• E-mail

I was stunned to learn from a few e-mailers who don’t appear to have lives and spend all day and night listening to sports talk radio and reading the papers that I am probably the only member of the media in the Metroplex to come out against the Jason Kidd trade.

You know what they say about situations in which you’re on one side and everybody else is on the other. Usually, there's a majority for a reason. I’m probably wrong, which would be good news for the Mavericks and their fans.

But when I said I was against the deal, here was my reasoning: The Mavericks still aren’t going to win a championship this season.

If that’s the case, what’s the point of the deal? You had a good competitive team without it, one that will be strong for years to come.

Which leads to my conclusion. If the Mavericks are still not on Phoenix’s or San Antonio’s or the Lakers’ level, the trade could only be driven by one thing: marketing.

If nothing else, this keeps Mavericks fans buzzing. And buzzing fans are ticket-buying, foam-finger-waving, $7-beer-buying fans.

If anybody had noticed some of those empty seats at home games, you know what I’m talking about. Oh, sure, they were sold, presumably. The Mavericks could keep that sellout streak going. But if the people aren’t showing up, what good are those sold seats?

By the way, having a great marketing chip like Kidd isn't such a bad thing. I can't knock the deal if that's at least part of the reason it was done. But until they earn a trip to the Finals, I have trouble signing off on the deal from a basketball standpoint.

Anyway, just thought I’d clarify my stance. And, to be honest, I like my chances of being right.

After all, D-Moore is on the other side.

Q: First, the Jason Kidd trade had to happen. The Mavs had become stagnant and needed something to get them moving again. My question is, what other options are out there for a backup point guard? It sounds like Sam Cassell is leaning toward Boston if he is bought out. Any other names out there?

David D.

Sefko: Lots of names, but if they were any good, they’d already have jobs.

Nobody is a bigger believer than me in the need to get Cassell in a Mavericks uniform. At this stage of his career, it would be a great fit for him, and he no longer is the coach-infuriating point guard he once was.

But Boston can offer more playing time, which is always a big lure for a player. The money probably wouldn’t be much different, but if the Mavericks were to offer the prorated version of their full mid-level exception (well over $3 million), they might have a bargaining chip in their favor.

I wouldn’t hold my breath, though. And unless somebody like Smush Parker (if he gets over his off-court problems) really gets your blood pumping, there just aren’t many options right now.

Q: It seems to me the Mavericks are now in desperate need of a 15-minute big man, and P.J. Brown would be the perfect fit. Besides, this team is always infatuated with over-the-hill guys.

Howard K.

Sefko: Hey, if there’s anybody who knows about over-the-hill guys, it’s D-Moore, and even he says there’s no way P.J. Brown is coming here.

The reason is, Brown’s agent is Devean George’s agent, Mark Bartelstein. Now, in my dealings with him, Bartelstein has always been a solid agent. He’s built a good reputation for serving his clients well. And most of those clients are middle-of-the-road players.

The Mavericks should have sent flowers to Bartelstein for getting them a better deal in the Jason Kidd trade. Just because it cost Mark Cuban some dollars, that’s a lot easier to take than losing George and having Jerry Stackhouse sit out 30 days.

Q: The NBA let the Lakers steal a player for nothing and they were going to raise a stink with the Mavericks and the original J-Kidd deal?

Pete

Sefko: Good one. Just about everybody in the NBA outside of LA and Memphis wanted to form a trade SWAT team to declare the Pau Gasol deal had something rotten about it.

Actually, that’s what the collective bargaining agreement is supposed to do. The rules are supposed to make lopsided trades impossible. The salaries have to get close to matching up, and the league tries to tie up loopholes as best it can. But there will always be Mark Cubans and sly GMs that figure out a way to make the rules work in their favor.

That makes them good at their jobs, by the way.

Q: Any idea why the Mavericks are so bad in the third quarter lately?

Joe G.

Sefko: I love this question because it proves somebody is paying attention. They have been slow starters in the second half of games lately and there’s no real reason for it.

They have either been outscored or eked out a tie in the third quarter of the last five games. Average third-quarter score in that span: Mavs 20.4, Opponents 24.6.

From the outside looking in, I see a team that thinks it has the smarts and talent to pull out games in the fourth quarter, so the Mavericks pace themselves through parts of the third.

That’s a dangerous way of doing things. But as the season gets closer to the finish line, you should see this team start to address lulls in the third quarter – or any other time – more seriously.

Q: I have noticed Josh Howard taking a lot of perimeter shots lately. He is definitely a better player when he slashes to the basket. In my opinion, he and Brandon Bass take too many perimeter shots. And when did Howard become a volume shooter, by the way?

Thanh T. and Lynvol A.

Sefko: We got several questions about Howard in the aftermath of the Kidd trade, and most of them centered on him shooting too much.

Have patience. This won't last. The easy explanation is that he was still bothered by a back problem for the first few games after the All-Star break and, let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to shoot jumpers than it is to drive to the basket.

But Howard won’t be tossing up 19 shots a game the rest of the season. He’ll probably be closer to his season norm of 16 per game before long.

Interestingly, though, his field goal percentage has dipped slightly in each of the last three seasons. He shot a high of 47.5 percent in 2004-05, and now is down to 45.6 percent. That’s not an alarming dropoff, but it’s enough that Howard should remember what he does best, which is slash to the basket for 12-footers and not settle for 20-footers.

Q: No hope in sight for Minnesota? Eddie, put down the crack pipe. You probably said that about the Blazers in November. Al Jefferson has the best post moves anyone has seen in 25 years. I’m not a fan of the Wolves, but before you throw stuff against the wall, ask somebody who has a clue.

J.B.

Sefko: Well, that eliminates D-Moore. But I did ask some other NBA folks about the Wolves, and here’s the overwhelming consensus: They are lottery fodder for at least another two or three years and probably will lose Jefferson by then because he will grow tired of a management team that has a poor track record since breaking up the conference finals team it had.

Ryan Gomes is OK, but I have yet to see anything out of Corey Brewer to suggest he is any sort of answer. And Sebastian Telfair is a heartbreaker from way back.

I like the Wolves’ spunky style. But unless they get lucky in the lottery, they are going to have trouble being a playoff team in the West before 2011.

By the way, I agree with you that Jefferson is a beast, but better low-post moves than Kevin McHale or Hakeem Olajuwon? Give me a break.

Q: What happened to the Bulls this season? I thought they had an up-and-coming team.

Sefko: This just shows what a short trip it is from up-and-coming to down-and-out.

Ben Wallace was never happy in Chi-town and the Bulls probably blew their chance by not rolling the dice to get Pau Gasol when they had the chance last season.

Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng and Andres Nocioni are good players. But none of them are great players. Put them with Kobe Bryant and you’d have a dynamite team. Put them with Larry Hughes and you have a borderline lottery team.

I give them credit for finding a bigger fool to take Wallace and that contract. And the hair king may prosper next to LeBron James. But it was never going to work in Chicago. I confess, I was fooled by that one, too, when it happened. But who wasn’t?

Q: If the Mavericks make another early exit in the playoffs this year (and I hope they don’t), do you think they will be forced to shake things up this summer? What do you think about trying to fleece one of the young teams like Minnesota out of Rashad McCants or somebody like that?

Tom.

Sefko: This question came in on the day the Jason Kidd trade happened, so we’ll assume that bringing in a likely Hall of Fame point guard, jettisoning one-third of the roster and creating a whole new dynamic within the team constitutes “shaking things up.’’

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say these Mavericks bomb in the first round again. What happens?

Well, I wouldn’t eliminate any possibilities. I don’t think Avery Johnson would be in danger, what with three years left on his contract, but you never know. At some point, after so much tinkering with the roster, you can’t do any more with the players. Maybe the coach takes the fall.

But Cuban has continually voiced his confidence in Avery’s way of doing things, so Avery seems unlikely to be the scapegoat.

Besides, after a major overhaul like bringing in Kidd, it can be argued that the best results should come in Year 2, after the team has had some time to jell.

That’s what happened in the second year after Johnson took over for Don Nelson. They were OK in the first playoff run, going two rounds, and reached the NBA Finals the next year.