Life Lessons From Bill Simmons And Roger Ebert

   Before last year’s deadline, in expressing my view that a Devin-for-Kidd trade would be unwise, I covered every base: Being consistent with The Law of Steve Nash (don’t lock into max contracts for aging point guards). Devin’s efficiency in leading last year’s Mavs (second in the NBA on offense). Devin’s salary of $4 mil to Kidd’s $20 mil. Devin at 24 being a decade younger than Kidd. Kidd’s alleged mysogyny. Rick Barry telling me to oppose it. The acrimony Kidd often leaves in his wake. Devin already being a comparable player to Kidd so why divorce Jessica Alba so you can bang Halle Berry?

   Every base. Covered. All in support of keeping Devin.

   Then came the trade, and two chunks of self-analysis from inside the Dallas organization. One, from GM Donnie Nelson, that his team was “a sick patient.’’ (In other words, they believed that team was not going to win a title without a transplant.) Two, from a number of DB.com's Mavs sources who essentially said the same thing: This roster – with Kidd, Dirk, Josh, Jet and Damp – was on paper better than the team that went to the 2006 NBA Finals. “Our best team ever.’’

   “Best Team Ever’’ has become a punchline around DB.com headquarters. Still, at the time, those two views were enough for me to wait and see. To still be optimistic. To still be open-minded. To still be free of knee-jerk. I stated then -- on TV, on radio and in print -- that the judgment of Kidd would take at least two seasons, and that the full judgment of Devin (as much as I thought of him personally and professionally) might take a decade.

   KIDDIRK’s Mavs flopped in the playoffs in New Orleans and while Kidd has been damn good here this year, the Mavs are not the hot darlings of the NBA. Meanwhile, Devin is. Hot. And darling! (Somehow, because we like hot and darling and fresh, Jersey's 12-12 record is deemed to be more of a success than Dallas' 14-10 record, but whatev.) I put him on my Bloggers MVP ballot this week, unlike enough of the other selectors for him to make the top 10. I’m happy for him. (And so, by the way, are Donnie and Cuban and Dirk the rest of the friends he left behind here).

   I had/have no desire to establish that “I was absolutely right’’ about not wanting to trade Devin. Nor do I had/have a desire to prove that the Mavs are “absolutely right’’ to have done it. Sorry. I couldn't give a shit about proving I'm right. (Divorces can do that to a man.) My push is this: I have said that some observers – sprinting to judgment, knees-a’-jerkin’ – might want to appreciate the Mavs’ hunger for a title. … a hunger that causes them to consistently take fence-swinging, budget-busting risks. … and to hang on for the

ride.

   I admit, I wish I could prove myself right about that approach to fandom. Sigh.

   Some fans want Tony Cubes to admit he was wrong. Good luck. As Cuban said this week, given the needs of his Mavs and the belief that Devin wouldn't have exploded like this on a team where he wasn't a No. 1 option, he'd do the deal again.

   I might disagree with the "explosion'' logic; if Dallas had a lid on a PG capable of scoring 24 a game in a different system, maybe Dallas should've ... USED A DIFFERENT SYSTEM?!!

   Regardless. ... back to Cuban's position: You do understand, don’t you, how much easier it would have been – in terms of finance, in terms of PR, in terms of risk – to NOT make that trade, don’t you?

   And again, some fans want me to admit I was wrong. But about what? About how, on Feb. 1, I thought Dallas had 24 reasons to keep Devin? Or about three weeks later and "Go For It!''? Or about how ever since then, I've believed the Mavs have needed to "move on'' (Dirk's words, uttered this week) and build a contender this year around the future Hall-of-Famer Kidd? (At leastuntil February, at which point the Mavs should re-evaluate their marriage to Kidd.)

   Given all we know now -- including an odds-based assumption that Kidd won't lead the Mavs to a championship -- would I un-do the deal if possible? Obviously. Is there any trade in sports history that featured a young guy given for an old guy that the team receiving the old guy -- once time has passed and no rings have been won -- wouldn't want to reverse the deal? Cuban cannot (and should not) say that; his team is still fighting and no concessions should be make. But I can say it.

   And let me say it again, if it pacifies you: Obviously. Un-do a "Go For It'' trade that doesn't end up getting you that elusive "It''? Yes. Un-do it. Obviously.

   Fish aside: This may go down as a Herschel Walkereque goof. I know that. Two No. 1's, the endless KVH, and Devin (especially if Devin becomes Emmitt, as some apparently think he will/has) for anything short of a title will be remembered as too much, just as all those players and all those picks are now recognized as having been too much for Herschel.

   But let me say something as a guy who was both a Cowboys newspaper beat writer starting in 1990 and a Vikings fan starting 48 years ago, and who therefore has more intimate knowledge from both sides of the Herschel trade than most people on the planet: It would've been all worth it to me, the Vikings follower, had Herschel, thought to be Minnesota's final piece that year, been just that.

   The Vikings, haunted by gravestones citing their four Super Bowl losses, people in that state feeling like they're giggled at because of those losses, grossly overpaid for a "final'' piece. And it would've all been worth it, if only. ... 

   Unfortuntely, Herschel wasn't that final piece. So it's an historically failed trade. If Kidd's Mavs accomplish only what Herschel's Vikings accomplished (not enough), while Devin's Nets win, win, win (three titles, like the post-Herschel Cowboys?) then this too will rightly be judged an historically failed trade.

   But beyond the obvious recognition that the team that trades youngs for olds. ... and then later wishes its acquisition wasn't so old. ... beyond wanting to retract every "final-piece''/big-swing trade that doesn't result in a world championship. ... for which part of my support for and understanding of the Mavs' desire for a title do you wish me to apologize?

    We are funny, us fans. The Mavs “love their team too much’’ when they don’t make a trade and “aren’t willing to be patient’’ when they do. Cuban “should spend whatever it takes’’ to win a title, but retrospectively “spent too much on Kidd’’ when that title proves elusive. (Back to Herschel: Mike Fisher The Valley Ranch Reporter thought the 1989 Cowboys, going nowhere with Walker, crafted a sweet deal for themselves. Mike Fisher The Vikings Fan salivated throughout that first Herschel game at the Metrodome as he seemed to rush for a skillion yards while running so fast he was leaving his shoes behind.)

   Worth noting: This Bill Simmons – ostensibly a sports fan above all, despite the heightened profile that allows him to boast of hobnobbing with Miley Cyrus or whomever -- who chided Dallas for making a blockbuster last February? Could be possibly be the same dude who called the NBA the “No Balls Association’’ the February before. Could he be the same Bill Simmons who wrote, “Nobody had the testicular fortitude to swing a major deal.’’

  Like I say, we are funny, us fans.

   The desire I did have regarding Devin/Kidd? The desire I continue to have regarding most everything? Not to chest-thump over being right or tail-tuck over being wrong. But rather, to use my press credential -- which is now 28-years old and still growing! -- in a checks-and-balances manner. I certainly did that last February with Bill Simmons, “The Sports Guy’’ of ESPN.com, who knows and loves his NBA and writes about it with great humor and passion.

   Simmons opposed the Mavs’ trading of Devin for Kidd from the start, and he’s stuck with that position, made hay of it. (Barroom sports arguments being what they are, I can easily imagine Bill being like lots of my friends, clinging to his position no matter what; if Kidd ever did win a title for the Mavs, they might say, “Aw, he was just hangin’ on. That was Dirk who won that championship.’’ Some of you fellas on DB.com Boards  are like that, too. You’d prefer your opinion end up being right. … maybe more than preferring the organization’s opinion was right enough to win a championship. Weird, but it’s your 2 cents!)

   What I did during that process was check-and-balance: I assumed Simmons wouldn’t mind if I ran his Mavs observations through that system.

   Here’s a sampling of what Bill wrote about the Mavs:

   1 The Mavericks … mortgaged everything for Jason Kidd.

   2 Kidd is not really a leader.

   3 It seems like they hate their coach.

   4 Biggest mistake: Not trading Dirk for Kobe before the season. Getting the best player in basketball would have been a good move.

   5 Dirk is slow (on the fast-break.)

   6 Prediction: The ninth seed, no playoffs. …

   What did I do to Bill’s assertions? I may have made a snide Skip Bayless reference somewhere in there. (Sorry, Mr. Simmons. Low blow.)  But mostly I simply shoved Bill's assertions into my Checks-And-Balances Machine and when it spit them back out, established that all of them were wrong. Now, there will be no Fish-vs.-The Sports Guy fistfight. (Personal motto: Never box a man who can recite by heart the dialogue of every "Rocky'' movie!) ... No hard feelings here. ... just some wrong stuff from Bill. "Some'' meaning all six of the aforementioned items.

   The Mavs did not "mortage everything'' for Kidd; they essentially only mortgaged Devin. (Though I guess we can start counting Ryan Anderson.) Simmons is the rare NBA person who thinks Kidd is not a leader. The players' feelings for Avery were more complex than just "hatred,'' as DB.com has chronicled in a way that is many levels above the rest of the media. There was never a Kobe-Dirk trade option and Bill should know that. Nowitzki is not "slow'' on the fast-break. He wasn't slow when he was NellieBall's running centerpiece and he's not slow now that he's a Kidd wide receiver. And the prediction that Dallas would fail to make the playoffs -- a prediction Bill made in the waning days of the season -- is, of course, conveniently absent from his chest-thumping list of predictions.

   Maybe in a year or 10, Bill ends up being right about Kidd/Devin. Maybe, just one fourth into this NBA season, Kidd is the Devil, Milkface is Jesus, Devin's greatness is unwaveringly established, the kid is Emmitt, the kid is curing cancer, and Bill is already correct.

   But on those six aforementioned assertions? Mr. Simmons is: 1. Wrong. 2. Wrong. 3. Wrong. 4. Wrong. 5. Wrong. 6. Wrong. 

   So, hell, if Simmons is/will be right about Kidd/Devin, what's that make him regarding Mavs thoughts? One outta seven? Sorry, Bill, but we've already got Stack and Devean on the Mavs roster; we don't need anymore 1-of-7s.

   Eventually, in one column, I practically begged Bill to add to his Mavs knowledge by reading DallasBasketball.com. Turns out, he apparently accepted my invitation.

   In a Dec. 11 Simmons podcast (“The BS Report’’), Bill name-checks DallasBasketball.com. He says, “I don’t want to pat myself on the back (for being right)’’ and that he was given “a ritual beating. … on DallasBasketball.com. … Where are those guys now? Hey, DallasBasketball.com, how about the update on my thoughts on the Jason Kidd trade?’’

   Well, since Bill doesn’t want to pat himself on the back. … (riiiiiiiight). … I’ll do it:

   Bill, thanks to you, Jimmy Kimmel is one of the seven funniest hosts on late-night TV. And with Fallon coming on the scene, Kimmel will move up from last place! (Just kidding, bro.)

   Anyway, where are us guys now? Pretty much in the same spot I was last spring. On the couch. Laptop balanced on my belly. Fritos to the left of me, Diet Coke to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with Mavs-at-Nets tipoff approaching. Stuck with my brand new Fish For Lunch''-like podcast so embryonic that it's still in its. ... er, pod. And also stuck with a philosophy espoused by Kidd right after the playoff ouster. “It didn't work out the way we wanted it to, but sometimes you have to be patient for good things to happen,’’ he’d said. “We'll see what happens. With the trade, give us some more time and then you can evaluate it.’’

   We'll see? No, no, J-Kidd! You need to say bold, assertive and outrageous things! You'll never make it in today's media world with even-handed horseshit like "We'll see''!

   Of course, I didn’t need Jason’s guidance there. That’s the way I’ve always done it. (“Old-school,’’ somebody in the radio business recently called my style, and they meant it derisively. SOBs.) Indeed, while I try to learn lessons in basketball, humor and journalism from Mr. Simmons, I also put a lot of stock into something the legendary film reviewer Roger Ebert recently said about our (related) professions:

  “A newspaper film critic,’’ Ebert wrote, “should encourage critical thinking, introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged.’’

   Ebert is brilliant at that. So is Bill Simmons. Me?

   I don’t know. It’s Kidd vs. Devin and Kidd's been good but Milkface is on fire and Simmons is drilling me and I’m enjoying it all and hoping that my team's views are correct more than hoping that my views are correct and hey, maybe I do need a little work on the “outraged’’ part, eh?

 820pm dec 18 2008