Especially when that team has lost two games in a row just once all season (and has yet to lose three straight), owns a 7 1/2-game lead in its division, allows the fourth-fewest points in the NBA and boasts the Boy King, LeBron James.
But that's exactly what the Cleveland Cavaliers are doing.
Multiple reports over the weekend suggested that the Cavs brass has been actively pursuing moves to land Golden State's Anthony Randolph, Indiana's Troy Murphy and/or Washington's Antawn Jamison.
My reaction: Why?
To be sure, Cleveland's offense has stagnated in the early going and is now ranked 16th in the league with 99.6 points per game. With Shaq seemingly on the decline and Mo Williams posing the next-best threat to score, BronBron has been left to his devices on offense — not that he's had too much difficulty, shooting better than 50 percent from the field.
Still, bringing one of the above three scorers into the fold certainly couldn't hurt — if the price was right.
But it's not. Randolph, no doubt about it, would add a scoring element to a power-forward crew that, at the moment, features J.J. Hickson and Anderson Varejao. The problem? Word is Danny Ferry has offered Hickson to the Warriors for Randolph, straight up.
Let me put on my Chris Mullin cap for a moment and consider just how asinine that move would be. The players have almost identical contracts, and Randolph is more talented. Even Chris isn't gonna bite on that.
Indiana, on the other hand, might be willing to deal Murphy. The Pacers are just about guaranteed to miss the playoffs anyway, and they owe Murphy $12 million next year. But the Cavs again meet a familiar obstacle: Whom to offer?
Hickson, with a light salary and some upside potential, could be appealing to Larry Bird & Co., but they'll want more. The Cavs can't afford to move Zydrunas Ilgauskas (Shaq's too injury-prone), and Indiana's not going to stomach Varejao's contract. Will the Pacers give up Murphy for Hickson plus (insert minor role player here: Darnell Jackson or Leon Powe)? Methinks not.
Jamison, for the same reason, is way out of Cleveland's league. The Wizards, though they're last in the Southeast, haven't given up on the playoffs (they have too much talent to do that), and Jamison would cost the Cavaliers a pretty $30 million dollars over the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons. And given Cleveland's need to offer LeBron big money to keep him around this summer, spending a lot on Jamison might not be the most prudent decision. To give up two or three of your premier players and saddle yourself with that salary doesn't seem to make sense, especially when you probably haven't improved much anyway.
And beyond all those logistical hurdles, is it not possible that the Cavs are just fine the way they are? Perhaps they're even better than fine. This team, lest we forget, went to the finals three years ago. Since then, it's added Shaq, Williams, Jamario Moon and Anthony Parker.
It takes time for new pieces to mesh. We're not even halfway through the season and Cleveland's sitting pretty in the No. 4 spot in the East, yet Ferry seems to be hitting the panic button.
This, of course, is a function of a general rush to overreaction in today's sports world. Thirty-some games into the season, and SportsCenter is already talking playoff seeds and home-court advantage. Fans are chatting about where the King and D-Wade are going to wind up next year. And even I am writing columns about a Celtics-Lakers matchup in June.
Point is, sometimes, in the midst of all that madness and premature judgment, it's best to trust your guys. Move a bunch of pieces midseason, and you might not only disrupt your offensive and defensive schemes, but you could very well disrupt the entire chemistry of the team.
Again, not many clubs at 21-8 are rushing to make a trade. That's probably because you shouldn't be fixing what isn't really broken to begin with.
