You act like this is an aside–but it takes up 1/3 of a fairly brief article. You can with a straight face say that Ilgauskas would’ve been MORE valuable to Washington on the court. He would’ve hindered the development of Blache and McGee and was not in their future plans because he was an impending free agent.

You have a loose definition of star. Two-time All-Star? Sixth Man? Jamison is bonafied starter, has versatility around the basket and is certainly a quality third wheel on a good team. But star? I suppose the Spurs have five “stars” by your logic. Duncan, Ginobili, Jefferson, Parker and McDyess (All-Star in ’99, third-team All-NBA in ’01, All-Rookie team in ’96).

As for the lack of upsets in the NBA. A 6-seed took a 3-seed to game seven in the East. And every West series went six games with two upsets (No. 7 San Antonio over No. 2 Dallas and No. 5 Utah over No. 4 Denver). What exactly are you defining as an upset?

Finally, because you made such a feeble argument about the NFL and MLB playoffs and their excitement level, I left that alone earlier. However, last season’s boring NBA first round featured what was widely considered one of the best playoff series ever (No. 7 Chicago versus No. 2 Boston). This season’s far more boring first round had a Western Conference with EIGHT 50-win teams. The Thunder and Lakers played three games that came down to the final minute and two that were decided in the last possession. Even the Cleveland-Chicago series had two of the five games decided by a combined four points.

And did you watch the ’09/10 NFL Wild Card Round? You must be romanticizing over the Cardinals-Packers game because the other three games were abysmal.

Anyway, I’m sorry you did not like my article, but I would like to point out a few things. My sentence about .500 teams making the playoffs is slightly taken out of context by itself. The key component to that assertion is the next sentence: “Combined with the fact that there are not many upsets in the NBA, it makes the opening rounds even more cumbersome” In both baseball and football, the rounds are shorter and upsets are much more frequent. I go into the reasoning behind this later. You point out the .500 teams who have won championships in the NFL and MLB, but how about the last one who won in the NBA? You have to go all the way back to 1994-1995 for the Houston Rockets who were 47-35 that year and won as a sixth seed.

As for the Ilgauskas critique, I did state that the trade was more valued for contract reasons. I regret if it seems that I thought Washington did not benefit at all. I was trying to emphasize that the Wizards could have kept Zydrunas, and benefited even more. Or at least not simply allow him to re-sign with Cleveland.

I never called Jamison a “superstar,” merely a “star.” I believe this is a fair assessment, as he has been an all-star twice and also received an NBA Sixth Man award.

As for my assertion that this trade scenario has happened many other times, it does happen every year. It may only be a “handful” for you, but every year the players that re-sign with their old team after a trade re-sign with playoff contenders. No one re-signs back to a cellar dwellar. When the Mavs/Nets were working out a trade for Jason Kidd, Jerry Stackhouse infamously got in trouble for blatantly telling the press that he was simply going to return to Dallas after 30 days, and thus was not even worried about the trade. That he was just involved to “make the numbers work.”

However, you are entitled to your opinion of the NBA trade scenario. It was a bit of an aside to my main argument. Thanks again for reading and offering your thoughts on how I could have better organized my article.

Among the most flawed logic in your story… “In the weaker conference, teams with .500 records (this year, Chicago) or even losing records can still make the playoffs.” The World Series champion St. Louis Cardinals finished with an 82-80 in 2006. And two Super Bowl participants in since 2005 have finished the regular season 9-7 (Pittsburgh in ’05, Arizona in ’08).

In regards to the NBA’s transaction system: you refer to the Ilguaskas trade as if it A) did not benefit Washington and B) happens all the time. First, Ilguaskas was extremely valuable to the Wizards because it allowed them to escape the bulk of what was owed Jamison–who you shamefully call a “superstar.” Second, this trade scenario has happened a handful of times in the last decade and rarely to much consequence, which is hardly “Many other times.” But I’m sure, as editor, you regularly teach your staff to avoid hyberbole.