157Re: Nets trades: Why (again)?
- Jun 29, 2001--- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
> At the risk of losing any semblance of an sanity or objectivethey
> analysis, I must say that I have no idea what the Nets are doing.
> Trading Marbury for Kidd makes little sense. It just looks like
> want a team the will be quasi-competitive with no players with highMy take on this from NJ's side is that
> upside like the young Griffin and Marbury for Kidd (28) and a bunch
> of low first round picks.
1. Coach Scott didn't exactly know how to build around Marbury,
having played around a PG like Kidd (Magic)
2. Kidd is a much better defensive player than Marbury
3. Kidd, despite his shooting flaws, is a better team leader than
4. NJ, with a bunch of saps and injuries on the team, really didn't
have much to lose to make all the deals they did.
I can see why the Suns did the trade, too. If they can get Marbury to
play D like Phoenix does, if they can continue to see growth out
of Marion, if Cliff Robinson has a career year, if Penny returns
to All-Star form, if Jake develops a game, they have a good high
variance team that has a shot at upsetting the Lakers. Frankly, I
think the general malaise in Phoenix over a suddenly defensive and not
offensive team bugged the owners. That, plus general bad luck. I
wonder how long Skiles has there if they don't improve a lot.
Wrt Chicago -- Y'know, after all those years of the Bulls beating up
on my teams, I really don't want to ease the pain for Bulls fans. ;)
Journal of Basketball Studies
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>