Yao is healthier than we think he is) and even a possible upstart like Milwaukee (good young core) and Portland (ditto) that's five that are a great bet, five that you can't count out, and another two that you never know what could happen. 

By the way, that's twelve teams, five in the East, seven in the West. Sixteen teams make it to the playoffs, so its just a matter of thinking of the other three East teams (Atlanta, New York, and my out of left field pick Toronto) and the last West team (I'm going with Golden State over Utah) and you have your playoff teams.

But yet competition will erode in the NBA? Its been bad for the NBA?

How about the fact that the NBA's season felt like it never ended? That everyone seemed to not stop talking about the NBA? When has that ever happened? We're three weeks into NFL season (my favorite sport, NBA is a very close second), in the last week of baseball's regular season (although with only two real races left its an admission that this season was kind of a letdown, and I'm not counting the Rays-Yankees "race" because they're both getting into the post-season), and the NHL starting next week, yet the NBA is still the main point of conversation. Isn't that a GOOD thing for the NBA?

Then there's everyone who isn't afraid to say what they want about LeBron or the Heat and how much they hate them. As I wished I explained in my "New Rules: NBA Edition" article a month ago, if you don't like him, don't spend your time just criticizing him to death, for this is a better method:

"You know what? I don't like LeBron, I don't like this Heat team. From now on, I refuse to talk about them or read about them and refuse to watch any of their games until they play my team. I refuse to vote for them into the All-Star game, and if they get in I refuse to watch it. And if they make it to the finals then I won't watch unless they're playing my team."

How many of you NBA fans who call yourselves "Heat Haters" would actually do that? None of you? So you'd rather just read articles about them and comment and troll?

Here's why they get so much coverage, because you watch. Why do you watch if you hate? To see them fail? Here's a question, how are they more likely to fail, by losing, or if you stop watching and the league starts to tank? 

If they lose there's always next year. If the league starts to tank, how do they feed their families?

Why did you watch "The Decision" if you hated it so much? Why did you show so much interest in LeBron prior to that that his team could propose an idea like that to ESPN and ESPN would take it? Notice how Eric Dampier's "Decision" will not be broadcast anywhere.

Not so much to feed his ego, but because ESPN knew that YOU would watch. And you did, over 10 million.

Guess what fans, you will continue to watch. I'm willing to bet that this year's opening night on TNT will be their highest rated since the Jordan-era, that the ratings will eclipse even the World Series.

A regular season NBA game on cable getting higher ratings than the World Series. Yes it will happen (especially if its The Reds vs. The Rays.)

Speaking of that, as long as either the Heat, Lakers, or both teams play in the NBA Finals, then it WILL have more viewers than the World Series (even if the World Series is between two big market franchises, a Giants-Yankees World Series, the two biggest markets left, is still on the table as of the publishing of this article.)

Those are predictions that I'm very comfortable in making, and will make for at least the next five years. Why? Because I have statistical evidence to back this up, such as the ratings for "The Decision", the ratings for last year's NBA Finals, and the ratings for the NBA Finals in the 80's (which if we do enter a "superteam" era it will emulate because the 80's were like that.)

But saying what LeBron and the Heat did were wrong? Opinion, and LeBron's got an opinion on that, here's his statements from media day:

A lot of people try to tell you what to do in life, and a lot of them don't have their own life in order.

Very true. Now the time for opinions are over, Training Camp has begun, the season is only a month away. Everything we've talked about in the NBA the last three months has been nothing more than an opinion.

You know what they say about opinions and how they're similar to a part of the human anatomy:

Everyone has one, and they all stink.

With that being said, let the games begin.

Special Thanks to Bhemis Park, Rod Woolf, John Anthony Pendas, and many more for providing their opinions and helping me out with the article. I owe you guys a lot and its really appreciated. 

Thomas Galicia know's his opinions stink as much as anyones. Remind him of that in the comments. For more of his stinky opinions, follow him on twitter, @thomasgalicia.