OK let's make it simple. The way I see it, the questions are:1. How many superstars have either changed teams or re-upped with their current team in the last 2-3 years? 2. Of those, what percentage went to NY, LA or Miami?3. Is that percentage a troubling new trend or just an anomaly?I don't know the answer to these questions, and obviously it depends on your definition of "superstar," but I think they're fair questions to ask as an NBA fan/consumer. And I haven't heard any answers yet that lead be to believe it's just an anomaly and shouldn't be a concern of mine as an NBA fan/consumer. That's all. I'm certainly open to hearing any such arguments.One other thing- you keep saying that they should build a winner or the player will leave. But that's not the problem. The problem is the recent trend where they build a winner and the player leaves anyway. Even if we set aside the argument that the Cavs were a winner, you've got the Jazz doing a decent job building around Deron Williams, the Nuggets doing a decent job building around Carmelo, and the Magic and Hornets and Suns doing at least a semi-decent job building around Howard and Paul and Amare (at least part of their time). All of those teams made playoff runs and had at least some talent around the star during some or most of their tenure, with the possible exception of New Orleans under Paul since I assume most of their winning was attributable solely to him. All of these players ended up leaving anyway. So clearly, building a winner isn't enough. Do you think all of those teams' front offices failed? Maybe you do- I'm sort of still a novice at this NBA stuff, so I can't speak with authority, but that's a lot of teams who had varying measures of success. Seems weird to just say they were all failures and the blame lies with all the front offices.