176Re: Nets trades: Why (again)?
- Jul 3, 2001--- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...> wrote:
> Wo, let's do some clarification here. I never said theI never said that you thought the difference between Kidd and Marbury
> 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.
is very little. I meant that any form of objective analysis would
yield the two players being very equal (in fact some favor MArbury).
Given the fact that the two players are so close in value right now
and the Nets will not likely win much in the near future it is better
for the Nets to take the player with the higher upside. Kidd is
already 28 and he most likely reached his peak while Marbury is only
24 and his growth curve as a player would probably go up. (Indeed,
look how much Kidd has improve since he was 24. In 1997-98, when he
was 24, Kidd scored 11.6 ppg with 9.1 apg on 42% shooting.) Thus, if
the Nets actually accrue depth over the next couple of years they are
in a better position to captalize on it with Marbury who will almost
certainly be better than Kidd 2 or 3 years from now.
I understand the preference for a pure point guard like Kidd is. In
fact he is the second or third best passer I have ever seen (I go
back to 84). However, disdain for scoring point guards is not always
fair as we can see that other score-first point guards (ie KJ,
PAyton, Tim Hardaway) have led very good teams in the past. So,
while your Kidd preference is certainly reasonbale, I think the Nets
are better with MArbury.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>