Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

chumdawg · 02-02-2008, 11:16 PM

That reasoning (that Dallas is resigned to having to part with Harris if it wants Kidd, but can't stomach losing too much else) makes sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I like Harris. But you have to get to give, and I see Kidd as an upgrade over Harris (as evidently the Mavs do, too, unless Stein is completely misinformed).

There are a couple ways to look at it. One is that promising young PG's seem to be a growing breed of late. Even this kid Crittendon, who most people see as little more than a filler to the Gasol trade, has upside. The idea is that if you acquire Kidd, you are NOT resigning yourself to being barren at the PG position when Kidd is gone. For one thing, there is a decent chance that one way or another you can find a replacement by the time Kidd is gone (after all, who among us could have imagined that Antawn Jamison would have morphed into a Steve Nash replacement, with a Stackhouse to boot?). For another, there is the very real possibility that Kidd plays five or more years. As I have always said with Nash, it was shortsighted to subscribe to the believe that point guards necessarily break down after age 30, just because that's what guys did ten years ago. Sports medicine and training is so much further advanced these days. You can even use steroids and human growth hormone and the like, if you don't get caught or if your league doesn't care much either way. Point is, guys are playing longer these days. And point guard is not all that demanding a position, from a crash-and-bump perspective. Stockton played till he was 40 or so, right? Jerry Rice did, too, in a similar way in the NFL. You aren't necessarily just getting two years of good play from Jason Kidd.

The other way to look at it is, admittedly, harsh and brutal. As they say, it is an upgrade business. And if your business is to win NOW--which it is for teams like the Mavs who are on the cusp--then you have to make tough calls.

I'll just say that I can very easily see the rationale for dealing Harris for Kidd, whether I would be happy about it or not.

02-02-2008, 11:16 PM	#423
chumdawg Guru Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cowboys Country Posts: 23,336	That reasoning (that Dallas is resigned to having to part with Harris if it wants Kidd, but can't stomach losing too much else) makes sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I like Harris. But you have to get to give, and I see Kidd as an upgrade over Harris (as evidently the Mavs do, too, unless Stein is completely misinformed). There are a couple ways to look at it. One is that promising young PG's seem to be a growing breed of late. Even this kid Crittendon, who most people see as little more than a filler to the Gasol trade, has upside. The idea is that if you acquire Kidd, you are NOT resigning yourself to being barren at the PG position when Kidd is gone. For one thing, there is a decent chance that one way or another you can find a replacement by the time Kidd is gone (after all, who among us could have imagined that Antawn Jamison would have morphed into a Steve Nash replacement, with a Stackhouse to boot?). For another, there is the very real possibility that Kidd plays five or more years. As I have always said with Nash, it was shortsighted to subscribe to the believe that point guards necessarily break down after age 30, just because that's what guys did ten years ago. Sports medicine and training is so much further advanced these days. You can even use steroids and human growth hormone and the like, if you don't get caught or if your league doesn't care much either way. Point is, guys are playing longer these days. And point guard is not all that demanding a position, from a crash-and-bump perspective. Stockton played till he was 40 or so, right? Jerry Rice did, too, in a similar way in the NFL. You aren't necessarily just getting two years of good play from Jason Kidd. The other way to look at it is, admittedly, harsh and brutal. As they say, it is an upgrade business. And if your business is to win NOW--which it is for teams like the Mavs who are on the cusp--then you have to make tough calls. I'll just say that I can very easily see the rationale for dealing Harris for Kidd, whether I would be happy about it or not. Last edited by chumdawg; 02-02-2008 at 11:17 PM.