Can we get J. Kidd?

UNC4215 · Post #1 » by **UNC4215** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:55 pm

I've been browsing around and these threads are killing me. Oh the fantasy land most are living in...

deeney0 · Post #2 » by **deeney0** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:00 pm

Wolves aren't looking for 30-somethings to win now.

B Calrissian · Post #3 » by **B Calrissian** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:02 pm

What is the point of this thread?

And of course we could get Kidd, but why would we?

UNC4215 · Post #4 » by **UNC4215** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:03 pm

I know this, but we needed a mockery thread in my mind.

TheProdigy · Post #5 » by **TheProdigy** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:07 pm

Bad idea. We already have a solid point guard: Sebastian Telfair.

funkatron101 · Post #6 » by **funkatron101** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:34 pm

We are building to contend in 2-3 years. The team will hopefully be top tier for a number of years. Getting Kidd now ruins those plans. He has a limited shelf life, wouldn't sign a contract extension, and messes up our draft options.

T-HuDfoShizzle · Post #7 » by **T-HuDfoShizzle** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:26 pm

Really wouldnt mind the idea of getting him if his contract had another 2 yrs and he wasnt getting over 20 mill next year which he doesnt deserve. Could have him at the PG, Foye to SG then try to draft a C like Hibbert or Jordan

Post #8 » by **revprodeji** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:29 pm

likely we will be the 3rd wheel in a deal for kidd. It will be interesting who we bring back.

deeney0 · Post #9 » by **deeney0** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:36 pm

revprodeji wrote:likely we will be the 3rd wheel in a deal for kidd. It will be interesting who we bring back.

Is there anything besides pure speculation that makes you say this?

D1SGRUNTL3D · Post #10 » by **D1SGRUNTL3D** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:37 pm

If we could get back for giving up very little (say green paired with buckner or walker) and getting back picks or another young pg/big, thatd be awesome and take a big load off

big3_8_19_21 · Post #11 » by **big3_8_19_21** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:24 pm

I don't think he ever meant this to result in actual JKidd discussion, but hell, as long as we're actually discussing Kidd...what makes you say that we will "likely" be a 3rd team in a Kidd trade, rev?

B Calrissian · Post #12 » by **B Calrissian** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:27 pm

I think Rev meant that we are more likely to be the third team than the team that gets Kidd. But if not please fill us in.

Post #13 » by **revprodeji** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:39 pm

yea, I have no insight if that is what you are asking.

I am speculating. Consideirng we have numerous ending and soon to be ending contracts. Kidd is not good enough to get a good player. But they will want ending contracts and picks. The teams that really want kid do not have the size contract (maybe LAL with Brown)

no insight. SOrry.

Post #14 » by **C.lupus** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:40 pm

Kidd wants to go to Dallas. Maybe we can help facilitate and get Diop in return. :pray:

Post #15 » by **revprodeji** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:41 pm

diop is an ending contract. No point in needing us.

Post #16 » by **C.lupus** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:46 pm

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to live in that happy bubble for a few minutes.

shrink · Post #17 » by **shrink** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:47 pm

big3_8_19_21 wrote:I don't think he ever meant this to result in actual JKidd discussion, but hell, as long as we're actually discussing Kidd...what makes you say that we will "likely" be a 3rd team in a Kidd trade, rev?

I'm with rev, because theoretically, we can boost the production to both other teams, who are likely wanting to be contenders. I won't even use expirings in the example.

Suppose the Lakers and Nets want to swap Kidd and Odom. Both teams feel they want to compete while they can, or that total rebuilds would be too hard. As such, both teams place more value on production, and less value on prospects.

If they do it straight up,

Odom + Sasha for Kidd

(which isn't enough financially, but bear with me), the teams go through massive swings. The Lakers add 6.5 APG, but lose 8.4 PPG, and the inverse is true for NJN.

However, if they use MIN simply as an intermediary:

LAL GIVES: Odom + Sasha + Crittendon
LAL GETS: Kidd + Craig Smith

NJN GIVES: Kidd plus NJN protected 1st
NJN GETS: Odom + Sasha + Telfair

MIN GIVES: Craig Smith + Telfair
MIN GETS: Crittendon + NJN prot. 1st

.. they make the swap more bearable for team balance, and they bring in productive players to replace those positions. The Lakers get the assists, but break even on points and boards without Odom ...

L.A. Lakers Trade Breakdown
Change in Team Outlook: -1.8 ppg, +1.0 rpg, and +6.2 apg.

.. and NJN does even better, breaking even on assists and getting a nice increase in points.

NJ Nets Trade Breakdown
Change in Team Outlook: +18.2 ppg, +5.1 rpg, and -0.6 apg.

andyhop · Post #18 » by **andyhop** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:07 am

This whole idea was what lead me to a Theo - Camby swap.

None of the teams supposedly involved can do a Kidd deal without dumping big long term contracts on the Nets or Odom which is just as unpalateable.

The Nets want a good young player,expirings and picks.

Dallas has the player in Harris but not the expirings they would have to use Terry in a deal.

LA have not quite the player in Farmer,Half the expirings in Kwame and would have to use Odom,Walton or Radman to match salary.

The Cavs have nothing of interest.

The Nuggets have no young player and would have to include Camby,Nene or AI in the trade.Nene is not a lot better than Boone or Williams and has a long deal,AI doesn't appeal to the Nets,Camby could if they want to try and contend from the go next year but will affect the young bigs development on the Nets .

The Nuggets were the only team that a deal with the Wolves made sense with.