Ray Allen, previous member of the "Big 3" of the Boston Celtics, has agreed to sign with the Miami Heat as a free agent. Using simple math, it would appear as though Boston is now the "Big 2" with the loss of Allen, and Miami now the "Big 4," right? Actually, maybe not, as upon closer inspection it's become really difficult to properly identify who is still "Big," as well as re-calculate the calibrations of how many "Bigs" some NBA teams will have heading into the 2012-13 season.
When the Boston Celtics had Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce, they were crowned the "Big 3," even though many felt Rajon Rondo easily qualified for a "Big" status himself (especially after his spectacular playoff run this past season). Making things even more interesting was the fact that all 3 of the original Boston "Big" players are aging, calling their "Big" status into question and making the title seem more gratuitous than anything (in fact, Allen was expected to become a reserve player for the Celtics if he would have re-signed with the team). So with Allen leaving and Rondo now clearly one of the best players in the league, does Boston still have a "Big 3," or have Garnett and Pierce lost their "Big" carrying cards? If that's the case, Boston may really be a "Big 1" (and probably with an asterisk since Rondo never was fully accepted as a "Big" by most fans).
A similar quandary is happening in Miami with the Ray Allen signing. A former "Big 3" member in Boston, does Allen maintain his status now that he is off to Miami and nearing 37 years old? Assuming Allen is still a card carrying member of the NBA "Big" club, does his signing with Miami now give them an unprecedented "Big 4?"
If you think all of this is confusing, it only gets worse when you try to ascertain the number of "Bigs" on other NBA teams that have been busy this off-season. In Los Angeles, the Lakers added Steve Nash (an aging borderline "Big") to a roster that includes Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol (2 generally accepted "Bigs") and Andrew Bynum (an up and coming "Big"). The Lakers "Big" count could be anywhere from 1-4, depending on your scoring at home.
The New York Knicks already had 2 "Bigs" in Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire, and they added an old "Big" in Jason Kidd, and look to be re-signing an emerging "Big" in Jeremy Lin. Since Kidd is past his prime and Lin not quite into his, can their combined presence give the Knicks one full "Big" as a result?
If all of this has your head spinning, you are not alone. Maybe it's best we just leave it all the way it was, similar to how college athletic conferences like the Big 10 and Big 12 have (neither has the number of teams in their conference that their names indicate). All makes sense, right?!