167Re: Nets trades: Why (again)?
- Jul 1, 2001--- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...> wrote:
> I'm confused about your concerns with these deals. NewLet me start over with a little more specific complaints. You are
> Jersey has made themselves 100 percent improved. Kidd
> over Marbury, if that's the deal, is a no-brainer.
> Kidd is a better player, all-around, and is not a
> cancer in the locker room. He will make the Nets much
> better. The three lower first-round picks may seem
> like a steal by the end of the year. Give it a chance.
> Eddie Griffin, I'm told is soft and doesn't like to
> work. He's been compared to Coleman, loads of talent,
> but little desire. Jim Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.
correct that the difference between Kidd and Marbury (no matter which
player you think is bettter) is not much. Griffin is also something
of a personality risk.
The 2000-01 Nets had a myriad of problems. The could not score and
hand no inside post presence, especially on defense. Given these
needs, the team had to make some changes. However, the changes are
not the ones I would have made. Let's first take the Griffin trade.
I have no problem trading Griffin. However, the trade did not
maximize, at all, the value of the pick. The Nets picked up
Jefferson (probably a pretty good player) and Collins and B.
Armstrong. The Nets, by their own admission, had Collins pegged as a
second round pick and Armstrong is projected as a backup guard.
These are things that could be picked for basically nothing. Thus
the trade turned into the seventh pick for the 13th (i think) and a
couple of picks that could've been gotten for future secound rounders
or a player like Jamie Feick. In fact, most teams with multiple
first round picks are willing to give up the late ones for very
little because the percentage chance of the player being an impact
player is low and the salary cap implications can make the fringe
player more effort than is worth for the team to keep. Thus, I would
submit that Griffin, if you want to trade him, could've fetched more
value (ie an established inside banger and/or a shooter).
As for the Kidd/Marbury debate, I prefer Marbury. Let's state both
of their strengths and weaknesses. First Marbury. Marbury is a bit
surly with teammates, he tends to be a shoot-first point guard, and
he voiced some unhappiness about being on a losing team. Marbury is
a bit ornery but not in the Derrick Coleman or Gary Payton way where
he can tear a team apart. Rather, he seemed a bit annoyed that guys
like Mcilvaine sucked and that Van Horn was passive. This is not a
good thing but it is a little bit overblown. The shoot-first
criticism is also overblown. Yeah marbury is a bit of a hog. But I
would remind you that (1) most great players are, and (2) who the
heck can you pass to when you have Eschmeyer and Lucious Harris on
the wing. On Marbury's plus side is his exlposive scoring and he has
made some players better (look at Dean GArrett/cherokee parks stats
with marbury and without him). Also, Marbury is only 24 years old.
Conventional wisdom tells us that players improve until 27 0r 28 and
then decline. This could tell us that the best, with Marbury, is yet
to come. This is the type of player the Nets need. One with high
upside who can be identified with the nets and could be in a position
to help the next good nets team.
Kidd is a great player. He is the best passer since Magic and
possibly the second or third best passer since 1984 (I give this year
because it was when my basketball cognizance first began). He
definitely makes his teammates better and he seems like an ok guy
from his teammates perspective (even though he has had some problems
off the court). Kidd probably might be more helpful to a good team
right now than Marbury would. However, the Nets will not be a good
team right now. They still can't board, score or defend in the post,
or shoot. Kidd will not make Lucious Harris or Eschmeyer appreciably
better than they are right now. Also Kidd is 28 years old. This is
not ancient but the Nets are a work in progress and they need to have
a marquee player to lead the team 2 or 3 years from now. Yeah Kidd
will still be great then but he probably won't be better than he is
right now and Marbury probably will.
I think the Nets best move would have been to trade Van Horn for a
complementary player (I would've liked Shareef but would have
accepted the package like the Jazz were offering) and seen if Rodney
White wsa my power forward of the future. The upside of a future
with a young Marbury and White and some players to replace Van Hron
(who I like) with some good role players a la Oakley/Bryon
Russell/etc. would've benefitted the Nets more in the long run.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>