Titles cement legacies

What makes a professional athlete a winner? Is it he who puts money first and hopes to build a championship team? Or, is winning titles while making a few million dollars less the key to sports immortality? This is the Facebook argument in which I was involved last week. Many posters believed LeBron James, who enters the off season as a free agent, would never reach the heights of Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant and could not be considered a true winner until he wins at least one championship. One poster, however, believed LeBron should look to money first and the caliber of team second. I argued LeBron is going to get paid no matter where he goes. He's already a global brand, does making $10 million less in, say, Chicago -- which many experts are saying is a good fit -- worth making more but playing with an inferior team somewhere else? LeBron critics believe he is all about the glitz, glamour and the fame, more so than possessing a will to win multiple titles. I believe two things can be equally true. He can be enamored of fame and all its trappings AND have the will to win. People talk of his flameout games over the final two of the series with Boston -- including the quietest triple-double in playoff history -- which prove that he doesn't have that killer instinct, a will to carry the team to a series victory. Could you blame him? Look at LeBron's supporting cast. He realizes he has to grab the defensive rebound, make the outlet pass to himself, take the return pass, drive to the basket and slam it home before sprinting back on defense to guard Paul Pierce. He had to be a one-man show -- the Cavaliers had no legitimate second option -- and I don't even know if Jordan could have carried that Cleveland team to a win over the Celtics. I guess the real argument should be, what is the more important legacy for a professional athlete? To be known as a winner or as a champion? Obviously, a champion is a winner by default, but the vice is not necessarily versa. Pro athletes have always made more money than the average Joe, but back in the day, 40, 50 years ago, it was common for athletes to have off-season jobs. That's why spring trainings and training camps are so long. Teams needed the time to get players in shape. But they kept coming back to camp, because they had a love for the game. Thirty years ago, players played for the love of the game. Even though many made a ton of money back then, it is nowhere near the dollars being thrown around nowadays. With the money being essentially equal, a true winner wants to be a champion. *** The Sharks' run to a Stanley Cup could be coming to an abrupt halt following a 4-2 loss to the Chicago Blackhawks in Game 2 of the Western Conference finals Tuesday. As hard as I've been on the Sharks in the past, I have to admit, if it ends here, I'm satisfied with this season. The Blackhawks were better head-to-head in the regular season and they are the better team now. No shame in losing to a better team. That being said, I'm still holding San Jose to high standards and expect more next season. They've been the Western Conference finals before, losing to Calgary in 2004. Nothing less than a Stanley Cup finals appearance -- minimum -- for the 2010-11 season will be expected. This year? The Sharks made huge strides -- mentally. They had a reputation of being a great regular-season team before grinding their sticks to saw dust in the playoffs. It looked like more of the same against Colorado in the opening round, as they had to rally from a 2-1 deficit. But they did it. Then, they dominated Detroit. The Sharks have played really well, overall, in these playoff. You couldn't say the same about previous teams. They weren't out-played by Colorado, they had bounces go against them. Boyle's gaff? The Sharks dominated that game. San Jose played well in the opener against Chicago, but couldn't solve Blackhawks goaltender Antti Niemi. The Blackhawks scored first Tuesday and then kept attacking, going up 3-0. Game over. Moves I'd like to see the Sharks to make next season: o Upgrade at goaltender. Evgeni Nabokov is an Olympic-caliber goaltender, but I don't think he is an elite NHL netminder. He has been too inconsistent over the last couple years. Standing on his head one game and allowing four goals on 10 shots the next night. The difference in the playoffs for the Sharks the past few seasons: The shots Nabokov misses are the ones the opposing goalie makes. o More offense from the defense. The Sharks need more firepower on the blue line. Dan Boyle is the only defenseman who is consistently involved in the offense. Rob Blake, at 40-plus years old, is basically a power-play sniper at this point in his career. Defensively, the defensemen are downright defensive. But the Sharks need more points out of them with opposing defenses concentrating on the Sharks great forward lines. More points from the defense would open up more space down low for the forwards. Nathan Mollat can be reached by e-mail: nathan@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 117.