Mark Cuban called me a moron

When Mark Cuban was asked if he had any questions about Dirk Nowitzki's ability to lead the Dallas Mavericks he replied, 'No, not at all. Not even a little bit. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a moron. You can print that.'

Guess he was talking about me.

There is no question in my mind about Nowitzki's disability to lead. He's a great player that has made failed attempts to lead in the past, but he just doesn't have it in him. And I'm OK with that.

There has been a lot of talk the past few weeks about Nowitzki's inability to lead, but that is not his problem. Leadership does not have to come from your best player. It's nice if it does, but it isn't necessary.

Nowitzki's fatal error is that he is not aggressive. The Mavs can fill in leadership from other players, but if their best player refuses to take the ball to the basket, they are doomed to fail. In Game 3 of the 2006 Finals, the Mavs reverted to their jumpshooting ways, and it happened again in the Golden State Warriors series, and that starts with Nowitzki. He went from regular season MVP to playoff MIA overnight.

So that's why Nowitzki's got to go. It isn't about a lack of leadership, but rather a lack of aggressiveness. Having a seven footer who can shoot from the outside is only dangerous if he has the complimentary inside game. Dirk could do it, but he has consistently refused to, particularly in the playoffs.

With Nowitzki, the Mavs will always win 55 plus, but they will never win a title. If they are content with being a perennial good to great team, then by all means, maintain the status quo. But if the goal is a NBA title, it's time to say goodbye.

What should they do with him?

Some have suggested a trade for Kevin Garnett. I don't see that as an improvement. KG and Dirk are the same animal. Or more accurately, the same non-animal.

I do not know the details of draft pick trade values, so I can't propose a specific deal. But I would agree to trade everyone save one point guard in a package for the number one pick in the draft. Do whatever needs to be done to match salaries, and make 'em a Godfather offer. Then I would select Greg Oden.

Would this be a step backwards for a few years? Certainly. Oden will spend a few years continuing to develop his game, plus the Mavs will have to restock at the other positions.

Will it eventually result in titles? Without a doubt. Oden will win multiple titles in his career.

Will the Mavs actually attempt such a trade? Not a chance. Because Cuban isn't the moron that I am.

A radical thought

First of all, I feel compelled to say that this is not a kneejerk article. I have thought about this, I believe, clearly and rationally.

Dirk Nowitzki's got to go.

I love the Big German. He's a great player who is likely about to win a MVP award. The problem is, that award is for the regular season. No one would ever consider giving Dirk a playoff MVP award, even before this year.

Dirk's problem is that he lacks heart, or whatever you want to call it. A killer instinct, intestinal fortitude, whatever. He just doesn't have it, and I think he knows it. He was described in this article as being 'sapped', 'listless' and 'flustered' and quoted as saying, 'I've got to take what they give me, and they don't really give me a lot.' There is no question that Don Nelson knows Dirk's game, and therefore how to limit Dirk's game, better than anyone. But that's not good enough from an MVP candidate. I need some fire.

And so does Avery Johnson. In the same article, he responds to Dirk's comments, saying that if he doesn't see something better for the Game 5 shootaround, he's going to be 'highly upset'. He demands confidence from his best player: If he's not confident, it is that much harder for everyone else.

The Mavericks have slowly grown since the 1999-2000 season, getting a little better each year, the only hiccup being the Antawn/Antoine season experiment. After last year's Finals appearance, the next step was a championship. To win 67 games, only to (presumably) lose in the first round is inexcusable.

Nowitzki and the Dallas Mavericks should be dictating the tone and pace, not taking what the Warriors give them. If Dirk hasn't learned how to do that yet, he never will. He's a great player, but he is not a leader and he can't dominate.

If the goal is to win a championship, then Dirk should be moved. I am now convinced that he will never win a championship. I don't know where he could go or what they could get for him, but this is not going to work. And I'm not saying they automatically win the title next year if they actually do trade him. This team needs to be rebuilt as a tougher model.

As a Maverick fan, this is tough for me to say because Dirk is such a likable player, as are the rest of the Mavs. They are an easy team to root for—no thug life activity. But this team is flawed because they are too nice and too soft, and it starts with Dirk, the best player.

I don't expect a trade to actually happen, and would be sad if it somehow did, but the prize is a championship. Unless he finally puts the team on his back and digs them out of this 1-3 hole right now, I'm convinced it will never happen in Dallas with Dirk.

What does MVP mean?

We have been in the middle of a great MVP debate in the NBA for months now, and everyone has an opinion. Your choice for the award depends on how you define MVP, though.

I admit, this is something I have a hard time with because my definition changes. I can't decide which is the best definition, which I suppose is what makes MVP such a lively debate.

Some simply define the MVP as the best player on the best team.

Some look for the most dominant player.

Some say the MVP is the best player in the league based on stats.

Some say the MVP is the player whose team has the worst record without him.

Some penalize a player for being on a bad team.

Some penalize a player for being on a good team.

Some people think 'valuable' is a general term.

Others think it means 'valuable' specifically to a player's team.

Some say you just know it when you see it.

Bill Simmons, always doing things his own way, has three questions that he asks:

1. Ten years from now, who will be the first player from this season that pops into my head?
2. In a giant pickup game with every NBA player waiting to play and two fans forced to pick sides with their lives depending on the outcome of the game, who would be the first player picked based on the way everyone played that season?
3. If you replaced every MVP candidate with a decent player at his position for the entire season, what would be the effect on their teams' records?

Again, I'm not here to debate who the MVP is, but rather how we define the term. And I'm not looking for consensus, either. I just want to hear the reasoning behind your MVP definition.

Don't forget the other sports as well. Just because NBA MVP talk is dominating at the moment, don't limit yourself to that. Does your MVP definition change for different sports—for example, the Heisman in college football?

What does MVP mean to you?