As NBA Trade Deadline Approaches, the Best Deal for Some Teams Is No Deal

I'm not the first basketball fan to write this story. Fran Blinebury wrote a similar piece a few weeks ago for NBA.com. Perhaps the common-sense nature of the topic is why it is worth rehashing as the NBA Trade Deadline approaches.

Teams have until Thursday to wheel and deal their way to salary cap freedom or supposed roster improvements. Rumors are rampant, and expect the trade talk to bubble in the next two days.

The Miami Heat and Toronto Raptors already swapped Shawn Marion and Jermaine O'Neal.

I wrote two weeks ago that there wouldn't be any major deadline deals. My piece was largely an anguished response to all of the ridiculous proposals I was reading. Some people find endless trade banter stimulating and exciting. I don't.

Particularly when most of the deals proposed do little to help either team. How about Amar'e Stoudemire for Fabricio Oberto, Michael Finley, Jacque Vaughn and Ian Mahinmi's rights? Yes folks, one poster proposed such drivel on a mysanantonio.com message board.

Or, how about Tony Parker, a three-time champion, with Michael Finley, Roger Mason Jr., Fabricio Oberto for Stoudemire? That supposed fan must secretly hate the Spurs and the idea of winning championships.

I have wondered why people love trades so much. Maybe it's the romantic notion that accompanies new, high-profile arrivals that says, "anything's possible." Maybe the risk of a blockbuster deal gets the adrenaline going.

Maybe some blogger with nothing better to do thinks he can steal someone else's rumor and rise to credibility if it comes to pass. "Look what we reported last week."

So, with rumors flying about Vince Carter and Amar'e Stoudemire among other players, I decided to weigh in on one of the proposed deals and why whiffing but not making it might be the best recourse.

The San Antonio Express-News and New Jersey Star-Ledger each posted that the Spurs and Nets had discussed this deal:

Spurs give up/Nets get: George Hill, Roger Mason Jr., Fabricio Oberto, and Bruce Bowen

Nets give up/Spurs get: Vince Carter.

Tim Duncan all but vetoed the deal with his comments in an interview with Hoops World.

The reasons why this deal does not work are obvious.

1) It's illegal. The Nets would have to waive three players before signing off on this, even if the intention would be to release Bowen and Oberto immediately.

2) The Spurs give up a shooter with serious balls (Mason has four game-winners on his half-season San Antonio resume, including two against the Celtics and Lakers) and a terrific defensive point guard who could figure into the franchise's long-term plans.

3) The Nets give up an All-Star caliber player for two specialist veterans (OK, scrubs in New Jersey) who wouldn't play a minute there and two role players who won't get them to the playoffs the way Carter can.

4) The only way Kiki Vandeweghe and Rod Thorn do this is to shed salary.

5) The Spurs damage a core that many believe can compete for a championship.

6) If the intent is to make the Spurs better than the Lakers, the deal fails. The Lakers give shooters all they can eat on the weak side, and Mason is a valuable asset in that respect. Carter is a streaky, mercurial talent who would have to accept being a fourth option on a team in a "small market."

This brings me to the point of this piece. Sometimes the best deal you make is the one you don't. The Spurs offer the best example.

In February 2007, the Spurs dangled Brent Barry and another unknown player for J.R. Smith. Last minute financial kinks killed the deal. The front office thought at the time that a deal might spark the team after an abysmal 10-10 January.

Then, Popovich famously told his players that there would be no deal. "You guys in this room have to figure it out," he said.

They did. The Spurs won their fourth championship despite playing underdog the entire season to the Dallas Mavericks and Phoenix Suns.

Remember that Steve Nash was the reigning MVP on a team with two 17-game win streaks, and the Mavericks had knocked off the Spurs in the 2006 Playoffs.

By no means does this simple comparison mean the Spurs are going to win another title. It should merely remind you that it is possible.

That's why R.C. Buford's shrewdest move would be whiffing on several deals and saying "no" to all of them. Letting the details leak only helps his cause.

Is Carter worth $16 million?

The Spurs, like several teams, can make a stronger statement by standing pat. If no one can match the Lakers in talent, except maybe the discombobulated Houston Rockets, the best weapon is message that comes from saying, "we like what we have."

I would be more afraid of a four-time champion that believes its less talented squad can beat mine with experience and acumen than one who panics and makes a chemistry-altering deal.

A deal of the Vince Carter magnitude says two things about the Spurs:

1) They do not feel the team, as constructed, can win a championship.

2) They feel the need to challenge the Lakers with a move.

Talking about a Vince Carter deal but rejecting it also says two things about the Spurs:

1) They inquired about the services of a former All-Star who can still score 20 points a game and passed because the team, as constructed, can win a championship.

2) They believe their system, acumen, and philosophy gives them a chance against the favored Lakers.

Aren't acumen, system, and philosophy the three reasons the Spurs can still compete for a fifth title?

For once, I'll make this short. This might be the first thing I've written that isn't at least two pages long.

It's impossible for anyone without every general manager's cell phone number and their trust to know how long the above talks lasted. It was, after all, a rumor.

Still, rumors are useful ways to kick-start speculation and that can be the perfect opportunity to say "no thanks."

Sometimes, "no thanks" can be the best way to tell everyone else what they don't want to hear.

Ponder or bash my rumination at your leisure.