Like a hot dog left overlong in a gas station rotisserie, the last word on LeBron's "Decision"

Most everything has been said about LeBron and his Decision, so I won't pick at the bones too long here.

In the fading Decision winter, the ESPN Ombudsman posted an interesting dissection of the Decision-as-programming-event. He mentions a litany of complaints about the hour-long debacle, chief among them whether ESPN is guilty of paying for news rather than reporting it. An outgrowth of the paying for news accusation is whether ESPN is pandering to LeDiva by tossing marshmallow-soft interview questions when journalistic integrity might call for more incisive inquiry. Ohlmeyer's article is a good read and it gets to the core of who the blaming finger of public outrage should be pointed at: ESPN.

Because for what, exactly, should people be angry with LeBron? He claims to have donated all proceeds from "Decision" ad revenue to charity, so he didn't make any money from the event (if he didn't donate all of the cash, however, as speculated on Bill Simmons' recent podcast, then LeBron does have something to answer for). LeBron didn't make any promises about where he would sign in free agency, and it was well within his rights to sign anywhere he pleased. LeBron also took less money to sign with the Heat than he could have wrung from the Cavs, so we can't accuse him of being ultra-greedy.

The idea that LeBron somehow betrayed Cleveland is ridiculous. If you or I choose to accept a job in another town, are we betraying the people of our current city? What obligation does LeBron have to Cleveland? Just because a person is from Akron doesn't mean that he needs to stay there. Can you blame a 25-year-old, single male for wanting to move to Miami?

There is an argument to be made the LeBron was trying to use the hour to pump up his image as a celebrity and a philanthropist, but he failed miserably if that was his goal, and the PR hit he has taken should be punishment enough for that alleged crime.

The only things I find LeBron guilty of are egomania and lameness. Also, I find him guilty of choking in the playoffs. But I absolutely acquit him of any significant moral wrongdoing in his decision. As Ohlmeyer points out, it would have been nice if LeBron announced his decision with "style, grace, humility and appreciation," but should we expect that of our deified professional athletes?

Frankly, we, the public, are guilty of stoking the flames of this boy's egomania to the point that he thought his decision to make "The Decision" was a good decision.

What most disturbs me about the whole circus is the behavior of Dan Gilbert, majority owner of the Cavs. He wrote an embarrassing open letter to his fans, in which he (and I agree completely with Rev. Jesse Jackson) sounded more like the owner of a runaway slave than an owner of an NBA team. At one point in his venomous diatribe, Gilbert seethes, "Some people think they should go to heaven but NOT have to die to get there." Is this coming from a jilted lover or a business professional? What does dying have to do with basketball?

Gilbert released a statement that he strongly disagrees with Rev Jackson's assessment of him as having a slave owner mentality, but let's not let him off the hook too easily. As I see it, Gilbert's fury stems from LeBron holding all the cards in "The Decision," and Gilbert's being unable to control him. LeBron made NBA owners come to Ohio to meet with him if they wanted his services, ostensibly held everyone in the dark about his decision until he released it on his terms, and chose to go to a team where he could play with his friends and have fun in the sun. LeBron had the ultimate power, and Gilbert clearly resented that someone who was formerly in his employ was now free to move on- and, who now even had power over Gilbert.

Yes, absolutely yes, Gilbert displayed a slave owner mentality. I won't go so far as to say that he is a racist- though it is a reasonable assumption- but Gilbert's comments about LeBron did not, again to echo Rev. Jackson, reflect a view of their relationship as being between business partners. LeBron honored his contract to the letter, and Gilbert was not satisfied with that. He wanted LeBron under his thumb and filling his coffers. When Gilbert discovered that he did not own LeBron, and further that LeBron had power over him (in terms of selling Cavs tickets, which should be an easier get next season), Gilbert reacted like any slave owner who discovered his property to have fled his plantation.