Not With a Bang But a Whimper: NBA Finals Aftermath

"...not five, not six, not seven..." As Lebron James concluded his bold guarantee of a Heat dynasty, the Miami crowd erupted in both excitement and stunned disbelief. Winning the biggest free agent competition in professional sports history left them with understandably high expectations for what would be the most scrutinized and ultimately hated team in recent memory. Due to this, finishing second-best has made the "Big Three" and company somewhat of a disappointment thus far. On the other hand, Dirk Nowitzki and the NBA Champion Dallas Mavericks have renewed the importance of what it means to be a complete team. Their surprising victory silenced what was a gathering storm in South Beach. In a way, nothing was louder than the absent celebration of an expecting Miami fanbase. As hustle and clutch play proved to triumph over raw talent and NBA Live ratings, immediate questions arose over the future of this conflicted Miami team, and the NBA in general.

Realistically, the Miami Heat will most likely be the best team in the NBA over the next ten years or so. I see their future as pretty set in stone, forever at the doorstep of a title and fighting to push their way in while twenty nine other teams push from the other side. The plot of Comissioner David Stern's movie would be as it was this year: "Will anyone beat the Heat and if so, who will it be?" The hero will change as the villain remains the same. I speak as a bigger "Heat hater" than just about anyone outside the city of Cleveland. With this said, even I must admit that Lebron's Decision forever changed the culture of the NBA and brought the great schism between what I now call Type A and Type B teams.

Type A teams are traditional; the majority of their success is home-grown and they typically steer clear of the transaction market. Think San Antonio Spurs dynasty or, most recently, the reigning champs. Type B teams rely almost entirely on either trades or free agents to copy and paste their way to a championship. For this, think Heat, Celtics (the original Big Three concept), or what the Knicks and Nets are attempting. While some teams lie on the borderline, such as Kobe and the Lakers not winning the big one without either Shaq or Pau Gasol (both acquired from other teams), there are clearly two ways to climb to the top.

Many skeptics and disgruntled haters of Type B teams may argue that such transactions are actually bad for the league. After all, if superstars leave their teams to play together, there will most likely be less good teams. I, however, disagree with this and believe that this is the best thing for the league since Bird vs Magic. In the 1980s there were essentially two teams, yet the NBA's popularity was at its peak. As for the lack of parody and fairness, I believe that any losing team that cannot improve through the draft year after year should be ashamed of themselves. In terms of ratings, having these love/hate teams attracts people who otherwise would have no interest in the NBA. My younger sister has less interest in sports than almost anyone I know; last week she watched games five and six with me because she wanted to "watch Lebron lose". Anything that is polarizing in nature will draw more interest from the general public.

Unfortunately, I have not yet filled my quota for New York Knicks bias, so anyone who does not share my fanhood has full permission to dismiss the following. The simple fact is that when New York is better off, so is the league. I love a Memphis Grizzlies playoff run as much as the next guy, but nothing helps a league more than when the major cities rule supreme. At the end of the day, I see nothing but a bright future for the NBA. If they can fix their labor dispute, which is another issue entirely, the new culture of the league will speak for itself. Boston made the blueprint, Miami brought it into the spotlight, and New York will join the conversation, competing to be the first to perfect the art.