Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

172Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Nets trades: Why (again)?

Expand Messages
  • Jim Hekel
    Jul 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Wo, let's do some clarification here. I never said the
      difference between Marbury and Kidd is not much.
      Marbury is not in the same category of Kidd. Kidd is
      easily twice the player that Marbury could ever hope
      to be. He is a gunner, not a real point guard, and a
      cancer in the locker room. This deal was a steal for
      the Nets. Jim Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.

      --- harlanzo@... wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > I'm confused about your concerns with these deals.
      > New
      > > 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.
      > Let me start over with a little more specific
      > complaints. You are
      > 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.

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic