Lillard makes for an intriguing trade asset--discuss

Not the first time around, he didn't.

 

you said he didn't do anything in Dallas...but in fact he did...he won a ring there....you mentioned him getting to the finals twice with the Nets but failed to mention his greatest success in Dallas....I don't call that doing nothing in Dallas

 

Just saw this part of your post....Terry Stotts in the coaches interview gushed about how much Kidd brought to that championship run....he was hardly a role player on that team from all I remember.

 

I was going through his career chronologically. I mentioned his championship in Dallas.

 

He certainly wasn't a star by that point. Go look at his stats in the last 4.5 years he played in Dallas. He was the very definition of a veteran role player.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html

 

Well, I was asking you if you saw prime Jason Kidd as a franchise player. Obviously, the answer is no. We disagree then. I don't consider it problematic for the comparison that he didn't win a title in his prime--teams win titles, not individuals. Jordan also never would have won a title if he hadn't gotten the appropriate team around him. Jason Kidd's performance, in my opinion, made him pretty clearly a championship-caliber franchise player, even if he didn't have the team.

I think Antetokounmpo can very easily be a championship-caliber franchise player, even without a great outside shot. And considering he's scoring 23 PPG as is, in his age 22 season, I don't even think scoring is going to be a problem. Another comparison I'd make is an evolutionary Scottie Pippen. He's longer and therefore can match-up even with centers, which Pippen couldn't really do. I think Pippen was a championship-caliber franchise player (even if the Bulls had another, greater one).

 

Pippen was another secondary player. In the one year that Jordan was not there, they did not win it. You have yet to name a comparable player who won a championship while being the best player on the team. Pippen.... Kidd...... great ancillary stars. Hall of Famers even, but could they have been THE GUY? Why was Kidd traded so many times if he was so great?

 

They replaced Jordan with Pete Meyers and still got within a bad call of the conference finals. He got it plenty done as a lead player. I doubt Jordan would have gone any further if they had replaced Pippen with Pete Meyers.

Yeah, because I don't consider that a meaningful metric. Also, I have named such a player: Bill Russell. Kevin Garnett is another obvious lead superstar who wasn't a "dominant scorer."

 

In New Jersey the window had closed...they had to blow it up...with the Suns or the Nets he didn't have the team to win it all...in Dallas they won as underdogs with smart basketball...now he's coaching his second team...I don't think it's a stretch to say Kidd has always been a franchise player...but agree to disagree because in the end...doesn't matter....John Stockton...no ring...Chauncey Billups..champion...Stockton is the better player...Billups the leader

 

It is meaningful if I already conceded that he's a good player. I'm sure he's going to be great, but the point of contention was whether or not he's a lead guy. I guess if the East ever reverts back to being a dumpster fire, he'll have a shot then, no?

 

Would you trade Lillard in a package trade for Paul George? Just asking.

 

As opposed to........ what?

 

It's not meaningful, in my opinion, because you can't judge an individual by championships won. There are too many confounding variables, the biggest of which is the quality of the team around him. I don't think Kidd failed to win a title during his prime because he was an "ancillary" player--I think it was because he didn't have good enough teammates in Dallas.

I think "Can you plausibly build a championship team around this guy as your best player?" is a meaningful question and I think Kidd would qualify affirmatively. I think Pippen would, too (and I think the year he led the Bulls when Jordan retired gives good evidence for that). And I think Antetokounmpo is that kind of talent as well.

 

Two teams tried to build around Kidd and ultimately gave up. Only when he was traded to New Jersey did he have success. The two teams that dumped him were in the West, and those teams weren't without talent. He had a significantly easier road to success in the east.

 

They weren't "without talent" but hardly had great talent. Championships are hard to win, it doesn't take just a superstar and a little bit of talent--it takes at least one superstar (usually more) and a lot of really good talent around them.

I feel like auditing Jason Kidd's career is becoming a little too much the focus, though. Magic Johnson is another example of a player (in addition to others I've mentioned) who wasn't a dominant scorer (or a great shooter) and was the best player on title teams. Magic is particularly relevant to Antetokounmpo because Johnson, too, has few historical precedents. Though the same could be said for Kevin Garnett.

 

I think Magic was a dominant scorer when he had to be. (i.e his rookie year in the NBA finals: Scoring a game-high 42 when Kareem was out) He had a wide range of shots including a very good hook shot. He seemed to add a new shot almost every summer including the 3 pt shot.

 

Magic had the ability to be a dominant scorer though. He just didn't need to be. Do you think Kidd had the capacity to be a dominant scorer? Do you think Giannis does?

I'm on my phone so I can't check the boxscore but didn't magic have a huge game when Kareem was out in the finals?

 

Are either of those players, or Garnett, capable of having a big scoring night if needed? Yes, I think so. I don't think Johnson could have been a consistently dominant scorer, nor do I think he could have led a team to championships that way, as that wasn't where his best talents lay. He was a championship-caliber player because of his play-making and all-around game, which included a decent ability to score.

 

He only had one season where he shot the three-pointer above 32%. Most of his career, he was below 30% on three-pointers, often around 20%.

 

His last 3 seasons he shot over 31%, but one of them was 38.4. He improved as the shot became more prevalent in the NBA. It was a different era.