The Nets will move forward today, is Howard to Brooklyn a good move for the league?

Image from bleacherreport.com

Dwight Howard has consumed the news for quite some time now, but is Howard going to the Nets really a good thing? When the lockout was in full effect before this season started, one of the many problems to be resolved was competitive equality. Owners were worried that big market teams would always have the advantage because they can offer more money than most other teams (such as the Lakers, Knicks, Miami) to big time players. Such was the reason that a hard salary cap will kick in with the new collective Bargaining agreement in a few seasons. A Hard salary cap means that teams who go over the allowed spending limit, will have to pay luxury tax. This will allow small market teams better chance at superstar players.
But until the new hard cap kicks in, we are still facing the same issue, many general managers around the league do not want to see another quote on  quote "super team" formed. whether the Nets can be considered a super team if they acquire Howard is up to debate. However,  acquiring Howard would definitely portray the Nets as a another super team so lets think of Brooklyn as such. This would not be good for the league for a number of reasons. First, if the Nets acquire Howard it will continue the trend that  Lebron James started. since Lebron's "decision" every team wants to bring together a bunch of superstars, so Howard would definitely convert a trend into regularity. Second, that leads to lack of competitiveness around the league, if there's only 4 great teams and 26 mediocre teams, what will be the point of watching basketball when you already know what the conference championships will look like?
Now you can argue that it wont matter, look at the Oklahoma City Thunder for example. They created a championship team purely out of the draft and some smart low key trades. But it takes luck to be able to do that, the Thunder had the benefit of drafting a once in a generation superstar in Kevin Durant and happened to be bad enough to get other high picks in the draft while Durant developed. They also happened to assert correctly in their picks of Harden and Westbrook. So to do what OKC did it takes a lot of luck and picks at the right time. Thats why Howard to the Nets isn't a great move for the league. The Heat brought the league a lot of revenue and fame with their decision to come together because they did something that had never been done before, in addition it doesn't hurt that one of the players was Lebron James, one of the most polarizing players in all of major sports. whether you hate him or love him, everybody wanted to see if the Heat would fail or succeed. If Howard, goes to the Nets it will not generate the same buzz because it wouldn't be the first time it was done, and because Deron Williams and Dwight Howard aren't as popular as Lebron James and Dwyane Wade.
Even Howard to the lakers would be better for the league. The lakers wouldn't be a "Super" team, and everybody outside of Lakerland should know that. Kobe will turn 34 this august and he's in the twilight of his brilliant career. Steve Nash also happens to be 38, so they will be a very good team, but by no standards a "super" team.
Are Super teams good or bad for the league? If so what do you think would be a good solution or method to deal with them?
-Restricted free agent Linn says he was upset at the Knicks for not making the first move
-Heat introduce Allen and Lewis as they sign contract today
-Lakers will introduce Nash today
-Nets have added Stackhouse and are moving today to sign Lopez either to sign and trade him, or sign him to make him part of Brooklyn's core group for the future
-Hibbert will return to Indiana after they match Portland offer
Any comments or questions will be answered, feel free to subscribe to get future entries