The freshest rumor has Kidd potentially going to -- Wait for this! -- the Warriors, on the theory that he wants to be closer to his boyhood home as well as the big fish in a tumbler of distilled water. How Golden State is supposed to fit him under its cap even after <u><font color="#00009b">Erick Dampier</font></u> opts out remains more trickery than strategy, but hey, it's the Warriors, and man does not live by 18-year-old Latvian draft choices alone. Now it doesn't matter how it shakes out, either for Kidd or anyone else. They'll all end up playing somewhere, or somewhere else, and the speculation that fuels those stories beats The Dream Team Everyone Dreamt Of Leaving. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/stor..._ray&id=1831075 It's only a theory, unfortunately. I think Jkidd would rather be playing for a ring rather than coming home. But look at it this way he'll be the hometown hero for the rest of his career if he plays for the warriors. I think the same can be said with Paul Pierce too.
I hope they do, but doubt they will. We have read this over the years. Kidd wants a ring, not a home.
This looks great...in an ideal world. Fact is just that we can't afford him. That wouldn't probably be the greatest problem if he had a chance for a ring over here..... If Kidd is homesick, he'd better move here after his career not now. Nonetheless....it would be great if he played for the Warriors.
He's making max money and he's how old? That's kind of risky since you can easily break down when you hit your mid 30's. I still would like him to play in Oakland regardless of his contract if he can stay healthy. And that's the big "IF".
Does HOME want Jason Kidd? Jason Kidd is a phenomenal player and would be an upgrade at point guard for the Warriors, but at what cost? For starters, like many of you have mentionied, his salary would hurt a strap cashed franchise like the Warriors. Not only does he have a ridiculous contract, he's also signed until the 2008/09 season, where he is going to make $21K for that year. There is no chance Kidd will be worth his price four years from now. The Warriors would have to trade two or three players to match Kidd's salary. The health of Jason Kidd is also a negative for the Warriors. Kidd is aging and appears to be breaking down. His injuries will only become more nagging and the quicker point guards in the league are going to take advantage of a older, and injured Jason Kidd. It might not happen this current season, but two or three years down the line Jason Kidd is only going to be a shell of what he was a year ago. And with his contract the Warriors will be stuck with him for those declining seasons. So what exactly would it take to get Jason Kidd to the Warriors? All they could possibly offer are players with expiring contracts and maybe a sign and trade. J-Rich, Murphy, Pietrus, and Dunleavy are close to untouchable for the Warriors. They are not only young and talented, but they have cheap contracts. This leaves the Nets having to choose from Nick Van Exel, Clif Robinson, Speedy Claxton, Adonal Foyle, or Erik Dampier. I'm not sure if any combination would be enough to pry Jason Kidd from the Nets.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">NVE part II I bet</div> NVE is 37 isnt he? Kidd is nowhere near that age. How old is Shaq? He is still dominant.
Normally, I wouldn't bump up an old topic, but does anyone feel that Jason Kidd would still be the viable option to run Montgomery's type of offense? I think one of the great things about Kidd is that you never have to worry about this guy being undersized and his playmaking just can't be taught. Basically his contract is the scariest thing about him other than his knees and his age. And although the warriors are trying to make a run for a FA in 2005-2006 (Yao most likely), there might little or no chance the W's could end up getting such a franchise player from a team doing everything they can to make him stay. I'm afraid that we'll end up where we are now just resigning guys for more money than they are worth and even in grabbing big name FA's you do the same thing. I feel that if we had Kidd now, it'd be enough to make the team a contender even when he's 35. I mean if you think about it. Now you would be two deep in point guard with Claxton and Kidd, You got lots of shotblocking and guys that can run the floor like Jrich, Pietrus, Biedrens, Foyle, and that guy Cisse (if he makes the team). And you got shooters like Dunleavy, Troy Murphy and.... and... we'll get a third shooter later. And well you know it got me thinking what if we were to make a deal for Kidd involving our highest contract players like Dampier/NVE the offense would be smoother. And besides Damp can always be traded for a short contract if the nets don't want to keep him around, NVE has like one year left I think after that. And then the Nets would only have to worry about going over the cap for a year or two and the paying the luxury tax for a short period of time versus the longer period of time if they were to re-sign Kenyon Martin and keep Kidd. What do you guys think?
