I think that in general, fans will always be opposed to players having more freedom. The reason being, everyone wants to believe that if their home team drafts and nurtures a superstar, that star will stay in town for at least 10 seasons, leaving only in his twilight years if he is trying to win a championship. The recent coordination by Wade, LeBron, and Bosh represents three star players circumventing a system designed to maintain continuity.
Watching the fan bases in Cleveland and Toronto, one gets the impression that it could easily be THEIR town that loses 7-8 years of a superstar's prime, and in Cleveland's case the team was actually winning 60 games a season. No, the unease that has crept amongst NBA fans is that if given too much control, NBA stars will almost always gravitate towards the biggest locations - New York, California, Florida and form superteams planned years in advance and without consideration of the loyal fans living in less glitzy locales.
Some people brought up the Celtics as an example of the first superteam, but remember that nobody wanted to touch Boston until Garnett was traded here, and it took the Ray Allen trade and another trade/rich extension for Garnett to get it done. And who knows if it would have even come to pass if Kevin McHale didn't have Boston ties. Chicago still wonders why their proposal wasn't good enough to land the Big Ticket.
Of course, free agents have a right to do whatever they want. However, this freedom doesn't always translate to a better league from the fan's perspective. If the players are going to decide the teams, then we'll eventually end up with a elite level of superteams in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Phoenix/Texas.