Blazers Almost Had Kidd

Jordan45822 · Post #1 » by **Jordan45822** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:52 pm

http://www.nj.com/nets/index.ssf/2008/0 ... trade.html

MagicFan3 · Post #2 » by **MagicFan3** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:01 pm

Probably wouldn't have worked out for the Blazers, and the Nets ended up getting a better deal elsewhere. Probably for the best that Kidd blocked it.

A.J. · Post #3 » by **A.J.** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:03 pm

MagicFan3 wrote:Probably wouldn't have worked out for the Blazers, and the Nets ended up getting a better deal elsewhere. Probably for the best that Kidd blocked it.

yeah i agree....harris>jack

NjNeTs1029 · Post #4 » by **NjNeTs1029** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:05 pm

MagicFan3 wrote:Probably wouldn't have worked out for the Blazers, and the Nets ended up getting a better deal elsewhere. Probably for the best that Kidd blocked it.

agreed. Kidd wanted to play for a contender so he gets to go to Dallas and the Nets get their PG for the future with Devin Harris.

A.J. · Post #5 » by **A.J.** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:07 pm

NjNeTs1029 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

agreed. Kidd wanted to play for a contender so he gets to go to Dallas and the Nets get their PG for the future with Devin Harris.

speaking of PG of the future, what happened to williams being their PG of the future?

MagicFan3 · Post #6 » by **MagicFan3** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:15 pm

A.J. wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

speaking of PG of the future, what happened to williams being their PG of the future?

Apparently he's fallen out of favor with Lawrence Frank.

NetsForce · Post #7 » by **NetsForce** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:31 pm

It's hard to tell what's going to happen with Marcus Williams sometimes he's just played poorly at other times Frank just doesn't play him.

Sometimes I feel like Frank treats Marcus and the other Nets young players as if they're veterans and yanks then when they make mistakes rather than letting them play through their mistakes and grow...

If I had to guess though the Nets will probably embrace the new league-wide trend of using a duo of point guards to man the point guard position and will probably play more small ball than in years past.

realfung · Post #8 » by **realfung** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:10 pm

Jack is not as good as Harris

Post #9 » by **Spykes** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:46 pm

When word first broke about Kidd wanting to be traded and us Blazer fans started thinking if we could get him, a big questionmark was if he'd want to be a part of such a young team. The Blazers are definitely on the rise, but not close to a championship contending team like Mavs.

As a Blazer fan, I would have loved to see the trade go down. Kidd would have been a big help and the Blazers wouldn't have hurt their 09 cap plan.

That said, the Nets... without a shadow of a doubt... got a MUCH better deal out of the Mavs. The only upside a Portland deal would have had over what the Nets got from the Mavs is that the Blazers wouldn't have made the Nets take on contracts that lasted longer than Kidd's deal. Plus, they wouldn't have had such a hard time making the deal.

lukeridenour · Post #10 » by **lukeridenour** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:04 pm

hes also been injured for most of the year. everytime he comes in the announcers say hes still trying to get in game shape...

Texas Longhorns · Post #11 » by **Texas Longhorns** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:05 pm

Why would Portland go after an older player in Kidd? They are all young players, and they are not really looking to win this season. Doesn't make any sense.

farzi · Post #12 » by **farzi** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:08 pm

Texas Longhorns wrote:Why would Portland go after an older player in Kidd? They are all young players, and they are not really looking to win this season. Doesn't make any sense.

1. Helps set a positive example for the youngins.
2. Makes them a better team now (when this was rumored, Portland was still very much in the playoff chase
3. Doesn't screw up the cap room in 2009

Makes sense to me

Texas Longhorns · Post #13 » by **Texas Longhorns** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:08 pm

They would have to offer someone from their core group though.

farzi · Post #14 » by **farzi** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:10 pm

Texas Longhorns wrote:They would have to offer someone from their core group though.

Read the article.

Jack + Lafrentz + filler != core

Texas Longhorns · Post #15 » by **Texas Longhorns** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:12 pm

Didn't his agent say he had to be traded to a contender? Why did they even try this?

farzi · Post #16 » by **farzi** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:14 pm

Texas Longhorns wrote:Didn't his agent say he had to be traded to a contender? Why did they even try this?

This was reportedly close to happening before those comments were made.

Again, read the article

Texas Longhorns · Post #17 » by **Texas Longhorns** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:16 pm

Thank you, sir.

Ming Kong! · Post #18 » by **Ming Kong!** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:53 pm

What I could never understand was why Portland traded their 3rd pick for Utah's 6th and some picks in the late 20s. Sure Webster has turned out nice, and so has Jarret Jack, but they could have had Chris Paul, who everybody thought was the best PG in the draft anyways. I think they were far from set at the PG position. Kind of like Atlanta passing on Paul. WTH was that all about? Marvin Williams was incredibly overrated.

Post #19 » by **Spykes** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:27 am

Ming Kong! wrote:What I could never understand was why Portland traded their 3rd pick for Utah's 6th and some picks in the late 20s. Sure Webster has turned out nice, and so has Jarret Jack, but they could have had Chris Paul, who everybody thought was the best PG in the draft anyways. I think they were far from set at the PG position. Kind of like Atlanta passing on Paul. WTH was that all about? Marvin Williams was incredibly overrated.

There were a couple of reasons why Portland did that...

First and foremost, the Blazers GM at the time, John Nash, was an idiot. Portland's current GM was only the Director of Player Personnel at the time. He reportedly lobbied really hard for Paul, but was overruled by Nash, who fell in love with Webster's shooting stroke and potential. John Nash would always tell the story of how he found Kobe Bryant and was so sure he was going to be a great player, that he was going to pick him for the Nets until Kobe demanded he goto the Lakers. So personally, I think Nash's pick of Webster was his shot at trying to reclaim some of the glory for finding another stud HS shooter. Unfortunately for Blazer fans, Webster isn't even a fraction of the player Kobe is.

The other reason Portland didn't take Paul is because of Telfair. They had picked him the season before to be the teams franchise PG. Because of that, Chris Paul refused to work out for Portland. It wasn't until very close to Draft Day that the team was finally able to convince him to come in for a workout.

Atlanta passing on Paul wasn't as appalling as people make it out to be. In hindsight, it looks absolutely awful, but at the time, Williams was a lock to go #2 in that draft. He was from pretty much Day 1.

Portland and Atlanta both got burned for doing 2 opposite things. Portland picked need over BPA and lost out. Atlanta took BPA (well, believed to be BPA at that time) over need and also lost out.

Post #20 » by **Spykes** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:38 am

Texas Longhorns wrote:Didn't his agent say he had to be traded to a contender? Why did they even try this?

Not only did the talks with Portland happen before his agent made those comments, his agent made the comments because of the talks with Portland. It obviously started to get pretty serious between the two teams and when Kidd found out about it, he then when to the media with the "I only want to be traded to a contender" statement.

Any interesting thought is what Bill Simmons brought out... When all is said and done and Kidd looks back on this time, will he regret refusing to be traded to Portland?