Trade Iverson?
Inquirer Staff Writer
I have listened and read with the greatest of interest in the last few weeks as folks in these pages and on the airwaves have introduced the idea into the local zeitgeist that the Sixers should consider trading Allen Iverson.
The hypothesis, if I have listened and read carefully, goes like this: The team isn't going anywhere, and Iverson has lost his ability to draw fans to the Wachovia Center, so why not package him for a bunch of players and build the team in a different way?
It is a notion that can draw only one response, and it didn't originate with me. It is a colloquialism long favored by a former colleague, and current play-by-play man for the Los Angeles Dodgers, Charley Steiner:
"What are you, nuts?"
Trading Iverson would be - how should I put it? - dumb.
Not just dumb.
New Coke Dumb.
Ted Kennedy Challenging The Incumbent President Of His Own Party Dumb.
Sanford Arms Dumb. (This refers to the decision of NBC suits in the late 1970s to continue the hit show Sanford and Son, but without Sanford (Redd Foxx) and Son (Demond Wilson). It had everything else - much of the same supporting cast, same plots - just no Sanford. Or Son. It, um, didn't last.)
Here's hoping that Billy King, who's Duke-smart, doesn't act on that whim.
Forget for a minute that, entering play last night, Iverson was averaging 33.3 points per game, second in the league to Kobe Bryant. Forget that he was first in the league in free-throw attempts (11.3 average) - which has the added bonus of getting opposing players in foul trouble. Forget that he was eighth in the league in assists. Forget that he still keeps opposing coaches up nights trying to figure out a way to slow him down.
Forget all that.
You never get true value for a superstar. It doesn't matter what sport.
Pop quiz: Whom did the Edmonton Oilers get for Wayne Gretzky? And how did they do afterward?
Whom did the Toronto Blue Jays get for Roger Clemens? How'd that work out?
Whom did the Milwaukee Bucks get for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? And how many titles did that bring them?
For that matter, whom did the Sixers get for Charles Barkley?
It was Tim Perry, Jeff Hornacek and Andrew Lang. And the Sixers' record the next season, without Barkley and with all that new depth, was a sparkling 26-56. Which was followed by sterling marks of 25-57, 24-58 and - wait for it - 18-64.
The last of which was so bad that the Sixers got the first pick in the 1996 draft. Which they used to select... Allen Iverson.
You don't win in the NBA with role players. You win with superstars. Which is where Iverson comes in. With Iverson, you have a chance to win every night. Not some nights. Every night. That doesn't mean you win every night; you need contributions from a number of players. But you start with a chance.
Has everyone around here forgotten what it was like to have no chance to win? To be at the bottom of the NBA food chain? To be unimportant, unlamented, not in the opening rip of highlights on SportsCenter?
The Sixers are, indeed, what they are: a defensively challenged team that will likely last one round in the postseason. That is not the championship level of play this town craves, to be sure. But it is a doggone sight better than being in the draft lottery the next three or four years.
Next year's draft does not appear to have the kind of impact players who can turn a franchise around, and after that, the young guys who can make a difference - such as Greg Oden, the Ohio high school phenom - will have to do at least a year in college before making themselves eligible for the pros.
And even if there is a team willing to discuss trading its superstar - a pool including, but not limited to, talents such as Paul Pierce and Steve Francis - ask yourself this: How much better would the Sixers be with those guys than with Iverson? They'd still stink on defense, and they'd still be fodder for the Pistons and Heat of the East.
Without Iverson, what exactly do the Sixers have to build around? They have Andre Iguodala and maybe Samuel Dalembert. You can't build around Chris Webber. His remaining career will not be measured by the half-decade, but by the year.
The frustration level is understandable. The Sixers do appear to be stuck in mud, going nowhere fast. But to lay that at Iverson's feet makes no sense. It's the kind of knee-jerk reaction that fans had in Baltimore when Cal Ripken had a couple of .240 seasons, or that they had in Denver when John Elway struggled to lead the Broncos to a championship for a decade.
Just a few years later, each finished his career where he started, as a hero. And Iverson deserves the same consideration.
It remains King's job to find the pieces that make the most sense around Iverson. Whether or not he's doing that is a fair question. To me, it makes no sense to have anything but defensive-oriented players around him. But that's not Iverson's responsibility.
And he shouldn't be sent packing because others aren't handling their business.
Article Source: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/13844885.htm
