Dead(line) deals

On a day when the biggest news in the world – not just the sports world, the entire world – is Tiger, Tiger, Tiger Wood ya'll, I'm going to write about something that nobody cares about: the NBA trade deadline.

In the passing glimpses of NBA coverage (between the pervasive Tiger Woods coverage and the delayed Winter Olympics coverage) on ESPN's many services, I've seen a number of complaints about the NBA's trade system, as reflected in this year's trade deadline deals.

The general consensus seems to be that the NBA trading system is somehow flawed or even broken. This sentiment, I think, can be summed up through just one of the deadline trades:

Darko Milicic for Brian Cardinal.

While poor old Darko has been the butt of many NBA jokes throughout his career, the real problem in this trade is Cardinal, whom the Knicks received from Minnesota. About four hours after Chad Ford reported the Milicic-for-Cardinal trade was official, Chris Sheridan reported that the Knicks would release Cardinal.

In other words, the Knicks essentially traded an (admittedly disappointing) #2-overall draft pick for absolutely nobody. This is the kind of trade that the current system inspires: expiring contracts for expendable contracts, dead weight for weightlessness.

Trades aren't about players anymore; they're about money.

Even the most-reported-on and potentially most significant trade follows the same line of reasoning, at least for one team.

In a complicated, three-team trade, the Wizards sent former-Tar Heel Antawn Jamison to Cleveland for Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Even though both of the marquee players in the trade are two-time All-Stars, the move was definitely a money issue from Washington's standpoint, considering they plan to release the Lithuanian Wonder.

If the Mavericks don't pick up the 7'3" center, he may be selling bootleg DVDs for real.

But the problem isn't just about money. It's also about parity and competition. With the addition of Jamison, the Cavs, who already have the best record in the NBA, have continued the top-tier arms race that has recently erupted between the four teams that everyone expects to compete for the NBA championship (Cavs, Magic, Celtics, Lakers).

But the problem doesn't just end in Cleveland; it starts there too. All of the money deals that went down over the past week are motivated by the LeBron James draft and subsequent 2010 free-agent class. Teams around the league – but particularly in major markets – are dumping money and players like too-hot food in attempts to create cap space (and ping pong balls) for the 2010-2011 season.

In retrospect, I think this is a natural conclusion to NBA trends of the last 25 years. Since David Stern became the commish in 1984, the NBA has made a concerted effort to focus on and sell their elite stars, from Magic to Michael to MeBron, I mean, LeBron. (And Mobe?)

With the exception of the 2004 Detroit Pistons, who won with teamwork, friendship, and rainbows, every NBA champion under David Stern's tenure has included at least one of the best five players of their respective eras. ('84, '86: Larry Bird; '85, '87, '88: Magic and Kareem; '89-'90: Isaiah Thomas; '91-'93, '96-'98: Jordan and Pippen; '94-'95: Hakeem; '99: Tim Duncan and David Robinson; '00-'02: Kobe and Shaq; '03, '05, '07: Duncan; '06: Dwyane Wade and Shaq; '08: KG and Paul Pierce; '09: Kobe)

Now, it seems like the rest of the league has finally figured it out. In David Stern's NBA, every team is just one superstar away – whether he is a 2010 free agent or a tank-job ensured rookie – from being relevant.

With a very few exceptions, in this season's NBA, it's good to be bad.

Question of the Week:

Who wants to buy some DVDs?

-submitted by Puppet Big Z

My take: Mark Cuban.