These are very comparable situations. They're not? Jordan's gone. To the younger generation of NBA fans around right now he's just a guy from old highlight clips. Why is it realistic that the Lakers and Celtics could get great players to come play for them despite arguably being defined by previous dynasties and some of the greatest players of all time, but it's not for the Bulls? Because by the time the NBA became "THE NBA", the Celtics and Lakers already had a host of iconic stars. The Bulls 2nd best player of all time is still just "Jordan's sidekick" And? Again, Jordan's gone. I suppose it would be one thing if he was anything even remotely close to a presence with the Bulls or at the UC, but he's not. To fans growing up now he's just a number in the rafters, a statue outside and someone they see in highlight clips. Anyone that is perceived as winning a championship for the Bulls from now on is going to be first in the minds of most young fans, not Jordan. The impact of playing "in the shadow of Jordan" is a load of crap, especially when it comes to player of LeBron's abilities. I mean, if you're going to argue that he'll be second to Jordan here if he doesn't win at least 6 rings, then where could he go where that wouldn't be the case? What, if he goes to the Knicks or stays with the Cavs and wins, say, 4 championships with them when all is said and done, in those cases people would argue he's as good as or better than Jordan, but not if he "only" 4 rings as a Bull? I agree with the general thrust but Jordan is more than just a guy in highlight clips to any generation of Bulls fan. This is Michael Jordan we're talking about. He's still moving more merchandise than all about maybe 2 or 3 active basketball players (Lebron, Kobe, Yao) and is one of the most famous human beings on the planet.