The philosophy behind trades-or the lack thereof

This is the first in a series of posts meant to express ire about different inconsistencies-or plainly, things that don't make sense. It's not meant to offend you, your cat, or your favored team's general manager, though it invariably will irk somebody.

It may seem unstable to start my first post as an MTD author with a basketball anecdote, but bear with me. Things will make sense in a minute.

The Los Angeles Lakers built one of the most dominant teams in the past 20 years around two players; home-grown superstar Kobe Bryant and free-agent dynamo Shaquille O'Neal. The franchise prospered around the dynamic duo, winning 3 consecutive NBA championships at the start of the millenium. However, a feud between the two simmered and continually built over the years. By 2004, Bryant issued an ultimatum: I leave, or he leaves. Bryant being the younger of the two, the Lakers began shopping O'Neal. With one caveat.

The team refused to entertain offers from Western Conference squads. The premise for this decision was the fact that LA did not want to face O'Neal more than it had to in the regular season or the playoffs. On the surface, that's justifiable. But if you think about it for a moment, the idea begins to look both shady and silly. Why? Because the premise behind such an assumption is that you've lost the deal. By ruling out trades with Western conference teams, the Lakers' management hamstrung themselves, limiting their leverage on potential trades. And so the question arises: Why? 

Because it didn't boil down to the semantics of the trade itself, but to public perception. GMs proceed with this practice not because they're looking out for their teams' best intentions, but because they fear the consequences. Whenever Shaq's Miami Heat beat the Lakers, the team was blasted viciously by the LA press and doubted by retrospective fans. The flak would have been far greater if O'Neal had been dealt to San Antonio, Utah, or Denver, all of whom the Lakers would likely have faced in the playoffs. What does this tell you?That GMs aren't trying to protect themselves from a single player's wrathful retribution. They're covering their asses from the PR storm that arises if, hypothetically, the decision comes back and takes a bite out of their posterior. 

The past few weeks have seen a flurry of trades within the NFL-and the (alleged) Ben Roethlisberger debacle has opened the door on speculation for a new, if improbable, prospective mega-deal. A recurring theme within the speculation surrounding deals has been this fact: Teams don't like to trade a star player within the division. The Eagles defied this trend by trading franchise cornerstone Donovan McNabb to Washington for the 37th pick. They identified Kevin Kolb as their starter, saw an opportunity to get a nice return on an asset they no longer valued as highly, and pulled the trigger. That's the sort of management that's helped turn them around from an old team seemingly on the downturn to one of the youngest and most exciting in the league- they're reloading, not rebuilding. Philadelphia's executives aren't afraid to deal a player, regardless of his abilities or past, in the right trade.

So, this I ask of you. The next time you're part of a discussion surrounding this line of reasoning, bear my  argument in mind. Don't simply accept what you're told; there's no reason to blind yourself to knowledge or logic. Question that which doesn't make sense.