LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony: Are They Helping the Game or Killing It?

The New Jersey Nets acquired Utah Jazz point guard Deron Williams on Wednesday, with the Jazz basically relieving themselves of the burden of possibly watching Williams leave in free agency in 2012.

Utah chose to deal Williams rather than face the same turmoil that plagued the Cleveland Cavaliers and Denver Nuggets when stars LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony decided to take their talents to Miami and New York, respectively.

Besides the obvious implications of a superstar changing teams, the Williams deal is also important because it is the first instance of a franchise taking a proactive stance when faced with losing the player for nothing.

James, Anthony and Chris Bosh were effectively able to force their former teams to bend to their wills,  creating a perception that players were finally gaining their place at the NBA's table of power.

Those players have been alternately praised and condemned for their decisions; regardless of how any individual feels, it's hard to deny the consequences of their actions.

The general consensus is that other NBA stars will follow the lead of James, Anthony and Bosh by forming super teams of their own or leaving their current teams to join super teams which have already been established.

Utah's preemptive trade of Williams will likely be used as a blueprint by other teams who are wary of facing the same scrutiny that Denver and Cleveland faced.

This would seem to be an effective method for owners of curbing the potential flood of free-agent stars jumping ship for greener pastures, at least on the surface.

The Nets have been praised for landing Williams, who is seen by many as a superior player to Anthony, but what happens when 2012 rolls around?

Unlike Anthony, Williams never expressed any interest in New Jersey and unless the Nets can convince him to re-sign before 2012, they run the risk of not only losing Williams but forfeiting the pieces it took to land him.

Sounds like a potential double whammy to me.

At least the Nets have a big market and a billionaire owner to sway Williams, but what happens to the teams that have neither?

It's hard to picture a group of NBA stars taking their collective talents to Cleveland, Charlotte, Sacramento or any number of small market teams.

Utah received Devin Harris, Derrick Favors and two first-round draft picks for the services of Williams, but what happens when it comes time to convince those players to sign contract extensions?

James shattered the myth of decisions being based on money and, in truth, the ability of a team to pay more to retain their own talent was one of the only things that kept the league competitive.

How can smaller market teams compete with franchises like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles when money factors little in the equation?

The short answer is they can't.

Unless future free agents are suddenly stricken with a severe case of loyalty, it's a good chance that players like Chris Paul and Dwight Howard will follow the example that's been set for them.

I'm all for increasing the level of quality and competition in the NBA, but not at the expense of teams that play in smaller markets and have less resources.

And you can be certain that owners will address this phenomenon during collective bargaining agreements, and it's doubtful that the players, with their new-found power, will accept their conclusions.

The jury is still out on whether or not players forming their own teams is good, but one thing is certain: A showdown is looming between the players and owners and a lockout is a very strong possibility.

In that instance, it really doesn't matter who goes where because, in the end, we all lose.