Earlier today I visited Yardbarker.com and came across a post titled "The All Whitey Basketball Team." The concept is simple - what would a team only composed of white, American-born NBA players look like? Who would be on the team?

Seems like an innocent enough topic, doesn't it? At first glance, I was inclined to agree. [...]

Gerald Wallace is on the trading block. The rationale? Jared Dudley and Adam Morrison are capable players who are stuck behind Wallace, and Michael Jordan and Larry Brown believe they can make up for a loss of Wallace with the pieces they have. MJ and LB want a big man to pair with Okafor, and [...]

Antonio McDyess was included in the recent Allen Iverson - Chauncy Billups trade, and the trouble is he doesn't want to play in Denver. Evidently, McDyess is still upset about the way he was treated in 2002 when Denver traded him away to the Knicks. Denver has tried to pursue a buyout with McDyess, but [...]

With the western conference stronger than ever, it seems that San Antonio isn't going to get many more chances at competing for a championship. This year might be it, and Ginobili's recent injury has substantially endangered their chances. While the safe move for the Spurs is to stick with what's been working so well for so long, maybe it's time to mix it up with a big-time trade. Here's why:

1. The Spurs struggle to put points on the board, which puts a lot of pressure on their franchise player Tim Duncan to produce night-in and night-out.

2. Duncan is getting older and the championship window opens or closes with him.

3. Manu Ginobili, arguably the Spurs best pure scorer, could miss the first month or two of the season.

The Chicago Bulls have some problems as well, and a trade or two seems inevitable:

1. With Luol Deng's big new contract, Nocioni's contract is a luxury they can't afford.

2. Captain Kirk Hinrich doesn't fit their long term plans.

3. Chicago isn't in a very good position to participate in free agency in 2010, at least not without renouncing the rights to a young player or two.

4. Chicago is a team without a clear-cut leader or go-to scorer.

So why don't these two teams make a trade? San Antonio sends Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen, and a throw-in ( Matt Bonner) to Chicago for Andres Nocioni and Kirk Hinrich.

Here's how San Antonio improves: Hinrich and Nocioni can start at the 2 and the 3, respectively. Captain Kirk is just as capable of a ball handler and passer as Manu Ginobili, and while he's not as good of a 3pt shooter as Manu according to the stats, I'd like to see what Kirk can do when he gets wide open (something he hasn't enjoyed much in Chicago). Besides, Hinrich wouldn't need to knock down as many 3's with Nocioni on the floor. The Captain can also backup Tony Parker as needed, another bonus for the Spurs.

Nocioni's hustle play, 3pt range, and solid mid-range game would help to compensate for a lot of Manu's intangibles (Nocioni seems ideal for the Spurs by the way). Even better, Nocioni and Hinrich would provide comparable defense to the combo of Manu Ginobili and the aging Bruce Bowen - while also offering quite a bit more offense. Team rebounding would improve, and because of these two new players San Antonio's offensive attack would be more balanced. Tim Duncan's workload would also be reduced with Hinrich and Nocioni on the floor to score and rebound.

If the Spurs make this trade they get younger, score easier, and don't skip a beat in terms of defense. Since the contracts of Hinrich and Nocioni get smaller every year, the Spurs would still have a chance of landing a solid free agent in 2010 provided they avoid any more long-term deals. With 4 starters signed, that's a good bet.

One more benefit for the Spurs - they probably won't be dropping any close games when the season starts. If San Antonio doesn't make this move and instead waits for Ginobili to get healthy, there's a good chance they'll miss a few early-season wins. That could translate into a much tougher post-season (and another missed opportunity).

What's in it for Chicago: The Bulls need leadership - badly. When he returns from his injury, Ginobili brings that leadership along with a will to win that ignites this young team. He becomes the leader the Bulls are lacking. He has enough talent to lead the Bulls back into the playoffs now. Bruce Bowen provides toughness and leadership (and most likely limited minutes), as well as giving the Bulls some real defensive chops. Just imagine how much better of a player Luol Deng will become if he practices with Bowen. Bowen and Ginobili also help freshman coach Vinny Del Negro get up to speeed and set the right tone in the locker room.

Perhaps just as importantly, Chicago gets rid of two long term contracts that they really don't need. Hinrich's PG skills are officially redundant with Derrick Rose on the roster. Nocioni is a great energy guy, but his contract is too expensive for a bench player. With contracts pending for Sefolosha and Tyrus Thomas in the summer of 2010, moving the contracts of Nocioni and Hinrich clears plenty of space for Chicago to re-sign their own young talent while also being able to participate in the big free-agent market.

Bottom line: What this really comes down to for San Antonio is that it gives them at least one more shot at a title, and probably 2 or 3. The triumvirate of Ginobili, Parker, and Duncan almost got it done last year, but with Bowen showing his age and Ginobili's helter-skelter playing style, it seems risky to rely on either one of those players much longer. The Spurs need to do something to make their team better, and as important as Ginobili is, his injury risk is too great. His prime is just about past - why not trade him now for maximum value? Indeed this deal is such a no-brainer for Chicago that they would likely part with a first round pick or two. Chicago is going to try and trade Hinrich and Nocioni anyways - the prospect of getting back a real team leader in Manu Ginobili should be enough to get Chicago to cough up a couple of picks.

Why doesn't this deal make sense? Chemistry perhaps - moving Manu is breaking up the three amigos. However, the truth is that Duncan is the Spurs. He is the most important player, and everyone else is expendable.

But what do you think??

It's tantamount to heresy to say this in the Mile High city, but the Nuggets might actually be a better basketball team without Marcus Camby. Here's why:

1) Camby's shot selection. As much as I loved watching Camby put the ball over his shoulder and taking a 25 footer, I can say that many of his [...]

The Milwaukee Bucks pulled off the 2nd biggest trade heist of 2008 (after Pau Gasol).

Talk about your lop-sided trades. According to ESPN, the Milwaukee Bucks have shipped Yi Jianlin and Bobby Simmons to the New Jersey Nets in exchange for Richard Jefferson.

Let me put it another way - the Bucks traded a soft PF (Yi) [...]

In a move that cleared a lot of salary, the Timberwolves shipped O.J. Mayo, Antoine Walker, Marko Jaric, and Greg Buckner to the Memphis Grizzlies.

In a move that added a lot of salary, the Memphis Grizzlies shipped Kevin Love, Mike Miller, Jason Collins, and Brian Cardinal to the Minnesota Timberwolves.

Who won the trade? Memphis. But [...]

Golden State has 11 players coming back next year for sure - assuming they keep Biedrins and Monta Ellis (and they will). If they bring C.J. Watson back, they'll have 12. That means they'll need at least one more player to meet the NBA roster minimum, and more likely 2-3 more (it never hurts to have an extra). Since the Warriors will be over the cap when they lock up Biedrins, Ellis, and Azubuike, it's going to be a pretty tall order to sign 2-3 more players with only the mid-level and bi-annual exceptions. While the GSW will likely try to bring back Pietrus and Barnes, Pietrus is probably ready to bolt and Barnes is a hit or miss player.

What makes more sense is to acquire a proven veteran using their $10 million trade exception. Here's a list of options and their likelihood.

1) Marcus Camby or Nene (Nuggets): Two chances of this happening - slim and none. Denver needs players (they're under the NBA roster requirement right now), so they're not likely to let one go without getting one back. Never mind the fact that Denver and Golden State are rivals. Denver is desperate to cut salary, but this is not going to happen.

2) Tim Thomas (Clippers): While it's hard to imagine these two teams making a deal, the Clippers ownership is notoriously cheap. Tim Thomas is nothing more than role player for the Clips, and moving his contract (about $6 million a year for two more years) would give the Clips some cap room to make a run at a free agent in a couple of weeks (especially if Maggette opts out as he is likely to do). Thomas would fit into the Warriors system, provide a backup at PF, and his contract only lasts two more seasons. Get the Clippers to throw in a draft pick and this is a deal.

3) Damien Wilkins (Seattle): It's not that exciting to talk about, but Seattle's Damien Wilkins is a solid scorer who would enjoy playing in Nellie's system. He's also cheap ($3 million for two more seasons) and he's ready to leave Seattle behind. The Sonics have so many 2nd round picks stockpiled, they'd probably give Golden State one just to take Wilkins off their hands.

4) Trenton Hassell (Nets): This one isn't that exciting either, but Hassell brings veteran leadership and defense. His contract is fair - $4.4 million for two more years - but with the Nets in full rebuild mode (not to mention a full roster), they might be willing to toss a draft pick at Golden State just to get rid of him.

5) Mike Miller (Minnesota): If Mike Miller is officially a Timberwolf on or before the 30th, there's an outside chance that Golden State could con Minnesota into giving him up for some future first rounders. I'm not sure how useful Miller would be in the current system, but it would give Golden State license to trade Baron Davis and move Monta Ellis to point. This one isn't very likely either, but it's fun to think about...imagine a 41% 3pt shooter playing Nellie ball.

6) Any NY Knick not named Zach Randolph: The Knicks need to dump salary, but the player Golden State would be most interested in ( Zach Randolph) makes $13+ million a year, so that won't work. The Knicks would probably give Golden State the keys to Madison Square Garden if they took on Eddy Curry's deal, but it's hard to imagine that *ever* making sense. The same goes for Quentin Richardson, Jared Jeffries, and just about anyone else on the Knicks current roster. Isiah really screwed that team over...

There are a host of possibilities - any player that makes $10 million a year or less could be had. However, it's important to remember that whatever team that surrenders their player gets nothing back - at least not this year. Golden State can always send future draft picks as part of the deal, but that's not terribly attractive to a team that's trying to win right now. There's also one more consideration - a lot of teams are under the minimum NBA roster requirement. Letting a player go without getting one back isn't an option for half the teams in the league.

Comments - anyone I missed?

ESPN is reporting that the Timberwolves shipped O.J. Mayo, Antoine Walker, Marko Jaric, and Greg Buckner to the Memphis Grizzlies in exchange for Kevin Love, Mike Miller, Jason Collins, and Brian Cardinal to the Minnesota Timberwolves.

Who won the trade? Memphis.

First of all, O.J. Mayo is the prize of the trade. However Memphis had to take on some pretty ugly contracts to make this deal. Since Miami is interested in Mayo, this trade with Minnesota might just be a prelude to an even bigger deal with Miami for Michael Beasley (someone Memphis is very interested in).

Minnesota did OK. They dumped Walker's contract (a joke at $9 million a year for three more years) and Jaric's contract ($6 million + for three more years), and all they had to do was take back Brian Cardinal's deal. Minnesota also got Mike Miller, but it seems likely that Miller will be traded to a championship contender for some draft picks/young talent and expiring contracts.

It's a near certainty that Memphis will trade one or more of their guards in the next couple of weeks. They've got Mayo, Conley, Lowry, Crittenton, and now Jaric. The question is which guard(s), and to which teams?

My guess is by the time the sun rises O.J. Mayo will be playing in Miami and Michael Beasley will be teaming up with Rudy Gay and Mike Conley in Memphis.

Why else would Memphis take on all this salary?

The Milwaukee Bucks pulled off the 2nd biggest trade heist of 2008 (after Pau Gasol).

Talk about your lop-sided trades. According to ESPN, the Milwaukee Bucks have shipped Yi Jianlin and Bobby Simmons to the New Jersey Nets in exchange for Richard Jefferson. UPDATE: This deal is also rumored to include the #6 pick.

Let me put it another way - the Bucks traded a soft PF (Yi) and an incredibly overpaid journeyman SF (Bobby) for a solid locker-room leader and All-Star (Richard).

You're probably asking yourself how this type of deal happens. Simple. Kiki Vandeweghe. The same Kiki Vandeweghe that bid against himself when trading for Kenyon Martin. The same Kiki Vandeweghe that drafted Nikoloz Tskitishvili. The same Kiki Vandeweghe that traded the rights to Jameer Nelson for Julius Hodge.

Don't get me wrong - I think Yi Jianlian has an upside. However, contrary to popular belief, I doubt he'll ever turn into Dirk Nowitzki. I see him bearing more resemblance to Troy Murphy - a solid player, but no all-star. My problem is that New Jersey clearly could have gotten more for Jefferson. How about Barbosa and Diaw, for instance? The Nets lack a PF (Boone is too young to start, Kristic is too slow to play PF), and Diaw could have filled that need quite well. Pairing Barbosa and Devin Harris together would have given New Jersey the fastest back court in the league and fueled a tremendous transition game. V.C. could have played SF and been the go-to guy in the half court.

Lamar Odom might have been a good trade option too - assuming NJ could have picked up a complementary piece like Sasha Vujacic or Ronny Turiaf as part of the deal.

Then there's Detroit - a team desperate to add an athletic SF and scorer. Tell me RJ couldn't have been had in exchange for Rasheed Wallace (the PF New Jersey needs) or some combo of Tayshaun Prince and a young talented big (like Maxiell or Amir Johnson)?

Josh Howard might have been available too, but perhaps that's wishful thinking.

I realize that the Nets did this deal to clear salary cap room for 2010 so they could take a run at Lebron. However, considering the Knicks will also have cap room at that time, and that the Cavs can offer LBJ the best deal of any team in the league, it seems foolish to trade one of today's better small forwards for a chance at signing Lebron two years from now. What if (God forbid) LBJ gets hurt? NJ gives up Richard Jefferson for a pipe dream.

I guess my problem is that I don't understand why this deal is being executed now. Seems to me that this deal would have been available all summer long. There aren't any draft picks involved, and Milwaukee seems desperate to unload one of their many soft forwards (Simmons, Yi, Charlie V). At least that's my opinion...perhaps there's more to the story.

UPDATE: Since Milwaukee included the sixth overall pick in the draft, this deal makes more sense. However, I'm not convinced NJ got the best deal available. Detroit might have been willing to make a deal for R.J., especially after free agency got underway. Phoenix might have been a good trade partner as well. As a Nets fan, I'm disappointed.

Say what you will about Chicago Bulls GM John Paxson and his recent coaching hire, but I think ol' Johnny got it right. Why pay top dollar when coaches don't matter very much anyways?

While one could argue there are a few top notch coaches that could make ANY NBA team good, like Red Auerbach, Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, Jerry Sloan, and Gregg Popovich, it's a tough make your argument stick. After all, each of those men enjoyed the services of elite players like Bill Russel, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, and Tim Duncan (along with a slew of other greats) during their most successful seasons. It's true that no one wins without talent, but it's hard to prove that coaches really make much of a difference.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that a bum off the street could coach an NBA team with decent success. Far from it. You still need to have the right experience, the right background, etc. All I'm saying is that a guy like Vinny Del Negro has just as good of a chance of leading the Bulls as does Mike D'Antoni because coaches are a pretty small part of the picture. Here's why:

1) Coaches can't "motivate" anyone. There's a common misconception in the business world that a good manager can motivate his or her employees. The same goes for any coach in any sport. If your employees (or players) aren't motivated to perform, there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Successful people all share one trait: A drive that comes from within. Neither Mike D'Antoni, Phil Jackson, or Tony Robbins has figured out how to make people REALLY care.

2) Coaches can't really change playing time. One of the great myths of the basketball business is that players have to work for playing time. While it is true that a lot of role players have to work very hard to get decent run, a coach rarely has the ability to bench whoever he wants. Top talents MUST be played - the economics of the NBA demand that top players spend lots of time on the court. Most NBA fans don't enjoy coming out to see role players execute crisp offense and play stifling defense. Fans come out to see Mr. Wonderful make some outrageous play. Even if Mr. Wonderful hurts his team by being selfish and playing no defense, his minutes will not be effected.

3) The NBA is dominated by talent. Teams without big-time talent can achieve decent results (see the '05-06? Chicago Bulls), but ultimately success in the league is determined by the game's superstars. Unless you're fortunate enough to enjoy a roster full of almost super-stars (like the Pistons), you're going to struggle to make it past the first round of the playoffs without majorly talented players, regardless of your coach. Put another way, ANY lesser-known coach (Mike Brown) will enjoy success if he has a top notch player (like Lebron James).

4) NBA coaches have no leverage. Ninety percent of NBA coaches have no power over their players ninety percent of the time. NBA players have guaranteed contracts that result in big paychecks regardless of performance. NBA players are difficult to trade. NBA player egos often exceed rational thought (see Latrell Sprewell). Add it up and you quickly realize that an NBA coach has no leverage over his players. There is a brief period of time right after a coach is hired when he has the ability to convince the team's ownership to make a change and trade a player. The threat of a trade can be motivating, but after a year or two the coach's influence with the ownership is usually gone.

5) Games are ultimately decided by players. Until the NBA institutes some sort of "coach deathmatch", where each NBA team sends their coach out to battle the other team's coach for the win, NBA coaches don't decide the game. Granted, all things being equal, better coaching will prevail in a close game. But all things are rarely equal in the NBA.

6) Most NBA players are too immature to be 'coached'. Let's put our make-believe hats on and pretend that we're 22 years old, playing in the NBA, and a multi-millionaire. We have arrived. Now, let's also pretend that 'some old guy' is telling us our jump shot is weak and that we don't play enough defense. Can you imagine yourself responding to that coaching positively? While I think there are some players who have enough maturity and humility to accept coaching, I think that is the exception rather than the rule.

So where does that leave us? I would contend NBA coaches don't really matter. Unless they have a top-notch championship pedigree (Riley and Jackson), complete financial control (Auerbach), and/or the total confidence of ownership (Popovich and Sloan), NBA players aren't likely to pay much attention. I would argue that the team management's commitment to a coach is equally as important as a coach's knowledge and skill. At least a coach with the owner's backing can trade players and influence contracts.

Here's a short list of teams that should try and trade for Allen Iverson:

Cleveland Cavaliers - Lebron and Iverson would work SO much better than Melo and Iverson. Lebron is a better leader, a better passer, and a better 3pt shooter than Carmelo, and his basketball IQ is high enough to make this pairing work.

NY Knicks - D'Antoni wants to run, and he's always shown a penchant for guards that don't play much on-the-ball defense. Sounds like a fit to me.

Orlando Magic - Sure, pairing Jameer Nelson and A.I. together will be scary, but tell me A.I. doesn't make this team better?

Toronto Raptors - Toronto has shooters, and A.I.'s ability to drive and kick will result in a lot of good looks for everyone. Besides, how is this team going to get better without making a move?

Denver's got to make a change, and aside from removing George Karl, it's time to declare the A.I. - Melo experiment a failure. Since moving Melo would be just plain stupid, Allen Iverson must go.

1. The Celtics bench is good enough to make a run. Not great, but good enough now that they have some confident younger players, PJ Brown, and most importantly Sam Cassell.

2. Rondo is still the weakest Celtics starter, but as long as Sam Cassell can come off the bench it won't matter.

3. Doc Rivers might cost Boston a championship. I think every team left in the playoffs has a better coach (yes, even Mike Brown). Will Doc screw it up in a big game? Only time will tell.

4. The Celtics have trouble with athletic teams. Luckily, they won't have to face any until the championship (and maybe not even then).

5. The Celtics chemistry is good enough to go all the way. A lot of commentators say Boston hasn't played together enough to win big, but I think that's completely wrong.

6. Lebron is going to terrorize Boston's defense. Imagine a bigger, stronger, and more capable version of Joe Johnson. Get the picture? Too bad Lebron's supporting cast can't get it done.

7. Detroit controls Boston's future. Detroit is a better team than Boston, but they don't always play better. If Detroit is focused when they meet Boston, their superior point guard play, depth, coaching, and experience will carry them. But that's a big "if".

Here's what went wrong:

1. Bad defensive habits. The Nuggets played defense this year about half the time. Their lack of focus was the reason they were swept in the first round.

2. Melo's lack of maturity. Calling out your teammates after a bad loss and getting a DUI the week before the playoffs are all the proof we need that Melo's immature.

3. Chemistry. The Nuggets chemistry is lacking. Poor team defense, Melo's breakdown, A.I.'s threat to opt out - it all points to the fact this team isn't much on "team."

Here's the best part (sarcasm) - George Karl isn't going anywhere!