Jeff Denberg of the AJC reports that the small Hawks backcourt got even smaller Wednesday.

With 6-foot-2 Jason Terry already a key member of the backcourt, the Hawks traded for the draft rights to 6-foot guard Dan Dickau after Sacramento took him with the 28th pick of the draft. The Hawks gave up a future first-round pick from Detroit, which could be any pick the Pistons have over the next two years.

Yet another columnist calls for the NBA to get a grip on the officiating. Bill Livingston of the Plain Dealer writes that, ?Game 6 (of the Western Conference Finals) was the worst-officiated big game I ever saw.?

Livingston continues, ?I'm not a conspiracy theory guy. Conspiracy buffs are probably drawing lines from the bent envelope corner in the Patrick Ewing lottery to Michael Jordan's push-off of Byron Russell to the fourth quarter of Game 6 of the Kings-Lakers series to devil worship by Proctor and Gamble to John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind," going quietly nuts.?

In Game 6, the Lakers made 34 field goals and four 3-pointers to the Kings' 38 and eight 3s. The Lakers shot 27 free throws in the last quarter to the Kings' nine. The sixth foul on Scot Pollard and the fifth on Vlade Divac were mythical. There was no contact at all. They helped disqualify the Kings' two best low-post defenders against Shaquille O'Neal. All of this lead to the Lakers winning 106-102 and extending the series to seven games.

The NBA doesn?t allow criticism of their referees. If a coach or player questions the officiating, he is fined. The NBA is judge and jury for its own officials, and bad performances are simply covered up. I don't know how you fix it, either.

Livingston also questions the NBA?s fine and suspension of Cavaliers coach John Lucas for two games for inviting high school superstar LeBron James to a workout. This punishment seems a bit excessive when Michael Jordan, who was part owner and GM of the Wizards did the same thing last year. NBA vice president Russ Granik haughtily refused to discuss the Jordan case, increasing the perception of favoritism. In the LeBron James case, the NBA could say it was trying to discourage high school players from skipping college. It's a worthy cause.

Livingston concludes that the ?3 blind mice? who officiated Game 6 should also be fined and suspended because "nothing less is at stake than public belief that the league is on the level."

Glenn Rogers of the San Antonio Express-News speculates about the NBA?s luxury tax. While revenues are up, it doesn?t look like there will be a luxury tax this season. But, revenues will stabilize, perhaps drop some thanks to the new TV contract, and salaries will continue to grow. Thus a tax is expected next summer and that happening will affect roster decisions this summer.

The tax will charge each team one dollar for every dollar they are over the tax limit. That limit is estimated to be in the $53 million to $55 million range. The salary cap is expected to remain close to this years? $42.5 million figure.

The salary cap is a nuisance while the luxury tax is a wall. Once you exceed the salary cap, you are more restricted in making player transactions. Once you exceed the luxury tax, you are forced to pay. That wall could force a team to decide between launching a superior team or one a notch or two lower.

Even though Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has no problem paying the luxury tax, he still thinks it is a bad idea. "It will hurt the league," he says. "Sacramento is faced with signing Mike Bibby now and the owners shouldn't be punished by getting hit with a tax if they try to keep that great team together." Cuban is in favor of a more laissez-faire attitude ? if the owner is willing to shell out big bucks, let him. But don't add to the burden with a surcharge. Cuban remains in favor of a salary cap because "it sets the rules and regulations" for the playing field. And it also limits how much a player can make.

Some owners, like the Clippers' Don Sterling, don't even want to hit the cap let alone the surcharge figure. With the Clippers? Michael Olowokandi coming to the point where he will need a new contract, it will be interesting to see how Sterling handles the situation and what this situation will mean for the rest of his young stars.

Cleveland boss Gordon Gund says he won't pay the luxury tax and he's banking that opponents won't have the money to offer maximum dough to Andre Miller, his restricted free agent this summer (RealGM note: Miller will not be a free agent until next summer).

Cleveland faces the prospect of re-signing Miller to a $100 million contract for 7-years. To avoid the tax implications of such a contract, there's talk that Cleveland will offer Miller to Chicago for this year's No. 2 pick ? probably Jay Williams. If there were no luxury tax, the Cavs might be more willing to sign Miller.

Minnesota owner Glen Taylor is counting on the luxury tax to help his revenue. "Basically the money will come from the teams that are paying the high revenue for their players, and that money will go to the teams that stay under the cap," he was quoted as saying. "We are going to try to stay under the cap," he said.

With Kevin Garnett?s big salary on the books, Taylor won?t be able to sign any free agents. The Wolves' goal apparently will be to stay with the team basically as is or trade for players with like salaries.

Most agents see the all-around league crunch and figure players not considered franchise or near-franchise caliber will have to settle for the average-salary exception (about $4.5 million) or hope for a sign-and-trade deal, the route taken by Derek Anderson.

Lacy J. Banks of the Chicago Sun-Times reports that Laker coach Phil Jackson has a theory as to why Ralph Nader would protest the officiating in Game Six of the Western Conference Finals.  

''Sacramento is a political town, is it not?'' Jackson said Thursday. ''They would have consumer advocate groups, and Ralph Nader would be there. That's typical.?

Nader sent a letter to the NBA questioning the officiating in a game where the Lakers shot more free throws in the fourth quarter (27) than the Kings did for the whole game (25). With the Lakers facing elimination, they were able to score enough points form the line to win 106-102.

Regarding the protest, Jackson said, "That's ridiculous that this was done. But I do feel sorry for Sacramento. It's tough to be good losers. It really is.?

Kevin Mulligan of the Philadelphia Daily News plays ?Sixers GM? in today?s column. He creates a scenario in which the Sixers trade Allen Iverson. His reasoning for the trade: The Kings need another scorer to pair up with Mike Bibby and they have a wealth of star-quality players on their bench which could help the Sixers.

His suggestion is Iverson to the Kings for ?untapped star-quality shooting guard Bobby Jackson and rising star small forward Peja Stojakovic. If the salary-cap math doesn't add up, Sacramento throws in forgotten point guard Mateen Cleaves, who has yet to blossom.? (According to RealGM?s estimates, the Kings would have to add about another $2.7million in salaries to make this trade work).  

Mulligan adds: ?It's a perfect fit for both teams. Bibby never would see double-teams and it is a trade that could win the Kings an NBA championship next year. And with the explosive, versatile Jackson and Stojakovic (Matt Harpring becomes a solid sub), the 76ers immediately have two deadly shooters and become a serious Eastern Conference championship threat again.?

Other Iverson trade suggestions include:

Reggie Miller (19.3 career average) and Jamaal Tinsley (9.4 points per game, 8.1 assists per game) in a heartbeat from Indiana, and throw in someone else (Speedy Claxton? Snow?) if the Pacers wanted to unload Austin Croshere to come off Brown's bench. But would Indiana stake its future on Iverson? (RealGM note: Iverson for Miller and Tinsley works financially, but adding Croshere for Claxton or Snow would probably not work).

A Memphis offer of Shane Battier and its lottery pick (Dajuan Wagner?) would be attractive. (RealGM note: This trade is not even close to matching salaries)

There are rumblings of an overhaul in Milwaukee, and Ray Allen (and a deal-sweetener) sure would look nice in a 76ers uniform at the three-point line (RealGM note: The ?sweetner? would have to be less than $2 million in value).

New Orleans (formerly Charlotte) is looking to make a splash, and what better way than landing Iverson? A sign-and-trade of Baron Davis, a draft pick and maybe even George Lynch tagging along to be reunited with Brown? (RealGM note: Baron Davis is under contract for the 2002-03 season and can?t be signed-and-traded until NEXT summer. And, when he is re-signed, he will almost definitely be a Base Year Compensation player, which will make him difficult to trade).

Consumer advocate and former Presidential Canadiate Ralph Nader and the League of Fans, a sports-industry watchdog, sent a letter to NBA Commissioner David Stern on Tuesday urging a review of the officiating in the aftermath of the "notorious" refereeing in Game 6 of the Western Conference finals between the Kings and the Lakers in L.A.

"At a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives, it is important, during the public's relaxation time, for there to be maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports performances," the letter said. "That sense was severely broken . . . during Game 6."

The Lakers shot 27 free throws in the fourth quarter and scored 16 of their final 18 points at the foul line in a 106-102 victory. Lakers guard Kobe Bryant's elbow to Mike Bibby's nose that was not called a foul with less than 20 seconds left "prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials," the letter said. "Unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound," the letter continued.

"Your problem in addressing the pivotal Game 6 situation is that you have too much power. Where else can decision-makers (the referees) escape all responsibility to admit serious and egregious error and have their bosses (you) fine those wronged (the players and coaches) who dare to speak out critically? . . . A review that satisfies the fans' sense of fairness and deters future recurrences would be a salutary contribution to the public trust that the NBA badly needs."

The San Francisco chronicle reports that Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader is calling for the NBA to review the officiating after the "notorious" refereeing in Game 6 of the Western Conference finals between the Kings and the Lakers in L.A. Nader sent a letter to NBA commissioner David Stern on behalf of The League of Fans, a sports-industry watchdog group.

"At a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives, it is important, during the public's relaxation time, for there to be maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports performances," the letter said. "That sense was severely broken . . . during Game 6."

The Lakers shot 27 free throws in the fourth quarter and scored 16 of their final 18 points at the foul line in a 106-102 victory. Lakers guard Kobe Bryant's elbow to Mike Bibby's nose that was not called a foul with less than 20 seconds left "prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials," the letter said. "Unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound," the letter continued.

"Your problem in addressing the pivotal Game 6 situation is that you have too much power. Where else can decision-makers (the referees) escape all responsibility to admit serious and egregious error and have their bosses (you) fine those wronged (the players and coaches) who dare to speak out critically? . . . A review that satisfies the fans' sense of fairness and deters future recurrences would be a salutary contribution to the public trust that the NBA badly needs."

Commissioner Stern finally has a legitimate rivalry to sell, the only problem being that it gets played out one round before the Finals start.

Exactly a year removed from the letdown of Lakers vs. Spurs, billed as a series for the ages and finished in four games, Lakers vs. Kings outstripped every expectation. It also raised a national furor over the Game 6 officiating, and far too much coverage of cowbells and tainted cheeseburgers, but that all fed nicely into the sort of Game 7 drama that visits us all too rarely.

None of the above will soothe Sacramento any, for the Kings and their fiercely loyal subjects already realize what they squandered Sunday night. Shaquille O'Neal wasn't fully Shaquille O'Neal until Game 6, and Kobe Bryant was likewise on and off, and even the real-deal O'Neal and Bryant couldn't have won Game 7 unless the Kings helped hand it to them.

The Los Angeles Lakers, being the premier team and the premier draw in the league, survived against the Kings. The NBA Finals begin Wednesday, with an East Coast-West Coast, two-largest-TV-markets-in-the-country matchup involving the Lakers and New Jersey Nets. The Nets have no prayer (repeating my Super Bowl prediction about the New England Patriots), but that's not the point.

The NBA is "better" off with Shaq in the prime-time spotlight than, say, Vlade. Business is business, man.

I've got no problem, by the way, with the Game 7 outcome, won by the Lakers. Sat there and watched it on TV and agonized over the Kings repeatedly missing free throws. Overall, it was a series Sacramento deserved to win and should have won, but when you tank it at the line like that, you get what's coming to you.

What, however, did the Kings "get" in the Game 6 loss at Los Angeles on Friday night?

That particular outcome will be debated for many years. That one caused the outrage I was hearing over the weekend. Explaining those 27 free throws the Lakers shot in the fourth quarter alone is impossible. There is no logical explanation for the work of the three referees involved in Game 6, even Dick Bavetta, certainly one of the best in the league.

Larry Stewart of the Los Angeles Times reports that the Lakers are bigger in Los Angeles than the Super Bowl.

Sunday?s Game 7 victory over the Kings produced a 36.9 rating in L.A. which translates to nearly 5 million viewers. This year's Super Bowl, in which the New England Patriots upset the St. Louis Rams, 20-17, on Feb. 3, got a 36.4 L.A. rating. Sunday's Laker game had a 60 share. The Super Bowl, because of an earlier start time, had a 61 share.

The 60 share is the highest for the Lakers in more than two decades. Keith Harris, the Lakers' executive director of multimedia marketing, could not find a higher share in his records. The 36.9 ratring is the second highest ever for a Lakers telecast. Game 6 of the 2000 finals against the Pacers produced a 39.2 rating.

Nationally, Game 7 Sunday drew an overnight rating of 16.9 with a 27 share. Those are the highest overnight numbers for the non-NBA Finals in four years and also represent a 66% increase over the 10.2/16 overnight numbers for Game 7 of the Eastern Conference finals between Philadelphia and Milwaukee last year.

A rating represents the percentage of all television households tuned into a particular program, and the share is the percentage of households where television is being watched. So Sunday's game, according to Nielsen, was watched in 36.9% of all TV households in the L.A. market and 60% of those where television was being watched.

Since each rating point represents 53,542 homes in L.A., Sunday's game was watched in nearly 2 million homes. The estimated 5 million viewers comes from figuring that there are an average of 2? viewers per household.