Is a statue of LeBron James appropriate for Los Angeles? It seems like Gilbert Arenas hasn’t made a contentious statement in over a week. LeBron James is the subject of one of his more recent ones from last week, but is this one truly contentious?
Gilbert Arenas asserted that LeBron James is merely a rental and not a real Lakers icon during an episode of Nightcap with Shannon Sharpe. Arenas stated:
“LeBron was a rental for the Lakers’ greatness, and that’s just something he’s gonna have to accept,” “His milestones came in this uniform… but the legacy wasn’t built here.”
Is Gilbert Arenas wrong about LeBron not deserving a statue ?
Even though Arenas is usually contentious, he isn’t entirely incorrect in this particular case. LeBron James landed in Los Angeles aged thirty-four years old and with three NBA Championships under his belt.
James’ impact was so strong that, after winning a championship, Arenas reiterated that he shouldn’t be honored with a statue in Los Angeles. Arenas stated: “LeBron’s Laker résumé doesn’t have a statue here,” “LeBron James, the name—f–k yeah, has a statue.”
Any player who wins a title for a team usually gets a statue or a retirement from the jersey. LeBron’s case is particularly complicated because it happened during the bubble and LA never held a parade in recognition of him. That’s why there will always be a strange sensation associated with his Lakers championship. But a title is a championship anyway.
But LeBron deserves a statue if he wins another championship with the Lakers.