LeBron James, Dwyane Wade Should Take Less Money to Build an NBA Dynasty

Decisions, decisions.

That is what LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and the rest of the free agent class of 2010 will be faced with this summer.

After the Larry King episode aired with James this Friday where he explained his thought process during free agency, something needs to be said about the potential “summit meeting” of stars in these next few weeks.

Each player is trying to position themselves as champions for years to come. James and Wade may be the marquee names, but the secondary stars: Chris Bosh, Joe Johnson, Amare Stoudemire, and Dirk Nowitzki may be the key to championship dynasties for years to come.

In a time where the one-superstar-dominated teams are prevalent in the game of basketball, we rarely see teams that have a nucleus for years at a time. This allows teams to make consistent runs in the playoffs year after year.

Teams of the '70s, '80s, and early '90s—such as the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, and Bulls—had players that could have been the main stay on their own team, but instead built something together that lasted five to six years at a time.

However, as the league grew in popularity and the marketing began to focus on individual stars, the value of the team suffered.

In the past, if a team made a run through the playoffs you could almost guarantee that the same team would return the next year. Now, with the demand of more money and the power of branding yourself, players jump ship for the next best thing.

This class of 2010 has the power to change that this summer.

Let’s say James and Wade want to be in the best position to win championships, they would need pieces around them that would perform. To get those pieces, management needs money.

Here is a proposal: TAKE LESS MONEY!!!

Throughout these prospective players' careers they have made money on and off the court, making names for themselves. The media often speaks about what market is the biggest market for these players to build their legacy.

While this is happening, players may fall victim to their “money equals legacy” mentality. In all actuality, the only ingredient needed to succeed in building a legacy is winning, and when you win, money will present itself in endorsements.

Take Cleveland for example.

Before LeBron James, the franchise was in the pits and the last time the city saw a potential winner in any of it's sports teams, the Indians were two outs away from the World Series trying to erase the heartbreak of the Browns and “The Drive” by John Elway, Earnest Byner’s fumble at the two-yard line that would have tied the Broncos in the AFC championship game, or Jordan’s series-capping jumper over Craig Ehlo in 1989.

Instead, the Florida Marlins snatched victory away from them and added to the pain of an already scarred city.

Then it all changed in 2003. There was a sense of hope and James was the savior. Fast forward seven years later: The franchise, city, and player are thriving.

In 2010, the Cavaliers have the second-best home attendance in the league. This was the total opposite in the 2002-03 season (a year before James arrived) when the Cavs had the worst home attendance in the league.

LeBron is also building his brand. In 2009 James made just over 14 million on the court, while making 28 million in endorsements off of it. That was the third most of any American Athlete.

What’s the difference? Five playoff appearances, one Finals appearance, and it does not hurt that you have one of the most exciting players in NBA history.

All of these factors are key contributors to why the Cavs are consistently a top team on national television each year. That sounds like a great market to me.

When thinking of the big "markets" in the running for these stars, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Miami are all attractive because it can bring other opportunities to make money regardless of winning or losing, but is that really the best thing for any of these stars?

Instead of these free agents taking max money from their respective franchises and eating up a third of the payroll with one player, take less money and give management more room to maneuver.

This way Bosh, Johnson, Stoudemire, and Nowitzki have an opportunity to join Wade and or James on the same team. That alone will change the NBA five years down the road because it will provide bigger star power, create and/or maintain a winner, and set precedent for future stars down the line.

This is easier said than done.

Jerry Maguire and “show me the money” are part of the reason, but the main reason is players equate the monetary value of their contract with their actual value on the court.

On the outside looking in, that might be the case, but if any of these players want to make the impact that they say they do, leaving money on the table might be the best thing to do.

After all, all the Magic Johnsons and Michael Jordans of the world made more money off the court than they ever did on it and look at their winning legacies.