CIB Caves for Pacers

The Pacers are staying in Indianapolis.

Such a proclamation really isn't that big of a deal, considering that the Blue and Gold were never a realistic threat to leave in the immediate future. That's what makes the franchise's $33.5 million deal with the CIB that much more puzzling.

I couldn't help but feel that the CIB were like parents caving into their unruly 16-year old. If your kid threatens to run away, you call their bluff. In this instance, the kid said he was leaving and the parents decided to buy him a $150,000 Lexus.

Where exactly were the Pacers going to go?

The economy is still recovering from the crash two years ago. Markets with already-existing NBA teams like Memphis and Charlotte are struggling. The Pacers can say whatever they want about having "numerous sutiors" - I'd love to see who (and where). My point is: where was the immediate threat? Why the rush to bend over backwards to Pacers instead of playing a little hardball?

I think we'd all agree that retaining the Pacers is a good thing for the city of Indianapolis. It helps raise the overall profile of the city, and continues the quest to become of the premiere sports destinations in America. If a city isn't strong enough to support their own NBA team, why would Super Bowls, Final Fours, and World Cups come here?

All of that being said, just rolling over for Herb Simon & Co. was not the way to go. $10 million per over the next three years, plus footing the entire bill of capital improvements is a bigger rob job than Darko's $20 million extension. The CIB should've dug their heels in and come to a reasonable agreement. $5 million per year would've covered about one-third of the annual operating cost of Conseco Fieldhouse. Let Simon dig into his deep pockets for the rest.

$33.5 million? That's too much, Bob.

My biggest problem is the lack of responsibility on the part of the Pacers. Instead of saying "please help", it's "we need this and we need that, or we're gone". It's not the CIB's fault that the franchise took onTroy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy and the hefty contracts that came with them from Golden State in 2007. It's not Indianapolis' fault that the Blue and Gold can't put a product on the floor that consistently attracts more than 10,000 fans per home game. It's certainly not the taxpayers fault that Jamaal Tinsley was paid $7 million to sit on his keister.

I hate to think glass half-empty, but there's nothing stopping the Pacers from coming back to the with their hands out at the end of the 2012-13 season. I hope the CIB and the city of Indianapolis drive a tougher bargain next time around.

Cons & Cons

LeBron's DECISION (caps for emphasis) is about an hour away, and I, like all of you, am still guessing as to where he will land. When projecting something like this, I've always found that the true answer lies in which option has the least significant cons as opposed to the most significant pros. Since I'm up against the clock, here's an abbreviated version of all of the cons from LeBron's possible destinations:

Cleveland
1) They've tried to build a contender around him, and have failed to do so. Despite having the best record in the East the past two years, the Cavs have flamed-out spectacularly in each of the last two postseasons. 2) They have zero cap flexibility and are tied into a lot of long-term contracts. They have attractive trade options, but working sign-and-trades is a lot more complicated than just throwing $100M in someones face. 3) It's Cleveland. Comparing Cleveland to Miami, Chicago, and New York is like comparing a hot dog from a street vendor to filets at St. Elmo's, Shula's, and Ruth Chris. Sure, it's home, but he can maximize his earning potential elsewhere.

Chicago
1) You're stepping into Michael Jordan's shadow - a shadow that will never fully go away. Six rings is asking a whole lot. 2) The whole "LeBron needs a point guard" belief is a myth. He needs to have the ball in his hands. I think he cancels out what Derrick Rose (running the offense) does best by putting him on that team. 3) You're joining a team with a brand-new and therefore unproven head coach in Tom Thibodeau. Is that a risk LeBron is willing to take?

New York
1) LeBron + Amar'e Stoudemire + .....? Danilo Gallinari? Toney Douglas? The Knicks aren't an instant Championship favorite like Miami and Chicago would be. 2) Knicks' fans would literally flip out with LeBron chose to come to New York, but they wouldn't be star-struck forever. Eventually fans would come to expect things (i.e. multiple Championships), which may make the latter years a struggle. 3) The Knicks do have Eddy Curry's expiring contract coming off the books next year, but they're already lost their 2012 First Round pick. Gallinari is the only young piece with All-Star potential, as the ceilings of Douglas and Wilson Chandler are pretty low.

Miami
1) LeBron is having his own one-hour primetime TV special to announce his decision, and you think this is a guy that wants to go to Miami where he'll have to fight for the spotlight with Dwyane Wade? 2) The LeBron-Wade-Bosh trio sounds great on paper, but how would this really work? Remember the embarrassing Olympic (2004) and World Championships (2002) teams? The problem with those teams was that everyone was trying to get theirs. The same could result here. 3) Miami is a complete disaster of a sports town. I'm convinced there are more Knicks/Mets fans in that town than Heat/Marlins. He won't be beloved there like he likely would be in Cleveland, New York, and Chicago.

All in all, I think the Miami reports today, and the Knicks reports last night, were all smoke-screens. I think you'll see LeBron decide to stay in Cleveland, because it's the situation that makes most sense.

Happy LeBronakah!

With July 1, 2010 finally here, I have rundown a list of the top available free agents in this year's star-studded class (age in parenthesis):

1) LeBron James (25)
Why? Because of this.

2) Dwyane Wade (28)
Wade, like Dirk, is probably only testing the waters and seeing what Miami will do with their cap room. I’d expect him to be back as long as they are somewhat aggressive.

3) Dirk Nowitzki (32)
I’d be shocked if Dirk didn’t stay in Dallas, considering they could give him a four-year deal with a no-trade clause and over $95 million if he stayed. He's a natural fit for what the Mavs like to do (insert "early playoff exit" joke here).

4) Chris Bosh (26)
Had career-highs in scoring and rebounding last season and could be put in a good situation. He’s an ideal #2, and will probably wait to see if one of the other big dominos fall first.

5) Amare Stoudemire (27)
Not sure about his attitude at all times, and he doesn’t care much to rebound the basketball but he immediately makes any offense better.

6) Rudy Gay (23)
Gay is the youngest, and therefore still has by far the most potential of anyone on this list. However, he is looking for a max deal, and I’m not sure who is going to give that.

7) Joe Johnson (29)
There’s no question he can score, and he’s also very durable, but the performance in the playoffs has scared me off. Seems like the kind of guy that wouldn’t be happy as a #2.

8) Carlos Boozer (28)
Had a big, and most importantly healthy, season in 2009-10 going for 19.5 ppg and 11.2 rpg. Is the B-est of B-level players, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

9) David Lee (27)
His numbers (20.2 ppg, 11.7 rpg) wow you, but his defense does not. Is Lee just another one of those players artificially inflated by playing in Mike D’Antoni’s system?

10) Paul Pierce (32)
Pierce is still an effective player, but it’s tough to even call him a #2 anymore. At 32, he has a lot of tread on the tires, and is athletically-limited

Honorable mention: Ray Allen, John Salmons, Luis Scola, Josh Howard