Panic in the West

I don't think this Jason Kidd trade is a very smart move for Dallas. Kidd is still a better point guard than Harris, but at this point in their careers the margin doesn't justify giving up so much additional stuff in order to get him. In particular, when you swap Kidd for Harris you're getting better rebounding and defense in exchange for worse shooting. That's fair enough, but the other players Dallas is sending to the Garden State are going to cost them defense and rebounding. On top of that, trading young for old and giving away picks and expiring contracts in the process hurts your team's future.

Basically, like Phoenix, Dallas seems to be responding with panic to the Lakers' acquisition of Pau Gasol. But just because a conference rival improves doesn't mean that a trade that didn't make sense a month ago suddenly does make sense today. If Andrew Bynum returns healthy, then the Lakers will be a very difficult team to beat. There's nothing written into the fabric of the universe that guarantees there are any possible trades San Antonio or Dallas or Phoenix can make to become better than LA. Oftentimes, teams become very good because other teams agree to make stupid trades with them -- that's what happened with Boston, and that's what happened with LA. Teams in that situation can only hope that some other team wants to come along and make a one-sided desperation deal. But instead of waiting cautiously and hoping for a sweetheart deal, Phoenix and now Dallas are making panicky moves.

It seems to me, though, that the one thing you never want to do in the NBA personnel market is put yourself in a position where you feel like you "have" to do something. You "have" to move Kevin Garnett, so you accept cents on the dollar. You "have" to sign a big-ticket free agent so you give Larry Hughes a huge deal. You "have" to respond to recent big trades, so you give away draft picks and depth in exchange for a smallish upgrade at the point.

Comments

Wow. If that goes through, that'd be a seriously hefty price for Dallas to pay.

Panic in the West, indeed. Blame the obtuseness of Memphis, home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks, for this crazily escalating arms race.

Now let's see if Mark Warkentien has a response.

What do I smell? I smell home cooking
It's only the river, it's only the river.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 5:01 PM

Minnesota did considerably better than cents on the dollar for KG.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 13, 2008 5:04 PM

It's like Phoenix and Dallas are modeling themselves after the Knicks.

Posted by MrTimbo | February 13, 2008 5:05 PM

Yes, you don't want to put yourself in a situation where you "have" to do something -- exactly the situation the Lakers were in with Shaq when they traded him.

Posted by Steve V | February 13, 2008 5:09 PM

This response to the Lakers is hilarious. It really gives legitimacy to Bill Simmons claim that the general managers in the NBA are terrible. Not that Simmons would do a lot better. Most of the time Simmons is the one moaning about how teams don't make enough trades. But if a competitor like the Lakers making a good trade is enough to set teams like the Mavs and Suns in a Simmons-esque trade-frenzy, you have to seriously question their management skills and clear-headedness. One thing you can say pretty confidently, based on what transpires at most trade deadlines, is that these trades never would have happened without the Laker deal.

The best part is, as a Laker fan, even if the Lakers don't win the title this year, in 2-3 years Kidd and Shaq will probably be retired, KG and Allen will start looking really old and the Spurs will have to make some pretty good moves to avoid looking ancient themselves. The Lakers will probably still have a couple years of Kobe-Odom-Gasol-Bynum prime to make some title runs. (actually, Bynum may not have peaked at that point, but he's a good start to a competitive 2012-2018 Lakers franchise as well)

At the same time, these two trades would do a lot to help the East-West balance, that's for sure.

Posted by mpowell | February 13, 2008 5:10 PM

This trade is fine for Dallas if Stackhouse really does come back in 30 days (assuming a quick buyout). If not, however, this is a bad deal, especially if Stack goes to another contender like Cleveland, the Spurs, or Pheonix.

You have to think this will improve their offensive efficiency as Dallas has been running without a true point since Nash. Wow! Can we get the Western Conference playoffs started next week? I'm Ready!

Posted by citizen (world) | February 13, 2008 5:12 PM

"Can we get the Western Conference playoffs started next week? I'm Ready!"

Damn fucking straight. All brackets are going to be outstanding.

Claim 49 wins or go home in April.

However, I'd like to keep to the published schedule. That'll give opportunity for Chucky Atkins and Nene to get back on the court...

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 5:15 PM

As the resident Nets fan around here, I'd heartily endorse the trade. The Nets were certainly not winning over the next couple years - the last years of JKidd's contract. Much better to get younger and have salary cap flexibility. The NJ point guard situation will be interesting: you have a defensive minded PG in Harris and an offensive minded PG in Marcus Williams.

I'm sorry to see Jason go - it's the end of an era. Despite the fact that he forced his way out of town (swamp), I'm still a huge Kidd fan, and I hope he wins his title in Dallas.

From the Dallas perspective, I understand it too. It's the same as Phoenix. Dallas felt they weren't going to win with this group. And I think they are probably right. Diagnose the problem: a lack of mental toughness. JKidd will fix that, I'd think.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2008 5:17 PM

Wow, this trade is horrible for Dallas. I refuse to believe Mark Cuban is that stupid until I see it go through.

Posted by blah | February 13, 2008 5:18 PM

"As the resident Nets fan around here, I'd heartily endorse the trade."

If it goes through as advertised, it's an exellent deal from the Jersey/Brooklyn perspective...

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 5:21 PM

As a lifelong Mavs fan, I'm not completely satisfied with this either.

However, I don't really think this was in reaction to the Lakers acquiring Gasol as much as it has been the fairly lackluster play of the Mavs team as of late, especially since Harris went down to injury (something he's been prone to do).

Hopefully Kidd brings a bit more court awareness to the team, but the most important thing is that it brings a much needed since of "this is not the same team that choked against Golden State" to a squad that has not really had any self-confidence this season.

It may not pay off, and the price is really steep, but they couldn't just do nothing and not expect a mild postseason run.

Posted by Dylan | February 13, 2008 5:21 PM

Petey lives!

As for this trade... ugh. UGH. Why? Why do two teams trade for 35-year old dudes having the worst seasons of their career? Both trading away solid young players too. From what I understand, not only are they giving up Harris and Diop and Ager, they're sending the maximum allowed cash AND a first round pick.

Madness.

Posted by Freddie | February 13, 2008 5:22 PM

Harris is already better than Kidd.

PER:

Harris - 18.8
Kidd - 16.20

Adjusted +/-

Harris - 4.9
Kidd - 4.4

This makes no sense at all.

Posted by blah | February 13, 2008 5:23 PM

"In particular, when you swap Kidd for Harris you're getting better rebounding and defense in exchange for worse shooting."

Have you seen Harris play? He's definitely a better defender than Kidd, especially against quick point guards like Parker and Nash. Hollinger ranked Harris as the number one defensive point guard last season.

Terrible trade for Dallas.

Posted by Rafe | February 13, 2008 5:24 PM

It's like Phoenix and Dallas are modeling themselves after the Knicks.

Yeah, except... no, wait. It's not like that at all.

People can make all the desperate trades they want, but if Phil Jackson has enough time to make the Bynum-Gasol-Odom frontcourt click, they're going to be pretty unstoppable. Is there any team who can match up with that lineup?

Posted by right | February 13, 2008 5:26 PM

One thing people are missing is that this gives Dallas an on-the-court leader, something that they've sorely lacked in the past and something that's hurt them in the past.

Posted by Mike | February 13, 2008 5:26 PM

but at this point in their careers the margin doesn't justify giving up so much additional stuff in order to get him.

On the flip side, though, I am not sure that Dallas really is giving up a ton beside Harris. They need Stack to come back, sure. But a bunch of expiring contracts? And where will the picks be - bottom of the draft right? It hurts their depth this year, but they already have a pretty deep team. The biggest loss, I suppose, is Diop, since they are going to need big men in the West.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2008 5:27 PM

Matt - I'm not sure Kidd is a better defender. He's often lackluster, often doesn't really put a hand in his defender's face and is probably the main reason why the Nets give up the most 3's. Harris, on the other hand, is a pest, constantly going for steals and taking charges.

Kidd's better defensively in the sense that he can rebound. I always thought this was redundant given the presence of Vince, Collins, Boone, Williams... but in Dallas, a team that lost a major game to Boston b/c Dirk, their "power" forward, let Rajon Rondo steal a rebound from him, it might be valuable.

The downside of Kidd can be summed up in a loss to Golden State. Kidd took a wide-open, potentially game-winning three, missed it, then failed to cover a streaking Baron Davis who made the go-ahead layup.

Posted by Murky | February 13, 2008 5:27 PM

Luckily I have Dampier on my fantasy squad: I think he just got more valuable.

Posted by nbt | February 13, 2008 5:28 PM

It also seems like Diop would have been a great help to Dampier in guarding some of the big frontlines out west. It's going to be ugly seeing Brandon Bass or Nowitzki try to matchup with either Shaq or Bynum/Gasol.

Posted by Dave Meyer | February 13, 2008 5:30 PM

The best part is, as a Laker fan, even if the Lakers don't win the title this year, in 2-3 years Kidd and Shaq will probably be retired, KG and Allen will start looking really old and the Spurs will have to make some pretty good moves to avoid looking ancient themselves.

All true, but Utah, New Orleans, and Portland are all teams on a rapid ascent. It looks a lot like changing of the guard time in the West. Not this year, but soon.

Posted by right | February 13, 2008 5:30 PM

Utah, New Orleans, and Portland are all teams on a rapid ascent.

And notice who's sitting tight. The Suns and Mavs are desperate not just because LA got better, but because as constituted they're pretty much at their peaks (the Suns pre-trade, that is).

Posted by Antid Oto | February 13, 2008 5:37 PM

Just for fun -- active players with the most career games played:

1) Dikembe Mutombo, HOU
2) Robert Horry, SAS
3) Shaquille O'Neal, PHO
4) Jason Kidd, DAL
5) Juwan Howard, DAL
6) Sam Cassell, LAC
7) Kevin Garnett, BOS
8) Michael Finley, SAS

Rumor has it Cassell will be making his way to Boston very soon, either via trade or buyout.

I think Kobe Bryant is laughing himself to sleep every night these days.

Posted by right | February 13, 2008 5:38 PM

Wow, that is a lot for Dallas to give up. If I were them I'd be very hesistant to break up the Diop/Dampier two-headed center monster. It's worked very well for them.

Harris is good, but I think Jason Kidd does more for your offense than he's getting credit for in most of these comments. It's a cliche to say somebody makes other guys better, but in Kidd's case, it's actually true. The Mavs don't have a singe player on their roster who's really a good passer. Kidd changes their whole offense -- Jason Terry should get more open looks, Josh Howard should get more opportunities on the break, Dirk will get better shots.

Posted by too many steves | February 13, 2008 5:39 PM

I've probably seen 40-45 Nets games so far this year. Kidd has certainly lost a step, even as compared to a couple of years ago. And it is frustrating to see th quicker PGs go around him. But he is an excellent help defender and he's very big for a PG, so he can cover 2-guards as well. I think that'll help Dallas when Terry is on the floor, since Terry is small and I can certainly see Dallas cross matching Kidd against a 2-guard and Terry against a PG.

Kidd was an all-NBA defender last year. Yes, these things are partly won on reputation. But there is a basis for why he won the award too.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2008 5:41 PM

I don't share the pro-Harris hysteria, either. Yeah, he's a nice player, but there's only so much a little guy who isn't really a point guard can do. Iverson is the only one of those types who's really excelled, and he can fill it up in a way that Devin Harris can't. It's the same reason I'm nervous that my Warriors seem to be investing a lot of their future in Monta Ellis.

Posted by too many steves | February 13, 2008 5:45 PM

"Kidd was an all-NBA defender last year. Yes, these things are partly won on reputation."

While I think Kidd still has things to offer, I thought that particular award was a pathetic joke.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 5:48 PM

Kidd changes their whole offense

Well, that's to be seen, I think. He should change the entire offense. Dallas is WAAAAAAY too focused on iso's. But even with that, Dallas has been the second best team in the NBA in terms of offensive efficiency. However, I think their offense could be stopped in crunch time in the playoffs, and Jason can probably help them in that regard.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2008 5:49 PM

Why do people say Kidd makes his teammates so much better? How many winning seasons has he participated in?

Posted by Steve V | February 13, 2008 6:00 PM

Well, he got the Nets to the finals twice without a great supporting cast. Before that, he took the Suns past the first round, which was probably overachieving.

Posted by too many steves | February 13, 2008 6:10 PM

Jason Kidd is WAY better than Harris and anyone who says different don't know b-ball.

Kidd is a game-changer, even at his age.

The idea that Matt fails to mention how great of a passer and a leader Kidd is shows that he's looking at stats and not using his head.

Was it a panic move?

Sure it was!

Just like the Shaq deal was.

But for the next two years, this gives Dallas a chance to win a title, and without it, they are also-rans.

Dallas will get Stackhouse back and have an incredible line-up.

Posted by TheCarpetMuncher | February 13, 2008 6:13 PM

"Well, he got the Nets to the finals twice without a great supporting cast. Before that, he took the Suns past the first round, which was probably overachieving."

Anyone who thinks Kidd wasn't outrageously elite is delusional.

The problem lies in the time period going forward...

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:13 PM

Why do people say Kidd makes his teammates so much better? How many winning seasons has he participated in?

Let's look at the record:

Dallas
Year before Kidd arrived: 13 wins
Kidd's first year: 36 wins

Phoenix:
Year before Kidd arrived: 40 wins
Kidd's first (full) year: 56 wins

New Jersey:
Year before Kidd arrived: 26 wins
Kidd's first year: 52 wins (and Finals appearance)

I'd say that's a pretty good track record.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2008 6:14 PM

"Let's look at the record"

All three of the seasons you properly reference are pre-microfracture...

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:17 PM

True, Petey. He is certainly not as good as pre-surgery. That said, I think's he's come back amazingly well from the surgery.

Compare the 2001/2 JKidd to this year's edition:
2001/2: 14.7 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 9.9 APG, .391 FG%, .321 3P%
2007/8: 11.3 PPG, 8.1 RPG, 10.4 APG, .366 FG%, .356 3P%

I don't think that's a really drastic decline. He's shot poorly this season, but otherwise it's about even, I'd say (and I think he's getting his shot back a bit lately). As noted above, the main decline is defensive.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2008 6:26 PM

Thanks for doing that research! Look, I think Kidd's a great player, I just never thought he was the second coming of Magic Johnson, which some people seemed to think at various times. Since I'm so ignorant of Kidd's career overall (being both horribly forgetful of sports history and a Lakers follower to the exclusion of the rest of the league), I would follow up by wondering out loud whether the various teams Kidd joined also picked up other players that helped contribute to their improvement. Basically, while I can see Phoenix's Shaq deal as holding the theoretical possibility of getting Phoenix to the NBA Finals, I've just never thought of Kidd as the kind of pickup that delivers that kind of oomph. Since Dallas is a pretty deep team, maybe it's possible.

Posted by Steve V | February 13, 2008 6:33 PM

If you've never thought of Jason Kidd as a team-changing, game-changing, super-awesome PG, you haven't seen him play enough. I know he's not the same player he was, but his game was never based on explosiveness, so he's pretty close to his old self. I think Kidd in his prime edges out Stockton and Nash as the best post-Magic point guard. He's probably top-5 all-time at the position. I'm a little biased a little myself since I've been watching the guy since he was about 16. Man, until LeBron, he was the greatest high school player I've ever seen.

Posted by too many steves | February 13, 2008 6:42 PM

"I think Kidd in his prime edges out Stockton and Nash as the best post-Magic point guard."

Very mildly disagree based on the fact that both of those guys had an outside shot and Kidd never really did.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:45 PM

Kidd at his best was easily better than either Stockton or Nash. Stockton was never as dynamic, and Nash plays zero defense and wasn't that great until he turned 30. Gary Payton at his absolute best might have given Kidd a run for his money, but I think Kidd edges him out by just a bit.

Yes, Kidd basically was/is the second coming of Magic Johnson, and is a first ballot Hall of Famer, and the best point guard of his generation.

Today, he is past his prime, but he is still the guy they ask to run the Olympic Team.

Like Shaq, Kidd will be re-energized, and will be playing with a superior team. Look for them both to make a big difference.

Posted by Eric Blair | February 13, 2008 6:55 PM

I could see that, Petey. However, Kidd was obviously way ahead of Nash on D, and probably slightly better than Stockton, too. I've always had a hard time judging Stockton since he played his whole career in one system, racking up crazy assists feeding the ball to one guy (it's the same problem I have evaluating Karl Malone. Personally, I think Barkley was better). That said, I'd still put Stockton 3rd among those 3.

Obviously this is clouded by the whole peak value/career value agrument. Nash at his peak is an all-time great PG; Nash averaged out over his career is a very good, not great PG.

Posted by too many steves | February 13, 2008 6:57 PM

Nash never had the defensive game Kidd did. Stockton had a better outside shot, but overall wasn't a better scorer than Kidd.

I'm biased, but I'd take Kidd's career over theirs. And I'm still pissed that Kidd was screwed out of an MVP he deserved in 02 or 03.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2008 6:57 PM

I don't think the Dallas trade is so bad. Some of those scrubs Dallas gave up were standing around during the playoff debacles of the past two years. Move on and bring someone else in. Call it desperation if you want; Kidd's a winner.

"I think Kidd in his prime edges out Stockton and Nash as the best post-Magic point guard."

Very mildly disagree based on the fact that both of those guys had an outside shot and Kidd never really did."

Yes. Stockton and Nash's shooting efficiency was and is off the charts compared to almost all guards in the past 20 years.

Posted by Colatina | February 13, 2008 7:01 PM

If this trade happens, I'm going to start wondering if Stern isn't forcing a Celts-Lakers Finals to save the league. My gawd.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 13, 2008 7:04 PM

I'm not sure there will ever be a second coming of Magic. If I recall correctly, the worst record the Lakers had during Magic's career was 56 or 57 losses. I believe they missed the Finals three out of his 11 or twelve year career. Hell, he went to the Finals in his last year, when his knees (and Worthy's) were shot and their center was a young Vlade Divac.

Posted by Steve V | February 13, 2008 7:08 PM

Celtics - Lakers Finals, Baby. Gonna party like it's 1984.

Posted by wph | February 13, 2008 7:10 PM

56 or 57 wins, duh.

Posted by Steve V | February 13, 2008 7:10 PM

Stockton had a better outside shot, but overall wasn't a better scorer than Kidd.

You've got to be kidding. I feared Stockton at the end of game. If I'm on the other side, I pray the ball finds its way into Kidd's hands as the clock ticks down.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 13, 2008 7:11 PM

If you're praying for that, SCMT, you're praying for the wrong thing. Kidd's a crappy shooter but he's had some awesome game-winners in his career. And if he doesn't take the shot, he still makes the right play.

I didn't mean to leave The Glove out of the discussion. He belongs, although I think he's #4 in the 4-man race (by peak value)

Posted by too many steves | February 13, 2008 7:16 PM

PER is only one measure and doesn't include defense, but for what it's worth:

Magic Johnson:

Peak PER - 27.0
Career PER - 24.1

John Stockton:

Peak PER - 23.9
Career PER - 21.8

Steve Nash:

Peak PER - 23.8
Career PER - 20.1

Gary Payton:

Peak PER - 23.6
Career PER - 18.9

Jason Kidd:

Peak PER - 22.5
Career PER - 18.7

Posted by blah | February 13, 2008 8:29 PM

Notice that Magic's career PER is better than the peak PER of any of the others.

Posted by blah | February 13, 2008 8:33 PM

Another measure for comparison purposes is WSAA (win shares above average):

Magic Johnson:

Peak WSAA - 22.5
Career WSAA - 210

John Stockton:

Peak WSAA - 19.5
Career WSAA - 243

Gary Payton:

Peak WSAA - 15.0
Career WSAA - 109.5

Steve Nash:

Peak WSAA - 14.5
Career WSAA - 74.5

Jason Kidd:

Peak WSAA - 11.5
Career WSAA - 52

Posted by blah | February 13, 2008 8:46 PM

Matt Y, your points about trading young for old, draft picks, and expiring contracts, as well as, avoiding trading from a position of weakness are all well taken. I also noticed similar sentiments from you after the Shaq-Marion trade. That said, I think your approach is too conservative and your vision too limited - typical of a stat-minded, Ivy-league guy who reads way too much John Hollinger.

I've got to side more with Bill Simmons and cheer for GM's and owners with the "imagination or testicular fortitude to go all in" and take some chances.

First of all, I don't agree with your premise that the Mavs are just "getting better rebounding and defense in exchange for worse shooting." What you say is true, to a point. The Mavs are also getting a much better passer, creator, and (I cannot emphasize this next point strongly enough) leader going from Devin Harris to Jason Kidd. Harris is a nice talent, but Kidd has a much better chance to make the Mavs the champs. I know Kidd's stats are down, but don't underestimate the power and energy that come from a change - not only in Kidd, but in Dirk, Howard, and Terry (although not Dampier, that guy is a lost cause outside of a contract year). I also believe that the Mavs can/will pick up a point guard down the road on par with Devin Harris when Kidd is done.

My biggest problem with this trade is the timing: Why the heck didn't the Mavs make this deal last year?!? They may have been basking in the glow of defening champs heading into All-Star weekend if they would have had the balls last year.

Posted by No Balls Association | February 13, 2008 9:02 PM

Meh. Give me a comparison of WP48 or Win Score.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2008 9:20 PM

Meh. Give me a comparison of WP48 or Win Score.

This is why we're the reality based community, Al. I have Magic and Stockton above Kidd. Nash, I dunno. I kind of want to throw out the PHX years and see what it looks like. And as Payton has aged gracelessly, I've grown to hate him, so I can't really say.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 13, 2008 9:36 PM

Well, looks like the deal has been blocked by Devean George (!) for the time being:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3244818

Posted by blah | February 13, 2008 9:43 PM

First, off Kidd is awesome and I don't think Harris is going to be anything more than a slightly above average PG. Giving up those draft picks is tough, but if this works for Dallas, they are going to be late rounders, unless they came from another team. I suspect that the picks will be lottery protected at the minimum.

Second, the KG trade is pretty good for the Wolves. Let's use your logic for not liking this Kidd trade; they are pretty similar deals (if you think Harris is going to be good that is.) In each trade, the team receiving the superstar in each case got a better player who is in the second half of his career, while the rebuilding team got a potential star for the future. This is why you don't like the Kidd trade for the Mavs, but the same thing could apply to the deal for Jefferson. Trust me on this, Al Jefferson is already a lot better than Devin Harris will ever be.

I would agree that this trade smells like panic, but the Mavs have been trying to get Kidd for at least a year now. So it can't be that big of a panic move if they have thought about it for so long.

The only thing I don't like about it is that I am not sure it makes them good enough to beat LA or the Suns. I wouldn't mortgage the future unless I was sure it would bring the team all the way.

Posted by CBFatih | February 13, 2008 11:46 PM

Does Isiah Thomas not count as post-Magic? I seem to remember him being a pretty good player, before screwing up everything else he touched in his life.

Magic > Thomas > Stockton > Kidd > Payton > Nash

And Chris Paul is well on his way to joining the top half of that list.

Posted by right | February 14, 2008 12:57 AM

"And as Payton has aged gracelessly, I've grown to hate him"

Hey, let's not forget that if Payton doesn't knock down that shot at the end of game 3 of the 2006 Finals, Dallas wins that series instead of Miami.

I never understood the hate people had for Payton for being willing to stick around past his prime to be a role player.

There's definitely something to be said for Zeke's strategy of hanging it up when he can't be the shining star anymore. But the alternate strategy has merit as well.

Posted by Petey | February 14, 2008 7:29 AM

I wasn't counting Isiah as post-Magic. He was past his prime when Magic retired, but that's when he started winning titles.

I honestly don't think Stockton is in the same class as Nash, offensively. Nash is way better as a scorer, and I think he's even a little better as a passer. He can get to the rim whenever he wants and he's even a little better shooter than Stockton (better range, better at getting tough shots). When you include defense, Stockton comes close.

Anyway, my rankings on peak value:

Isiah (if you count him) > Kidd > Nash > Stockton > Payton

career value:

Stockton > Isiah > Kidd > Payton > Nash

Posted by too many steves | February 14, 2008 12:12 PM

That junk Stockton did is "defense"? I always had another word for it.

Posted by Steve V | February 14, 2008 9:07 PM