Nets talk with Mavs about Kidd trade? - Page 11 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Dr.Zoidberg · 02-02-2008, 10:17 AM

^lol

I am happy, Cuban thinks this way.

DevinHarriswillstart · 02-02-2008, 10:49 AM

That article by Fish is too harsh. Kidd is worth getting just not for anything significant.

ShaggyDirk · 02-02-2008, 11:23 AM

it's threads like these that make me glad I waste some time at this site.

MavsFanFinley · 02-02-2008, 11:24 AM

How many times have we heard Cuban say we're not making a trade, we like our team, or this player is untouchable so forget about it, only to have him turn around and make a blockbuster trade?

I don't expect them to come out and say we're looking to trade x for y but Cuban's we're not trading anyone line is very old.

rabbitproof · 02-02-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MavsFanFinley

How many times have we heard Cuban say we're not making a trade, we like our team, or this player is untouchable so forget about it, only to have him turn around and make a blockbuster trade?

I don't expect them to come out and say we're looking to trade x for y but Cuban's we're not trading anyone line is very old.

Except Cuban hasn't made a blockbuster trade in years!

The JET-Toine and Stack/Harris-Jamison trades of a summer long ago were the last moves. So it would appear, he does like this team.

Burn this City · 02-02-2008, 07:19 PM

Would I rather have an underrated 20-something PG with a decent contract that's just entering his prime or an overrated, overpaid 30-something PG that's only getting worse?

Hmmm....dilemma...

Robillion · 02-02-2008, 07:34 PM

this Harris vs Kidd debate is getting old. I believe that most Mavs fans wouldnt trade Harris away for Kidd let alone Harris plus multiple others.

Burn this City · 02-02-2008, 07:43 PM

^I prefer the JJ Barea vs Kidd debate...

Robillion · 02-02-2008, 07:47 PM

JJB is a better shooter than Jason Kidd...

Burn this City · 02-02-2008, 08:02 PM

Kidd has better court vision and more illegitimate children...

chumdawg · 02-02-2008, 08:06 PM

I bet Kidd would a good mentor for JJB. On the court, I mean.

LonghornDub · 02-02-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I bet Kidd would a good mentor for JJB. On the court, I mean.

Funny.

Mavs Rule · 02-02-2008, 09:20 PM

Interesting tidbits from Stein at ESPN:

If Jason Kidd gets traded to Dallas -- or any team in the West -- before the All-Star Game, it'll be certifiably historic.

That's because the NBA will have an unprecedented decision to make.

League officials say that a player voted in by the fans as an All-Star starter has never been traded to the other conference before the midseason classic was actually played. Which is also why the league is not prepared to say exactly what will happen if it has to deal with that scenario. It won't make a decision until it has to.

But the safe assumption, I'm told, is that Kidd would definitely still play in the game in those circumstances even if it meant allowing the West to carry a 13-man roster. You can't punish a player who's voted in as a starter by the fans.

The brain-teaser part for Commissioner Stern would be whether to make Kidd a starter in the West since his vote total (1,246,386) is higher than the total amassed (1,203,152) by Denver's Allen Iverson. In the East, longstanding rules in place dictate that Stern would pick the player that takes Kidd's roster spot and East coach Doc Rivers would have the right to pick the starter who replaces Kidd ... but then someone would have to decide whether the East should get a 13th man as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypothetical Conundrum No. 2 connected to a potential Kidd trade with Dallas: What happens to Jerry Stackhouse if the Nets indeed get him from the Mavs as part of the swap and then buy him out as expected?

As long as Stackhouse is freed from the Nets by March 1, he'd be eligible to play in the playoffs for his next employer.

Yet if Stackhouse were to return to the Mavericks -- an invitation Dallas would surely extend Stack given that his experience, aggressiveness and toughness off the bench are all still valued commodities in Mavsland -- he'd have to sit out 30 days before he could rejoin them.

That's unofficially known as The Gary Payton Rule, which was instituted after Payton was dealt by Boston to Atlanta at the trade deadline in 2005, only to rejoin the Celtics three days later after the Hawks agreed to release him in a pre-arranged deal. Since the summer of 2005, players who are traded and then waived by their new team are forced to wait 30 days before re-signing (only 20 in the offseason) with the team that just traded them.

The irony here, though, is that Dallas also got at a player back in Payton-like circumstances at the '05 deadline when Alan Henderson was sent to Milwaukee as part of a deal for Keith Van Horn before the Bucks set Henderson free so he could return to the Mavs. Not that anyone ever suggested that we refer to the new regulation as The Alan Henderson Rule.

Mavs Rule · 02-02-2008, 09:24 PM

Also on the same page from Stein concerning the lakers picking up Pau:

article

What does this do to the rest of the West?

The Lakers already had teams nervous before Bynum's injury with their speed, length and depth. They had West rivals more nervous than the other surprise teams like New Orleans and Portland, which have no collective playoff experience.

The reaction was thus widespread shock when word began to circulate that the Lakers, without warning, were able to add Gasol for seemingly nothing. "There's not a lot of happy campers out here," said one West exec, echoing the sort of surprise I heard from pretty much every team I spoke to Friday night.

Yet he was mostly referring to the teams from the same tier of newer challengers like the Lakers, such as the Hornets, Nuggets and Rockets. The established power trio of San Antonio, Phoenix and Dallas -- while just as stunned as the rest of us -- isn't going to change course now in response to something L.A. did, impressive as it was.

San Antonio doesn't have the ability to make a major change without breaking up its Big Three of Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, which naturally won't be happening any time soon. And sources with knowledge of the team's thinking echo the recent proclamations by Suns owner Robert Sarver that Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion are going nowhere, regardless of any speculation to the contrary that's been rumbling all season.

Dallas? The Mavericks were discussing Kidd trade scenarios before the Lakers completed their Pau heist, and plugged-in sources maintain that they were planning to continue along that path regardless.

Sources insist, furthermore, that the Mavs' concern is not that the Lakers look so formidable on paper now but whether they can find a way to acquire Kidd without decimating their team. Dallas is resigned to the fact that it will have to part with Devin Harris if it wants Kidd. Harder for them to accept is the notion that getting Kidd might also mean parting with Jerry Stackhouse and one or two key big men: Brandon Bass and/or DeSegana Diop.

dude1394 · 02-02-2008, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavs Rule

Also on the same page from Stein concerning the lakers picking up Pau:

article

Sources insist, furthermore, that the Mavs' concern is not that the Lakers look so formidable on paper now but whether they can find a way to acquire Kidd without decimating their team. Dallas is resigned to the fact that it will have to part with Devin Harris if it wants Kidd. Harder for them to accept is the notion that getting Kidd might also mean parting with Jerry Stackhouse and one or two key big men: Brandon Bass and/or DeSegana Diop.

Good god, that's sound like complete and utter bs.

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.

dude1394 · 02-02-2008, 11:38 PM

I'm not so in love with devin that I wouldn't let him go. Seeing how close their PER and stats is however really does make me wonder if kidd is the difference maker that someone like, gasol might be for example. Or a very solid #2. Battier for example imo.

I haven't watched kidd enough to know how much of a difference he might make to the mavs, judging just by stats he looks like a slight upgrade. But if the mavs are still solidly looking at him they must think he'll make a ton of difference because they are investing, what about 12million + another 12million in luxury tax on him over devin.

DevinHarriswillstart · 02-03-2008, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm not so in love with devin that I wouldn't let him go. Seeing how close their PER and stats is however really does make me wonder if kidd is the difference maker that someone like, gasol might be for example. Or a very solid #2. Battier for example imo.

I haven't watched kidd enough to know how much of a difference he might make to the mavs, judging just by stats he looks like a slight upgrade. But if the mavs are still solidly looking at him they must think he'll make a ton of difference because they are investing, what about 12million + another 12million in luxury tax on him over devin.

Yeah, I mean we finish paying off Kidd this year, pay him next year and then extend him...that's like what? 80-100 million including luxury tax for one player? I really think that is why the Nets won't get much in return because the team who gets Kidd has to pay him about half the value of the Grizzlies franchise haha.

Robillion · 02-02-2008, 11:52 PM

Tomorrow I am writing an email to Cuban, Nelson, Johnson, ect and tell them to read our post on here and take our trade advise, hehe. But seriously I am and I will tell them to stop looking at f'n kidd and try to make a deal to get Miller or Maggette or Artest or someone else that could help out here. Then Im doing to email all the media peeps and ask why the KVH contract is never mentioned ever.

Mavs Rule · 02-03-2008, 12:50 AM

Did someone already put this one up? If so, I apologize ahead of time:

Nets in three-way talks for Kidd

By Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports
January 30, 2008

The New Jersey Nets are in serious negotiations with the Dallas Mavericks and Portland Trail Blazers about a blockbuster three-way trade that would send Jason Kidd to the Mavericks, league sources said Wednesday afternoon.

In the proposed trade, Dallas and Portland would send the Nets a package that includes the Mavs' Devean George and Jerry Stackhouse and Blazers forwards Travis Outlaw and Channing Frye and guard Jarrett Jack. Mavericks point guard Devin Harris would be sent to Portland. Along with Kidd, the Nets would send reserve forward Malik Allen and center Jamaal Magloire to Dallas.

The Nets would also receive at least one future No. 1 pick and cash. Other players could be included to balance the exchange of contracts.

The Record (N.J.) first reported Wednesday morning that the three teams were in discussions.

League sources say that Nets president Rod Thorn has been working the phones relentlessly since Kidd went public on Monday with his trade request. Thorn seems determined to get a deal done soon and may be looking to completely remake the Nets. He also has been dangling guard Vince Carter.

Kidd, 34, is making $19.7 million this season, and has one year left in on his contract at $21.4 million. Kidd The addition of Kidd could make the Mavericks sudden favorites in the West, where they have had two straight heart-breaking playoff runs and currently have the third-best record in the conference.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

ShaggyDirk · 02-03-2008, 02:12 AM

This is a good time for capitalcity to come back and lay down the dead cat.

Dr.Zoidberg · 02-03-2008, 09:15 AM

02:19 AM CST on Sunday, February 3, 2008
Point-counterpoint: Kidd to the Dallas Mavericks?

Jason Kidd is on the trading block. SportsDay's David Moore and Eddie Sefko present arguments on why a trade would make sense for the Mavericks and why it wouldn't. The trade deadline is Feb. 21.

These guys argue about everything all the time. David Moore, as you can read below, favors returning Jason Kidd to the team he began his NBA career with, arguing that Kidd could put the Mavericks over the top. Eddie Sefko counters that it's not worth the risk. Here's your chance to weigh in.

For Kidd:

Jason Kidd began his career in a Mavericks uniform.

An argument can be made that he should end it in one.

This is no sentimental stroll down memory lane. Kidd's ability and approach to the game would push the Mavericks closer to that elusive champion ship.

Playoff games are won by players who impose their will on the game. It's not always about who hits the final shot. It's about who sets up the final shot. It's about who grabs the crucial rebound or comes away with the unexpected steal. It's about making plays.

Kidd makes plays. Always has. He's tough mentally and physically. He doesn't shrink in the final moments of a close game. He excels.

Kidd has appeared in 100 playoff games. That's more than Dirk Nowitzki. That's more than Josh Howard and Jason Terry combined.

Actually, he's done much more than appear. Kidd has averaged 15.9 points, 9.3 assists and 7.7 rebounds in the postseason. Do you think the Mavericks could have used that against Baron Davis and Golden State in the first round last season?

How many easy shots did Nowitzki get against the Warriors? How about against Miami in The Finals the year before?

Kidd will get Nowitzki the ball when he needs it and where he needs it. He will generate better scoring opportunities for Nowitzki, Howard and every other Mavericks player, opportunities that often dry up in the playoffs.

The offense will be more efficient under Kidd. Coach Avery Johnson will tell you that has a positive impact on the team's defense. Kidd can call the plays and run the offense, something Johnson doesn't trust Devin Harris to do at this stage of his career.

Is Kidd the dominant force he was earlier in his career? No. A glance at New Jersey's record makes that clear. But few players make better decisions with the ball in their hands. Few players are as driven as Kidd.

None of this addresses what the Mavericks would give up to obtain him. If the Mavericks must mortgage too much of their future, if they must part with several key contributors, the price is too high.

But if the Mavericks can swing a deal comparable to what the LA Lakers pulled off for Pau Gasol, they would be foolish not to try.
The idea of Kidd ending his career in a Mavericks uniform has nothing to do with symmetry.

It has everything to do with winning a title.

Against Kidd

Let's start by mentioning the obvious. Devin Harris turns 25 later this month. Jason Kidd turns 35 in March.

The Mavericks have invested three years of on-the-job training in Harris. And he's finally looking like he gets it, his ankle injury notwithstanding.

In two years, he could be every bit the player that Tony Parker is. At the very least, the Mavericks appear to have a solid 16-point, six-assist point guard for the foreseeable future.

And, in two years, Kidd will be closer to the Hall of Fame than to the prime of his career.

Fabulous player, Kidd has been. No arguments there. But the key words in that description are "has" and "been."

We've seen teams that think they have a legitimate shot at an NBA title make a desperate stab at it with aging stars. It's known as the magic-bean syndrome. How'd that experiment work for the Los Angeles Lakers and Karl Malone and Gary Payton?

The Mavericks run a great risk by trading for Kidd. First, they will shrink their window for winning a title to two seasons, max. There are already personnel bosses in the Eastern Conference who believe Kidd is a glorified role player at this stage of his career, albeit one who can still post a triple-double.

He's shooting 36.8 percent this season. When Kidd was leading New Jersey to the NBA Finals in 2002 and '03, Bill Walton had a keen analysis of Kidd.

"Imagine if Jason Kidd knew how to shoot," Walton said before a Finals game in San Antonio. "If he did, he'd be in the same class as Walt Frazier, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson and even Magic Johnson."

But even if Kidd still is a championship-worthy point guard, look what the Mavericks would lose if they traded for him. By all accounts, Jerry Stackhouse would have to be traded, along with Harris. That subtracts the toughest dude in the Mavericks' locker room.

Stackhouse has faults, but he can get you 12 points in the fourth quarter and win a playoff game by sheer will. And Harris would have to be traded. If Kidd is brought in to start in front of Harris, the kid would be justifiably cooked emotionally.

Pat Riley made a deal with the hoops devil when he traded for Shaquille O'Neal. It worked, to the extent that they won a championship in 2006, even if it was because of the Mavericks' blunders.

Look at the Heat now. They can't trade O'Neal's contract, and he can't play at a high enough level to help them win. That's what happens when you bank your future on magic beans.

Link

DevinHarriswillstart · 02-03-2008, 10:32 AM

Good article by Moore. Much more fair than Fish's. Like I said, taking on Kidd's contract is pentaly enough. Noone is going to give up significant pieces if they have to pay him so much money. Remember that Shaq was 32 when Miami got him, not 35. Big difference

mavs413 · 02-03-2008, 11:57 AM

I think George has a trade restriction and must agree to be traded, he wouldnt want to go to the Nets.

Robillion · 02-03-2008, 12:54 PM

I really wish the media would stop saying that Harris is a must for the deal. It will not happen with him in the deal and shouldnt... The Lakers got Gasol without giving up their future in Bynum.. they didnt even give up Odom. Kidd costs too much(money wise), he will likely only be good for the next couple of years, then Portland will be owning the west for a decade with Harris, or the Nets will have a premier team again while the Mavericks become a lottery pick (that is if we went with the orginal deal of Harris plus half the team). If deal is going down, yeah it will include Stackhouse and/or Terry, KVH contract, Diop, and maybe someone else. And I can deal with that because we can bring up Fazekas, Reyshawn Terry can come over in a few years (and I def bet contribute), and we get Stackhouse back in 30 days.

I do not see how it is unplausible for Harris and Kidd to start together. Kidd can be the quarter back.. he is use to a run and gun style of play. Well just use Harris at the 2, and have him running and Kidd setting him up. Harris would still be able to play his game and probably more effectively. And if Harris gets an open shot (which Kidd can def create) then his shot is starting to be come very efficient. Harris can shoot that 3 if he's open. I do think we will be the main top contender if we had a starting 5 of Kidd, Harris, Howard, Dirk, Damp

skylive321 · 02-03-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robillion

I really wish the media would stop saying that Harris is a must for the deal. It will not happen with him in the deal and shouldnt... The Lakers got Gasol without giving up their future in Bynum.. they didnt even give up Odom. Kidd costs too much(money wise), he will likely only be good for the next couple of years, then Portland will be owning the west for a decade with Harris, or the Nets will have a premier team again while the Mavericks become a lottery pick (that is if we went with the orginal deal of Harris plus half the team). If deal is going down, yeah it will include Stackhouse and/or Terry, KVH contract, Diop, and maybe someone else. And I can deal with that because we can bring up Fazekas, Reyshawn Terry can come over in a few years (and I def bet contribute), and we get Stackhouse back in 30 days.

I do not see how it is unplausible for Harris and Kidd to start together. Kidd can be the quarter back.. he is use to a run and gun style of play. Well just use Harris at the 2, and have him running and Kidd setting him up. Harris would still be able to play his game and probably more effectively. And if Harris gets an open shot (which Kidd can def create) then his shot is starting to be come very efficient. Harris can shoot that 3 if he's open. I do think we will be the main top contender if we had a starting 5 of Kidd, Harris, Howard, Dirk, Damp

I smell a nellie ball fan. it's very Baron Davis ala Monte Ellis running together --esque

Mavs Rule · 02-03-2008, 01:11 PM

I agree rob. We can't rob our franchise by trading harris.

Good points about kidd and harris running together. The great thing about kidd is he can make the tight passes in some traffic and harris can pull up much closer to the basket and get a higher percentage shot than the three pointer. I love our team running with kidd. The only thing is we can't give away Diop if we do that. Damp cannot run. We wouldn't need damp with this offense. We know Dirk can run, just as he did with Nash. Damp would move to the backup center, behind Diop, and then we can always go back to bump and grind ball as a secondary offense.

Robillion · 02-03-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylive321

I smell a nellie ball fan. it's very Baron Davis ala Monte Ellis running together --esque

Not really.. just I know that what we need is for our players to penetrate more and get easy baskets. Harris is our key contributor of that. Yeah he is kinda small for the two, but then you have Kidd which is a big guard on the court as well which would have his main job being the playmaker. I just look at it like.. Kidd assisting to Harris for the slash in layup, or the corner three, Kidd assisting to Howard/Dirk/Terry(if he is still around) for the open shots. With that huge increase in offensive effieciency, their defense would also be improved. I love the idea of Kidd here, but only with Kidd and Harris starting together. Otherwise Im not into it at all.

edit: you added the Baron Davis/Ellis example in there and I guess you can say I am a fan of both of them starting for GS.

DevinHarriswillstart · 02-03-2008, 01:18 PM

What you do is let Kidd guard the 2 guards. He is definitely big enough for that. Harris will guard the points.

Robillion · 02-03-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

What you do is let Kidd guard the 2 guards. He is definitely big enough for that. Harris will guard the points.

definitely.. damn i really really like the idea of this. Just the media is pissing me off by continueing to even mention his name. If they dismiss him as an option as we do then maybe the Nets will be more likely to do make a deal.

Robillion · 02-03-2008, 01:26 PM

If Kidd and Harris played together.. think about 3 years down the road when Kidd retires/gets hurt. Harris would have 3 years under the wing of one of the best playmakers ever, all while keeping his main game to get to the basket. When Kidd leaves, Harris would eeeasily move back to the PG spot and have the potential to be a top 5 PG. I believe it.

skylive321 · 02-03-2008, 02:50 PM

Avery's response to reports that the mavs have been talking to the nets: "Well, they called to inquire if I was available to backup Jason Kidd. I told them no, coaching is all I do nowadays; but I still think I can beat D.A (armstrong) up the court". Gotta love that sense of humor!

chumdawg · 02-03-2008, 06:24 PM

Rare and special? I may be blind, but I don't see any rare and special chemistry from the Mavs. Hell, I'd be hard pressed to define how they have any chemistry, much less a "rare and special" kind.

Fisher and Lord are such cheerleaders.

chumdawg · 02-03-2008, 08:45 PM

I think one thing we are not giving enough consideration to is how Kidd would negatively impact Dirk. We saw how Dirk grew as a player and came into his own when we got rid of Nash. What Dirk needed was to be the man, so to speak.

So I think we should factor in the realization that adding a PG like Kidd would diminish what Dirk brings to this team. It's not worth it to add to one position if it takes away from another one.

Dirkadirkastan · 02-03-2008, 10:23 PM

Chum, that shtick would be funny, but you've said stuff like that many times before so that joke is pretty worn out now.

chumdawg · 02-03-2008, 10:37 PM

It's not that it's worn out, it's that you are finally starting to realize what it means.

Of course I knew it from the get-go, but it doesn't hurt for you to put two and two together eventually.

dude1394 · 02-03-2008, 10:46 PM

No it's worn out allright, you are just very energetic about repeating it.

chumdawg · 02-03-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

No it's worn out allright, you are just very energetic about repeating it.

It was a move that handicapped our team for at least four years, and probably more. Why should we just forget it? We should hold management responsible for their piss-poor judgment, just as you or I would be on our jobs.

dude1394 · 02-03-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It was a move that handicapped our team for at least four years, and probably more. Why should we just forget it? We should hold management responsible for their piss-poor judgment, just as you or I would be on our jobs.

Because it's counter-productive, just like it would be in your's or my jobs. What's the point of dwelling on errors made four years ago.

If you are saying you want them all fired, then fine, say it and be done with it. But continually dragging up a 4-year old mistake is just being a bitch.

chumdawg · 02-03-2008, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Because it's counter-productive, just like it would be in your's or my jobs. What's the point of dwelling on errors made four years ago.

If you are saying you want them all fired, then fine, say it and be done with it. But continually dragging up a 4-year old mistake is just being a bitch.

Until management acknowledges it was a mistake, nothing was learned from it.