Veterans, who in their prime were a force to be reckoned with, are going to contenders simply to get a ring.

I don’t fault them much for that. But is the ring really that important if it doesn’t have your team’s name written on it? Some might argue that if they are a help to their team then, yes, it means something.

I don’t know.

It seems weird the Gary Payton and Antoine Walker got Miami rings. And that Brent Barry and Michael Finley got Spurs rings.

You also wonder, though, if it is in the best interests of the team to take on these veterans who have lost a step.

This is where I am REALLY going with this article.

Would the Lakers have won another championship if the team had been Kobe and Shaq rather than Kobe, Shaq, Karl, and Gary?

Was Stackhouse a problem in Dallas, especially if you include the fact that they also had aging veterans Croshere and Dampier on the team taking up valuable roster spots and valuable learning experiences from younger players?

Steve Nash is obviously a benefit to his team. But were Jalen Rose, Kurt Thomas, and Eric Piatkowski? And what will Grant Hill really bring?

A healthy Dwyane Wade won the Heat one championship in Miami alongside a bunch of veterans, but is it hindering the Miami Heat that their roster was taken up this year by those same veterans Gary Payton, Antoine Walker, Shaquille O’Neal, Alonzo Mourning, and Eddie Jones? They couldn’t even with ONE game against the spry Chicago Bulls this past year.

Charles Barkley and Karl Malone both tried the stunt with nothing to show for it. Were they a hindrance to their respective teams?

This article was prompted by Grant Hill bolting Orlando for the “greener pastures” of Phoenix, Arizona. Sure Grant Hill could use the help of the Phoenix Suns in getting himself a championship ring — a championship ring, I might add that has the Phoenix Suns name engraved on it rather than the Detroit Pistons or the Orlando Magic.

It was also prompted by the fact that the experienced but injury-plagued Ray Allen was traded to the Boston Celtics to play alongside the experienced Paul Pierce. And that the experienced Kevin Garnett might be traded to a contender so that he might win a championship before his age forces him to retire.

Certainly.

Can they play better than the another guy who would have made the team if they hadn’t been there, or would other players on the team be able to “step up” if they didn’t have the veteran hogging much needed learning minutes? Are they really a help to their team? Or would the team have been better served by signing a young, talented, inexperienced guy from the NBDL whose body isn’t slowing down instead of an experienced but sometimes ineffective veteran.

Ah, there’s the rub.

There are arguments both ways, of course, and lumping every veteran into the same category is probably unfair if not outright dishonest of me, but I have to wonder if the Phoenix Suns, a run-and-gun offense, really want a guy with gimpy legs.

Maybe it works for the slow, methodical Miami Heat.

The San Antonio Spurs have won championships either because of or despite the veteran-laden rosters. It’s hard to tell.

I’m sure every player and team situation is different, and certainly a player or two who have “been there” can be an asset to any team.

But I have to think that Dallas and Phoenix, teams built on quickness, can’t be well served by aging veterans. And I have to think that Kobe and Shaq might have had one more ring had they not signed Karl and Gary.

And I have to believe that the Phoenix Suns don’t want any more old players on their team, no matter how good those players once were and how much experience they might bring to the table.