2010 NBA Offseason Created Headlines, But Was It Good for the League?

With the temperatures rising, moods relaxing, summer love blooming, and happiness spiking throughout the nation, baseball's "Mid-Summer Classic" is normally a majestic backdrop to the United States' celebration of "fun in the sun".

Well, the summer of 2010 has been anything but a celebration.  With a volatile stock market, a dormant job market, a fissured political system, and an ongoing environmental disaster all rocking the nation, there has been more chaos than relaxation in the United States this summer.

Sticking with the pulse of the real world, the sports world's biggest story of the summer has also been its most chaotic.

During the 2010 NBA offseason, we saw the vulnerability of our 24-hour news-cycle at a height of inconsistency.  Supposed news outlets turned themselves into a live 24-hour rumor mill, with one rumor being more far-fetched than the next. 

Respected journalists became no better than tabloid hounds looking for a moment in the spotlight.  Half-facts and untruths were printed simply because they could be true. 

And the public ate up every second of this rapid-fire nonsense.  One minute, pre-orders for "Wade" No. 3 Chicago Bulls jerseys were being prepared, the next MSG stocks skyrocketed on the prospect of LeBron-to-New York rumors.

In the end, we found out that it was all decided from the beginning.  Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and LeBron James all decided to play together years ago, we just didn't know it at the time. 

So we sat there, all 7.3 Nielsen Rating of us, and watched as the league's most beloved star became its most hated.  In a Hogan-to-the-nWo-like spectacle, (arguably) the league's best player stole the heart from his team and home state's city on a reputation-ruining national television debacle.

The aftermath of "The Decision" led to public figures ranging from former Colts coach Tony Dungy to racially derivative blowhard Jesse Jackson making public statements regarding the matter.  We also had misguided, headline-grabbing calls of racism following Cavs owner Dan Gilbert's public lambasting of his former player.

Basically, the entire LeBron James Saga was your average episode of "Jerry Springer" with jersey burning substituted for chair throwing. 

"Miami Thrice" was not the only story of the offseason, either.  The Washington Wizards resurrected their franchise, drafting Kentucky point guard John Wall.  The Chicago Bulls continued to assemble talent around the budding Derrick Rose-Joakim Noah nucleus.  Amar'e Stoudemire brought (some) life back to basketball in New York City.  The Atlanta Hawks made a borderline top 20 player the offseason's highest paid. 

All told, the 2010 NBA offseason is one of the greatest things to ever happen to NBA in the short-term.

One question remains, though: Was it good for the league long-term?

And that answer depends on who you ask. 

The end result of the 2010 NBA offseason is the NBA supplanting Major League Baseball as professional sports' most top-heavy major sports league.

Whether you love it or loathe it, all power rankings for the next two seasons should read the following way:  Lakers, Heat (in some order), and everyone else.

Some may disagree simply because of their new-found Heat hatred or long-standing Lakers hatred, but both Miami and Los Angeles have such a gaping talent advantage over the rest of the league that anything but an instant white-hot rivalry is a disappointment.

If you don't think that the Super Best Friends Club has motivated legacy-obsessed Kobe Bryant into eviscerating this team, you have another thing coming. 

Kobe wants Miami to make the NBA Finals next season just as badly as he wanted the Boston Celtics to make it last season. 

If Bryant's Lakers manage to defeat this media and self-proclaimed super-team in Miami, Bryant instantly vaults himself into the top five NBA players of all-time even on the biggest Kobe detractor's list. 

But the question still remains: With young players such as Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant trying to vault themselves into the national spotlight, is a two-team league good for the future of the NBA?

The answer: An unequivocal yes. 

The NBA is a league whose success is predicated on its stars.  Whether that be because the marketing geniuses at the NBA made it that way or simply because NBA players are the United States' most recognizable athletes.

During the league's greatest period of success (the 1980s), the league was dominated by charismatic all-time greats and major metropolitan cities.  And during its darkest days (first few years post-Jordan, post-lockout), the league's best player (Tim Duncan) played in a middle-class city with a lunch pail mentality. 

The NBA is not a lunch pail league.  The NBA is a league that glorifies high-flying acrobatics, charisma, and star-power.

In Miami and Los Angeles, the league gets all three. 

However, while the Lakers and Heat may rule the NBA over the next few seasons, their dominance is going to have another profound and completely separate effect on the league.

In baseball, when all hope seemed lost toward having a competitively balanced league, low-budget teams hunkered themselves in rooms with Sabermetricians and found new ways to win through on-base percentage and recently with new defensive metrics like UZR. 

If I was an owner of one of the NBA's newly created "small market" teams, the first thing I would do is learn from my baseball counterparts and invest in numerous Sabermetric-like studies. 

The assumed multi-year Lakers-Heat reign atop the NBA not only provides us with a great rivalry and water cooler fodder, but also provides other owners with the motivation to find new ways to win, is that not a great thing for the league?

Whether it's good for fans is another story.

Send E-Mails to [e-mail] for his upcoming NBA offseason mailbag column.  All questions, no matter how ridiculous (and ridiculous questions are encouraged) will be answered.