Kidd says Nets are about winning

External Since: Jul 21, 2005 Posts: 58

<snip>

you're right. there is absolutely no way the Spurs could have won the
title with Jason Kidd as their point guard. he would have been nothing
but a detriment to the team. i rank Kidd as a 2nd-tier NBA PG at best,
after the likes of Rafer Alston, Jason Williams, Luke Ridnour, and Tony
Parker. i wonder how Kidd is going to keep Jeff McInnis from taking
the starting job away from him. San Antonio fans rejoice, for you have
kept the cancer known as Jason Kidd away from your team.

Jason Kidd's record of futility:

1993-94 Dallas Mavericks (pre-Kidd): 13-69
1994-95 Dallas Mavericks (Kidd's rookie season): 36-46
1996-97 Phoenix Suns (Kidd arrives mid-season): 40-42
1997-98 Phoenix Suns (Kidd's first full season): 56-26
2000-01 NJ Nets (pre-Kidd): 26-56
2001-02 NJ Nets (Kidd's first season): 52-30

Kidd's been to the playoffs every season since 1996-97. Not too many
players have that kind of streak.

For comparison purposes, the Spurs had the exact same record (58-24)
the season that Parker was a rookie as they did the season before.

External Since: May 09, 2005 Posts: 185

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:11:23 -0400, "Frankie T." <frankiet.RemoveThis@aol.com>
wrote:

>The spurs don't have Kidd because he chose not to sign with them not because
>the spurs didn't want him.
>

I don't know that the Spurs ever made an actual offer. I think there
was probing out there, and Kidd pretty much declared that he was
staying with the Nets. My point is that I am very glad he did.

And no matter what else you want to say, you can't argue with the fact
that the Spurs are the defending champ, with their three best players
under the age of 30 (parker is only 23). The Spurs can foreseeably
dominate for the next 5 years with this core, Kidd would be done long
before that.

>"Lee Watkins" <spamisforsandwiches-lwatkins.RemoveThis@falcon.tamucc.edu> wrote in
>message news:dc6c8d$b8h$1@news.tamu.edu...
>>
>> "bill_mill" <bill_mill.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121816967.850638.123280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Marcus Kwan wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:25:03 -0400, "Frankie T." <frankiet.RemoveThis@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> OK, he;s a good player, but is he a winner. Does he have that
>> >> intangible quality of leadership or character that allows a player to
>> >> dig deeper and win champips, to put his team on his back and carry
>> >> them? Does he have the abilty to bring his team together as a unit
>> >> and define them. Does he have the ability to come up big when the
>> >> game is on the line.
>> >>
>> >> The answer is pretty much no. If I were a coach/gm on a team that
>> >> already had a winning superstar, e.g. the Spurs, I would defintely not
>> >> trade a solid role player, e.g. Tony Parker, for Kidd.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > you wouldn't trade a solid role player for Jason Kidd, the best pure
>> > point guard in the NBA (with apologies to Steve Nash)? you have got to
>> > be kidding.
>> >
>> i wouldnt have done it either, but for different reasons. and whats
>> happened since jkidd resigned with NJ pretty much shows why. a 30+ max
>> player at the beginning of his contract would eat up so much cap space.
>it
>> came down to signing an all world point guard about to hit the downside of
>> his career, or keep your young core together. does anyone really think
>kidd
>> + duncan + scrubs would be in a position to contend for the next 5 or so
>> years? kidd is already showing signs of wear and tear. instead of kidd,
>> the spurs kept ginobili, parker, bowen, had room to sign horry, and picked
>> up brent barry.
>> its just a personal preference, but i think any good GM would be wise not
>to
>> have max contract players with similar contract lengths at the same time.
>>
>> lee
>>
>>
>