Let's talk regrets. Everyone has some, no matter what they might claim. Especially people who play for or run professional basketball teams.

Nothing quite like having your mistakes make the front page around the world, huh?

It's a 24/7, CNN news cycle these days. NBA players, General Managers, Presidents, owners, they all come under constant scrutiny. Make one mistake, and within 24 hours everyone knows about it. Miss one opportunity, and everyone will blog about how the team is doomed for all eternity. Make one misquote to the press, and you're labeled a team cancer. Even taking a long view...well, it's a world of instant gratification, isn't it? Who wants to wait to be good?

This week's updates are heavy on unfulfilled potential and what-ifs. I've got a couple things that are sure to get people talking this week, including the continuing Allen Iverson saga, more debate on Flynn versus Jennings, and something I think no one ever expected to hear: Kevin McHale talking about what he regretted most about running the Timberwolves. Be sure to read to the end to get that.

But, of course, we start at the beginning...

Allen Iverson says he is retired. Maybe:

Iverson called up good buddy, former ESPN reporter and Philadelphia Inquirer blogger Stephen A Smith to report he is planning on retirement, which Smith immediately put up on Twitter.

But Iverson's "retirement" statement sounded more like a resume than a goodbye, including lines like "there's a lot left in my tank" and "I can still compete at the highest level". I would guess AI was completely serious about calling it quits, and threw things like that in to perhaps show he felt he was being forced into retirment than accepting it's his time. Or perhaps Iverson simply wished to save face while he bides his time for an offer he likes. It's a lot more respectable for a guy to say he's out of the game and have a team come looking for him than to sit in free agency and appear to draw no interest.

So what could have spurred such an abrupt farewell from Iverson? Well...

The Knicks decided not to make an offer to Iverson:

I reported last week that an offer was all but guaranteed, and at the time it appeared it was. Several sources said Iverson was scheduled to meet with the Knicks, and was willing to play for less than $500,000. ESPN reporter Marc Stein wrote that one souce close to Iverson said it was a "done deal", and that AI was shocked when the Knicks changed their mind.

That change of heart actually happened as I was writing last week's update. Thursday night, Knicks head coach Mike D'Antoni and President Donnie Walsh reportedly had a last minute, late night session to discuss Iverson. When asked, Walsh said, "You're 1-9 and you're thinking, 'We've got to get some help in here.' But when we rethought it and I talked to Mike and he talked to me, we feel that could hurt our development of the future, and so we want to go the way we're going."

D'Antoni simply said, "We just didn't think we wanted to have that dominant force on the team right now."

The explanation is, to be blunt, stupid. The summary is the Knicks are "thinking about the future", to which the obligatory response is "what future?" New York has banked everything, figuratively and literally, on free agency this coming summer. Iverson wouldn't take up cap space because he wouldn't be there next year. Iverson wouldn't be a locker room headache because he wouldn't be coming off the bench. Even the bad influence argument holds no weight...the only players the Knicks have now that figure to be on the roster by next year are Gallinari and maybe Wilson Chandler. And well...aren't Al Harrington, Larry Hughes, and Nate Robinson already selfish chuckers with bad attitudes?

What could have motivated the Knicks to forego replacing train wreck Chris Duhon with the Answer?

Eddy Curry is kind of sort of playing agin:

And by kind of sort of, I mean he's played an average of 11 minutes in 4 games this year. Which is still more games than he played last year.

So naturally you must be thinking "why would Eddy Curry stop New York for signing Iverson?" Well...

The Knicks want to trade Curry to Houston for Tracy McGrady:

And to do that, they need him to play.

The logic here is that clearing Curry off the books frees up enough cap space for the Knicks to go back to their original plan: sign two max free agents this summer. This would explain why the Knicks have been so insistent that Curry get back on the floor, despite him being badly mismatched with the run-and-gun system, as well as having been practically banned from the team last year.

Would the Rockets do it? Maybe...

Tracy McGrady and the Houston Rockets are at odds about his return. Again:

McGrady wanted to be back by now. The Rockets...well, there's an agenda here that goes way beyond TMac's health.

Yahoo Sports reported that McGrady got into a shouting match with Rockets GM Darell Morey and head coach Rick Adelman, both of which have since denied it happened. But make no mistake, relationships are tense here. "We have a difference of opinion," coach Rick Adelman said. "He wants to play. He's not ready to play. It's as simple as that." McGrady disagrees, saying, "Right now, I could play," and that he expects to be activated "very soon".

So what's going on here? Let's call it a conflict of interests.

McGrady is in his contract year, coming off a major injury in what has been a long string of injuries. He wants to be on the floor to prove his health and worth and earn a new deal.

But the Rockets have clearly moved on from him. They're invested in Aaron Brooks and Trevor Ariza now, and are probably tired of McGrady stepping in and out of the lineup on a nearly nightly basis, messing up chemistry.

There's a bad divorce on the horizon here, and McGrady figures to take the worst of it. He finally participated in a full practice last week, which would seem to indicate he will indeed be activated soon, but who knows what his role will be, or if he'll even have one.

Anyways, let's get back to Iverson.

The Sixers are planning to make Iverson an offer:

Stephen A Smith just Tweeted it this morning, saying Sixers head coach Eddie Jordan is scheduled to fly to Iverson's Atlanta home this Tuesday to talk to the guard, who is also scheduled to meet with his former Gerogetown coach, John Thompson the same day.

Could we be seeing this again? The Sixers badly need help at point guard since Louis Williams has a broken jaw that will keep him out two months (mid update update...only way to keep the flow). That leaves the team with just rookie Jrue Holiday to man the point. Philadelphia is where it all began for AI. There's a lot to be said about stars aligning and things coming full circle.

Also mulling an offer to Iverson are the Boston Celtics:

Which is more a statement about the Celtics than AI. This comes on the heels of the rumored deal they had to acquire Andris Nocioni, and both that and this smack of desperation.

The Celtics initially tried to acquire Iverson in 2006, when he was traded to Denver, and felt they had had a reasonable chance.

But this recent revelation is more about the state Boston feels its in.

The Celtics have problems:

Lots of them. Their record is very deceptive...their four losses were bad losses, and 3 of their wins were very close contests to the Wolves, Nets and Knicks. New York actually took them to overtime at Madison Square, and it took a last second, desperation jumper from Garnett for the Celtics to escape.

Start with Rasheed Wallace's ineptness this year. On paper, Sheed is a godsend for the Celtics. He's skilled, can stretch the floor, can play exceptional defense, and the Celtics have the kind of roster that can command his respect and keep him motivated. In reality though, Wallace is shooting just 37%....29% from deep....while hoisting an incredible 64% of his shots from three. 94 of his 146 attempts this year have been from distance. Add in that he's grabbing just 4 rebounds a game and not even tallying a full block, and suddenly Boston's big offseason acquisition looks a lot less intimidating.

Also a major major concern for the Celtics is Kevin Garnett's health, or lack thereof.

His knee is clearly not 100% and his defense, both individual and team, is suffering because of it. During the New York game, the Knicks repeatedly iso'd Al Harrington on Garnett, who got by KG every time like he was Chris Paul going by Jerome James. It's also affecting Garnett's lift...his shooting has been a rollarcoaster of percentages, and he's averaging the lowest rebounding numbers since his rookie year.

Kirk Hinrich noted Garnett's low mobility and vertical after an early season game, saying, "KG's knee just doesn't look healthy."

So the Celtics and Sixers are talking Iverson. So are the anaylsts, and they all agree...

Iverson is not really retiring:

Charles Barkley was emphatic on that point, so much so that he nearly tipped his chair over when he said it. Both he and Reggie Miller are certain Iverson will be playing again by next year, if not sooner.

But both also agree that Iverson will need to change his attitude and understand that he sin't a franchise player anymore, and that that attiude is what is holding AI back from getting the kind of offers he wants.

Barkely's TNT deskmate, Kenny "the jet" Smith, took it a step further, saying teams aren't just afraid of his attitude, but also his image...the baggage, the entourage, the fashion.

I've always been and still am a huge fan of Iverson and I think an offer from the Sixers is the best thing that could happen for him. I want to see him at least end his career on a high note and show the teenagers who were probably in daipers in the 90s the all-NBA player he used to be and can still be in the right situation. The Sixers have a huge need for a starting guard, have Andre Iguodala who can facilitate for him and has chemistry with Iverson from his first stint with the Sixers, and it's where his career began and he's had the most success. But he most definitely has an ego he needs to get into check to make a comeback anything more than a trainwreck.

Alright, now onto a couple video highlights...

Josh Smith and Michael Beasley both won games for their teams with incredible offensive rebounds and putbacks:

Judge for yourself which was better:

But incredibly enough, these aren't even the best video highlights of the week. This is.

Kobe Bryant hit a shot from behind the backboard:

You have got to be kidding me Kobe...

Alright, next up are a couple of logic-defying numbers.

The Warriors dressed just six players against the Mavs, and still won:

Yep, it would appear they still have Dallas' number. The Warriors only had Monta Ellis, Steph Curry, Vladamir Radmonavic, Anthony Morrow, Mikki Moore and Anthony Randolph, but walked away with a 111-103 win over the Mavs.

It's unclear what exactly the status is in Golden State. Officially the report is injuries, but with Don Nelson, you never know. Last season he shut down Stephen Jackson, Corey Maggette, Andris Beidrins and Jamal Crawford for extended parts of the season with "injuries", presumably to increase the Warriors' lottery chances.

Jason Williams leads the league in assist/turnover ratio:

Who would have ever though this would happen? Williams is currently posting 4.1apg to just 0.9to/g (as in fewer turnovers than games played), good for a lofty 4.83 ratio.

Granted Williams has been solid with the ball since his days with the Grizzlies, but still, it's odd that a guy who used to cough it up 4 or 5 times a night with the Kings suddenly be the NBA's gold standard in playmaking efficiency.

Much how the Magic didn't suffer the suspension of Rashard Lewis thanks to Ryan Anderson, they haven't skipped a beat because of Jameer Nelson's injury thanks to Williams. The Magic are 4-1 with Williams starting so far, with a win over Boston in that time.

Now for some news on the Blazers...

Travis Outlaw has a broken foot and is out basically the whole season:

Officially the diagnosis is 3-5 months, but it's probably safe to say it will be 5 months, which puts his return sometime in April. Would the Blazers risk upsetting chemistry to try and reinsert him into the rotation during the playoffs? Doubtful.

But then again, the Blazers don't have great chemistry going for them right now...

Brandon Roy has thrown Andre Miller under the bus:

As Wolves fans no doubt remember, the Blazers tried out a three gurad lineup of Roy, Miller and Steve Blake earlier this year. They have since abandoned that experiment, party because of the defensive liabilities it creates, but also partly because Brandony Roy said so.

"I feel like we tried it (the three-guard lineup)," said Roy, "and you could say it worked at times, but me sacrificing hurt the team, so it should get back to me playing full-out and getting some other guys in other areas to sacrifice a little bit."

Kind of a selfish statement, isn't it? By "other guys" he clearly is talking about Miller, and by "sacrifice", he means Miller should sacrifice his starting job so Roy can dominate the ball.

It's a little unclear who ultimately shoulders the blame in this. Roy, for saying his desires supercede the team? Miller, for not playing his role? McMillan, for not managing this well? Pritchard, for making such an illogical signing in the first place?

McMillan backed up Roy, saying "I want to give the team back to Brandon. It's his team."

Portland fans are a little confused over the issue.

One said "Just with his (Roy's) comments about how everyone else needs to sacrifice or rather "guys in other areas" (i.e. Miller) so that he can get the best out of himself because he is the centerpiece of the team and no one else can play well unless he does, which is true in a way but it came across kind of arrogantly. At least to me."

Another told me "One has to wonder if McMillan is doing it for his own benefit. He's a notorious micromanager, and perhaps feels safer playing Blake and calling plays himself, rather than playing Miller and letting Andre run the floor."

A third simply said, "Blake is the new Anthony Carter. Crappy player who gets burn because his coach has a fetish for him."

In any case, the Blazers need to figure it out. They saw a tangible effect of it last night, dropping a bad loss to the Grizzlies because McMillan couldn't decide on a point guard, and neither produced as a result. Roy can say what he wants, but the reality is a team needs to have a reliable point man on the floor 30 minutes a night, or the team doesn't run smoothly. No one knows that better than the Wolves.

And of course, speaking of the Wolves, regrets, and their point guard...

I'm going to throw my two cents about Jennings and Flynn out here:

Which is the following three points:

1) Jennings isn’t more talented than Flynn. Or Lawson, or Collison, or Holiday, or Curry, or Teague, maybe not even more talented than Maynor or Beaubois. He just has the most opportunity. But individual games played by all those players has shown there's a very negligible talent gap between them, if one exists at all.

2) Jennings hasn’t exactly been spectacular every night. Ok, 55 points is damn impressive. But in the last three games, he’s averaging 12ppg on 28% shooting. He scored just 12 points on 21 shots against the Spurs, just 14 points on 15 shots against the Hornets, and was a complete non-factor in last night’s blowout loss to the Thunder, unless you count getting lit up by Westbrook being a factor.

3) The Bucks’ record has as much, if not more, to do with Andrew Bogut as it does Jennings. Bogut has been out almost two weeks now and the Bucks are sub-.500 without him (2-3) Also factoring in is the absence of defensive wonder Luc Ricard Mbah A Moute.

Without getting into the intricacies of the triangle, it's safe to say it limits point guard play, and there's any number of examples that can be brought up to support that. Jennings is playing in a system that's almost built specifically for him, because....well, what other choice does Milwaukee have?

Bucks fans I asked about this were surprisingly encouraging. They understand Skiles' system and his history of point guards, echoing what Sessions said (Rambis is a big man, Skiles is a point guard) and supporting what Rambis said (Jonny could do the same thing as Brandon in the system Brandon plays in)

"Jennings has become a bit overrated since his 55 point game. Not to take anything away from him, he played fantastic that night, and he's been pretty damn good overall other than on the recent road trip.

As far as I'm concerned, most of the drafts prior to Jennings were good anyways. Flynn is going to be good, Evans is already good, Blake should be good as well... I'm not going to keep going on with this, you get the point.

Jennings is good, but Flynn is a hell of a PG himself. To say otherwise is a joke. Same goes for Lawson."

So is there someone to blame for this, like in the Roy/Miller issue? Should Kahn have picked someone else? Should Rambis stop running the triangle? Is Jonny just not very good?

I had Flynn ranked as the #3 point guard in this draft behind Rubio and Curry, and he was close enough to Curry in my mind that he might as well have been tied for second. He's got athleticism. He's got court vision. His numbers his final year at Syracuse were literally identical to Chris Paul's numbers his final year at Wake Forest. He's arguably the best defender of any of the point guards in this draft, with the possible exception of Rubio. And though it's hard to quantify it, his natural leadership and charisma are extremely important, especially on a team like ours that lacks those qualities. Jefferson is not a leader. Love quite honestly is too blunt for his own good to be a good leader. Foye did not provide any leadership whatsoever last year. We need that, and we've been needing that since Cassell was sent packing to the Clippers.

I definitely think it's way too early to write of Jonny. There's so much context and circumstance that needs to be accounted for. Like anything else with the team, this needs time.

Anyway, on to the part I'm sure you've all been waiting for.

Kevin McHale talked about what he regretted most from his tenure with the Wolves:

McHale was on SI's podcast this past week, and it ended up being a very interesting listen.

First up, he spoke about this summer's free agency and what teams look for in building a roster. He brought up the example of Chris Bosh, and how to build a team around a player who's not quite a one-man franchise (he said only Kobe, Wade and LeBron qualify as that), but who is significantly better than "just a second option". He noted how Andrea Bargnani perfectly compliments Bosh on offense, but leaves the team vulnerable on defense, and even mentioned that he thinks Bosh and Al Jefferson would make a great frontcourt (even though we wouldn't be much better defensively than Bosh/Bargnani...)

He also noted that Jefferson is a big lure for free agents, pointing out that the Knicks have nothing to offer free agents in terms of quality teammates.

So you can see his trademark come to the front...he's primarily concerned about fitting together an offense and almost completely ignoring defense...his MO while he was here.

McHale then talked about his playing days, saying the hardest guys for him to guard were Barkley and Rodman, because they did so much without the ball and crashed the offensive glass for easy putbacks. He also noted that players and coaches talked basketball a lot more in his era, versus watching movies or listening to music now, and feels that's why so many players from his era are coaches now, and why players now struggle more with fundamentals and basketball IQ.

Finally, the question came up about if he would have done anything differently while with the Timberwolves if he could go back and get a second chance on one thing. His answer:

"I would have kept Ray Allen."

I'm sure that when you read this at the top of this update, you immediately thought "Roy/Foye", or maybe Sprewell, maybe Jaric. But for those of us who are old enough and have been around the team long enough, this is exactly the right answer.

The Wolves drafted Ray Allen 5th overall in 1996, then immediately traded him and Andrew Lang to the Bucks for the #4 pick, Stephon Marbury, because the team, as McHale said in the podcast, "needed a point guard". (We really did)

McHale says he was and is a fan of Marbury, but said that because of the rookie pay scale being implemented and Marbury being a year behind Garnett, that KG's big contract started off a "streak of jealousy" in Starbury that...well, we know how the story ends. McHale said that Allen has been "solid his whole career", while things "just haven't worked out for Steph".

Undestatement of the decade there...

Certainly there's an element in that of having watched Allen and Garnett win a title together in Boston, but the truth is, had McHale known the jealousy Marbury would develop and had therefore kept Allen, the Wolves probably would have been perennial contenders from about 1998 to possibly all the way up to right now, and McHale would have been hailed as one of the best GM's in the NBA. It's the ultimate mix of regrets and unfulfilled potential, both for what KG and Allen could have been, and for what KG and Marbury nearly became, and the guy who made the call that probably ultimately cost him his job and possibly his reputation.

The NBA is full of promises that never get realized.

And as Mark Jackson likes to say, father time is undefeated. Wishful thinking about second chances is just that....wishful thinking. What if Jennings was a Timberwolf? What if Allen had been? What if Iverson had been? Remember that we all but closed a deal with the Sixers to acquire Iverson for Randy Foye....another trade that might have rescued McHale's management career.

But in the end, what we have is what we have, and we can only go forward from here. Despite our current record, I think David Kahn is off to a pretty good start. Let's hope we still feel that way when he finally cashes in the assets he inherited.

Until next week...