The summer of Free Agency.

That's what 2010 has been branded as by several people who cover and love the NBA.

For 2-3 years, teams throughout the league have shed money and taken on expiring contracts with the hopes of, this summer, landing LeBron James, or Dwayne Wade, or Chris Bosh, or Amar'e Stoudemire or some other top-flight free agent.

The players listed above, and the likes of Joe Johnson, Carlos Boozer and David Lee will all be looking to sign maximum contracts in the coming weeks, which would guarantee them about $16.5 million/season - for a maximum of six seasons - beginning with the 2010-11 campaign. If any of the players decides to sign with their current team, they stand to make about $30 million more than they would if they opt to sign with another team, according to the "Larry Bird exception" area of the league's collective bargaining agreement, which gives a monetary advantage to a player's current team.

For the same amount of time that teams in the NBA have said, "screw winning, we're gonna suck for two years and hope we can get LeBron," it's been reported and speculated that a number of those players are planning on joining forces when free agency officially begins Thursday. Players can sign their new deals July 8.

If this happens, and, say, James, Bosh and Johnson end up in Chicago together, I truly believe this summer could signal the end of the competitive spirit flowing through the NBA.

Save the friendships for the offseason
When I was younger, I idolized Michael Jordan. His work ethic was second to none. He needed to be on top at all times; and he enjoyed beating the other players who were considered the best. Back in the 80s and early 90s, it was known that some players were friends (Jordan and Charles Barkley, Jordan and Patrick Ewing, etc.), but they wanted to embarrass their friends when the ball went up in the air. They hated each other on the court and were close off it. They could separate the two and it seems like guys today can't do that.

Is that trait lost in today's player, save for, maybe Kobe Bryant and Kevin Durant? I realize Kobe campaigned for "better" teammates for some time from 2005 until Pau Gasol was gift-wrapped for the Lakers in February 2008, but he never openly lobbied for Lakers' owner Jerry Buss to sign an in-his-prime Kevin Garnett or Allen Iverson.

When Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce decided to join forces in Boston in 2007, that was understandable. Each of them, for years, attempted to carry teams and franchises to titles and failed. All three of them were at least 10 years deep in the league, too; so, to them, it made sense to team up for one last title run, which they completed. Gasol is a good player, which Bryant needed in L.A. But he's isn't James or Bosh. Gasol can be dominant at times, but, it's been proven (his teams in Memphis were 0-12 in three playoff appearances) that he's much more of a complimentary player than a "star."

Who wants to be a leader?
But James, Wade, Bosh and the other free agents are all in the prime of their careers. If all of the talked-about supergroups are formed, are all of these world-class athletes, who are supposed to be as competitive as two girls going after the same guy, essentially admitting they can't lead a team to a championship? These (possible) moves make it look like each of these super-talented athletes are giving up on being leaders of their own teams and looking for the easiest road to a title.

A team that features Wade, Bosh and Johnson would be primed to make a run at the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls record 72 wins. But it wouldn't have the same feeling as that stretch did.

What made the 72-10 season so special to me was every time I checked a box score and saw names like Kerr, Kukoc, Wennington, Longley, or Harper - role players stepping up and making plays. Say Wade, James and Bosh do all come together and go on a run like that, how much fun is that going to be for fans outside of the city they play in? What person wouldn't look at that group and say, "You're supposed to win all your games! You have three of the best 10 players in the league on your team!"

Sure, the Bulls had two of the best 30 players of all time and the finest defensive player (Dennis Rodman) of my generation, but the rest of that roster was made up of journeymen and castoffs. When you see something like that 1995-96 season come together, to me, it means more than if the whole thing is manufactured. And that's what a run next season by 2-3 of these free agents, put together, would be.

No room for two Type-As in one locker room
It would be different if it were players who complimented one another joining up. But what makes Wade and James - two guys who absolutely need to have the ball in their hands to make things happen - believe they can play together for 100-plus games a season for the next six years without some Alpha Dog issues surfacing?

That all-star roster worked in the 2008 Olympics because there were no endorsements involved, no statistical incentives to shoot for. But in the NBA, you can't have a team set up like that because of egos, money, etc. But, if that somehow did happen, Wade would be the alpha dog of the squad, in my opinion, and I don't think Jame's ego could take that. Wade's the one who led a team to a title. James hasn't done that. And LeBron has always said one of his main goals is to be considered the best player of all time. How's the supposed to happen if he ends up playing most of his prime with Wade?

Hopefully, competitive juices begin to flow again and rosters next season don't look like video games when the "salary cap" function is disabled.