So, assuming Kidd gets traded, what direction do you want to see the Nets head in? Rebuild or retool/reload? What type of team do you want this team to be molded into? What type of system do you want to see? A run and gun team like the Suns and Warriors? Defensive half-court team? Defensive team that selectively runs off stops? Team full of shooters that spread the floor? What current Nets players would you keep to build into that team? What's your blue print?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Jan 29 2008, 02:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So, assuming Kidd gets traded, what direction do you want to see the Nets head in? Rebuild or retool/reload? What type of team do you want this team to be molded into? What type of system do you want to see? A run and gun team like the Suns and Warriors? Defensive half-court team? Defensive team that selectively runs off stops? Team full of shooters that spread the floor? What current Nets players would you keep to build into that team? What's your blue print?</div> They kind of have to retool with what they have.. They're encumbered by VC and RJ's massive contracts, so a Portland/Seattle-like rebuild is out of the question. Also you need to consider the ownership and how they plan on moving the team to Brooklyn in the next few years--and they need big names to fill seats. So basically assuming you're stuck with your two wing players, you just think of what would work best with them as far as building a winning team goes.. Given that Kidd has been a good PG, you can assume that getting another "star" PG won't do anything for their team. Which basically leaves picking up a post presence.. Or going for a small-ball type team like the Warriors. Given the realistic trade options, it seems like they would have to go small.. The biggest players are supposedly Dallas and Denver who are basically offering youth and/or athleticism.
I'm glad you asked this question. The philosophy of the changes is, to me, more interesting to speculate about than any particular trade scenario. People are fond of saying, "if you trade Kidd, you are rebuilding," implying that he is that extremely rare type of player around whom an entire franchise can be built (LeBron James, Shaq, Tim Duncan, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, etc.) The reality is, he never was THAT caliber of player and most certainly hasn't been close to being one for about 4-5 years. I submit that you can trade Kidd without committing to also trading every veteran on the team and resigning yourself to the lottery for the next few years. Any plan for rebuilding through a youth movement means almost certain disaster short term and is ultimately more luck (in the draft) than anything else. It is, long term, not any more successful than trying to reassemble quickly with different veteran pieces, probably less so. For every Portland or NO Hornets, there is an Atlanta, an LA Clippers, a Memphis, a Charlotte, etc. If the only draft picks being offered for Kidd are lottery protected and mean combining them with only expiring contracts for over-the-hill players, then screw that strategy. If you can get back a player 5-6 years younger, millions and millions of dollars cheaper and who fits as well or better with the players you have remaining on the team, than that is a preferable move, IMO. I have no doubt that Kidd could be traded (3 teams, if necessary) and someone like a Mike Bibby or Jason Terry brought in along with another piece (wing defender, draft pick, etc.). Either Terry or Bibby would save millions in yearly salary (though Terry's is long term) and fit far better in an offense that included Vince Carter than Kidd would. Which brings up the next point: If you trade Kidd, should you keep BOTH Carter and Jefferson? That's a tough one to answer. On one hand, I tend to think "no" simply because they really play the same position. Vince, especially at this point in his career, would be a much better defender at the 3 than at the 2 and Jefferson is arguably less effectual than Carter at guarding 2s. He's also too small to play significant minutes at the 4. Either one of them would be more effective as an offensive hub if the other were replaced with a first class shooter. And RJ's production will likely take a hit when Kidd is no longer on the team to force feed him fast break opportunities. But, then again, it's nice to have two guys who can score 20+ a night and create their own shot. I would probably keep them both for at least this season and see how they mesh with whatever pieces the Kidd trade brings. I would also be curious to see if, in the perceived (if not actual) leadership vacuum created by Kidd's departure, RJ steps up and becomes a vocal leader who's not afraid to get in Vince's face when he's standing around watching from the perimeter half the game. I could see RJ doing that. He has that type of honest personality. I suspect he would have done so by now but felt it was Kidd's place and not his. With that obstacle removed, he may get the chance to prove what kind of leader he can be. Of course, even if that happens, it's far from clear how Carter would take it coming from Jefferson, a younger player who does not occupy the same status as Kidd, either in Vince's mind or in the mind's of basketball society generally. But I think it's worth a try for half a season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Jan 29 2008, 03:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I have no doubt that Kidd could be traded (3 teams, if necessary) and someone like a Mike Bibby or Jason Terry brought in along with another piece (wing defender, draft pick, etc.). Either Terry or Bibby would save millions in yearly salary (though Terry's is long term) and fit far better in an offense that included Vince Carter than Kidd would.</div> It's funny because I was thinking of the EXACT two PG's (Bibby, Terry) who would work well in a pick and roll/pop spread the floor with shooters type offense along side Krstic and Carter. Another thing I was thinking of was the last two teams to come out of the Eastern confrence, the Heat and the Cavs, played very good defense come playoff time yet looking at the players on those team there weren't that many standout great individual defenders (maybe the exception of Mourning). Who could be considered a defensive anchor on that Cleveland squad? There were some solid defenders but guys like Gooden? Jason Williams? So could a coach with some good defensive schemes and knowhow get an offensively talented team motivated enough defensively to propel them deep into the playoffs and chance at a championship?
Terry's contract is a disaster. I can't believe you <span style="color:red">*removed</span> even want that mess here. Would you guys like to be paying Terry 11.5 million dollars in 2012? TWELVE! You want to cripple this franchise with Terry's abysmal contract until 2012?!?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kiddisanet @ Jan 29 2008, 05:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Terry's contract is a disaster. I can't believe you <span style="color:red">*removed</span> even want that mess here. Would you guys like to be paying Terry 11.5 million dollars in 2012? TWELVE! You want to cripple this franchise with Terry's abysmal contract until 2012?!?</div> Cripple this franchise“? We haven't been exactly walking straight so far. Understand the business. If we get Terry or Harris only player that might be long term will be Harris. When Orlando traded for T-mac no one expected Steve Franchise or Cat to be corner stone of the franchise. They were just pieces that would help to get where they are right now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (killa kadafi191 @ Jan 29 2008, 05:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kiddisanet @ Jan 29 2008, 05:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Terry's contract is a disaster. I can't believe you <span style="color:red">*removed</span> even want that mess here. Would you guys like to be paying Terry 11.5 million dollars in 2012? TWELVE! You want to cripple this franchise with Terry's abysmal contract until 2012?!?</div> Cripple this franchise“? We haven't been exactly walking straight so far. Understand the business. If we get Terry or Harris only player that might be long term will be Harris. When Orlando traded for T-mac no one expected Steve Franchise or Cat to be corner stone of the franchise. They were just pieces that would help to get where they are right now. </div> Dallas isn't trading Harris. They love that guy. If Terry is here until 2012, that's pretty damn long term. He'll be a 34 year old bench player making 11.5 million dollars. That's ridiculous.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Jan 29 2008, 02:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So, assuming Kidd gets traded, what direction do you want to see the Nets head in? Rebuild or retool/reload? What type of team do you want this team to be molded into? What type of system do you want to see? A run and gun team like the Suns and Warriors? Defensive half-court team? Defensive team that selectively runs off stops? Team full of shooters that spread the floor? What current Nets players would you keep to build into that team? What's your blue print?</div> A nearly complete rebuild because there is a lack of talent on this team. Once you have talent, then you put a system in place to take advantage of that talent. The Nets have been a speed bump in the playoffs the past few seasons.
I'd still prefer to get back Pau in a three-way deal. He's got a long-term contract, but next year he'll be paid a lot less than Kidd, which opens up funds to sign Krstic and possible some other free agent. Suddenly the frontcourt would be a team strength with Pau-Krstic-Boone-SWill.
I'd like for Pau to be in NJ too..but the question really would be, does he want to be here now that Kidd isn't? (I guess that goes for alot of players who may have been interested in NJ in the first place) Assuming we can get Pau, what would the 3 way deal be? I can't seem to figure anything out, but I'm sure something could work. Let's assume the other team involved would be the Mavs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 29 2008, 08:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd still prefer to get back Pau in a three-way deal. He's got a long-term contract, but next year he'll be paid a lot less than Kidd, which opens up funds to sign Krstic and possible some other free agent. Suddenly the frontcourt would be a team strength with Pau-Krstic-Boone-SWill.</div> kidd for pau makes no sense for memphis
Dumpy said in a 3-way deal, because you're right that it doesn't really make sense for a Kidd-Pau + salary fillers swap.
I think the Nets would be smart to pursue a 3-way menage-a-tois (as would we all!) but I had an idea that could work. I promise this will be the only Trade Machine deal I ever submit. If the Lakers don't part with Farmar or Crittendon, and the Mavs won't give up Harris, isn't a deal with the Bulls the best way to go? Both teams are going nowhere fast and need to change direction asap. So... Kidd, Boone and Allen to the Bulls for Hinrich, Ty Thomas, Joe Smith & Duhon. Pros for the Bulls: Put Kidd on the Bulls and you increase the chance that Deng and Gordon will re-sign. A core of Kidd, Thabo, Gordon, Deng, Boone and Noah, would make the playoffs easily in '09. Boone also makes Wallace obsolete and he's almost off the books. All those guys would love to play with an unselfish pg like Kidd. Con for the Bulls: They would miss Duhon as their backup glue guy, but Gordon or JamesOn Curry could manage to play the point for 10-15 minutes a game and they can draft a guy to develop behind Kidd in a fairly pg rich draft. Pros For the Nets: Hinrich is having a terrible year, and that's a good thing, his stock could not get lower. He's still an above average pg in his prime and a solid defender. Ty Thomas would be tough for the Bulls to give up, but they are getting back Boone, plus they have Noah, two guys that can post consistent double doubles if they get the minutes. Wouldn't this trade improve both teams? You could also throw a draft pick to the Bulls if it seems too lopsided. Cons for the Nets: Ty Thomas and Sean Williams might be a bit redundant, but what about making the front court into a strength for a change? And nothing says you can't use 1 as a chip and trade 1 of them down the line for a shooter or something.... anyways, that's my work-killing activity for the day, I'm breaking for lunch. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/trad...p;te=&cash= http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/trad...p;te=&cash=
Just perusing some salary sites today. How about Kidd and Boone (total $20,861,040) for Elton Brand and Sam Cassell ($21,494,000). Cassell's contract expires after this year, at which point he could be resigned (perhaps) for the MLE or lower, and the guy is still an incredibly good pressure player. Brand has a player option for next year at $16.4 million. Coming off major Achille's injury, he seems a likely candidate to take the option, though I suppose there's still a risk that if he comes back strong late this season, he could opt out and go elsewhere next year. The obvious question is why would Clippers even consider this deal? My stab at that question: There has to be some risk that Brand might not ever be the same player after the injury he suffered. That's the rub for the Nets, and it comes down to how much either team is willing to gamble. But there's no denying that, before injury, Brand was an automatic 20/10 big man with a career shooting percentage over 50%. And he's still only 28 years old, all of which are why the Nets would presumably jump at the deal, risk and all. Less speculatively, the Clips have a lot of young horses that would thrive in an up and down game with Kidd (Thornton, Maggette, Ross). The emergence of Kaman as a terrific (and younger and cheaper) low post scorer makes Brand less essential. They get a marquee name in Kidd and, in Boone, a young, dirt cheap power forward/center with a good nose for the ball that can get extra possessions for the team and score double figures many nights without having a single play called for him. If the Clips wanted more and if the Nets could satisfy themselves that the medical part was okay (there's still the psychological, e.g. Krstic) and had a gentleman's agreement from Brand not to opt out next year, I would include Jefferson and Wright in exchange for Clips adding Maggette and Thornton. Clips get a top-10 scorer and all-star caliber SF just entering his prime whose synergy with Kidd is proved. Nets get cap relief, Jefferson lite in Maggette, and a really nice young wing prospect in Thornton, whose amazing athleticism and ability to create his own shot reminds me of Dominique Wilkins. Total salaries in the this version of the deal: Nets give up $34,741,640.00 Clips give up $30,146,280.00 Be gentle. I normally don't propose trades because I find it all so subjective and futile. If I understand the trade rules involved, that approximate 15% salary differential is permissible. ETA: That last trade failed at ESPN. But this one succeeded: TO CLIPPERS: Kidd Jefferson Boone Magloire TO NETS: Brand Cassell Thornton Maggette
FOMW, interesting trade. Basically the bulk of Clippers star players for Nets star players. I like that we get Thornton and Brand. The Nets would do it to get Brand and Thornton as well as the expiring contracts of Cassell and Maggette, and even Brand. Not sure if the reasons are as compelling on the Clippers side. They lose a young prospect in Thornton who has more lots more upside than Boone. They Jefferson who is better than Maggette, but has a much longer contract. They lose Brand, but get Kidd who will definitely fill seats, but lose Maggette and Thornton who would probably best benefit from him. I think it's a little too lopsided for the Nets, but a lot of it rests on the health of Brand, as you mentioned.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jan 29 2008, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>FOMW its 25% difference allowed in trades for teams above the salary cap.</div> I thought so, and 15% is less than 25%, which is why I thought it would work with Wright. However ESPN claims it was over the 125% + $100,000 when configured with Wright instead of Magloire (my salary info from the other sites may have been incorrect). Either version doesn't much matter since I don't expect Wright or Magloire to be here next year.
