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

Nets trades: Why (again)?

Expand Messages
  • harlanzo@yahoo.com
    At the risk of losing any semblance of an sanity or objective analysis, I must say that I have no idea what the Nets are doing. Trading Marbury for Kidd makes
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 28, 2001
      At the risk of losing any semblance of an sanity or objective
      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 they
      want a team the will be quasi-competitive with no players with high
      upside like the young Griffin and Marbury for Kidd (28) and a bunch
      of low first round picks.
    • Dean Oliver
      ... they ... My take on this from NJ s side is that 1. Coach Scott didn t exactly know how to build around Marbury, having played around a PG like Kidd
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 29, 2001
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
        > At the risk of losing any semblance of an sanity or objective
        > 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
        they
        > want a team the will be quasi-competitive with no players with high
        > upside like the young Griffin and Marbury for Kidd (28) and a bunch
        > of low first round picks.

        My take on this from NJ's side is that

        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
        Marbury.

        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. ;)

        Dean Oliver
        Journal of Basketball Studies
      • Al Hoffman
        ... Whoops! I guess Jud Buechler & John Wallace will have to have career years. ... Al
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 29, 2001
          > My take on this from NJ's side is that
          > if Cliff Robinson has a career year,

          Whoops! I guess Jud Buechler & John Wallace will have to have career years.
          :)

          Al
        • Ed Weiland
          ... Hey, we did have a nice little run, but the last three years have been hell! : ) Seriously, I don t expect much sympathy. I d have hated the Jordan Bulls
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 30, 2001
            --- Dean Oliver <deano@...> wrote:
            >
            > 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. ;)

            Hey, we did have a nice little run, but the last three
            years have been hell! : )

            Seriously, I don't expect much sympathy. I'd have
            hated the Jordan Bulls team also if I hadn't been a
            long-suffering Bulls' fan. I also understand what
            Krause is doing here. He didn't like the direction the
            first rebuilding was taking, so he killed it and
            started over. He now has the two athletic big guys in
            place and now plans on getting his PG in next summer's
            great PG draft. Hopefully Duke's Jason Williams.

            Two problems I have with the trade:

            1. The success rate of high draft picks just isn't all
            that good. Tyson Chandler might become a star, but he
            might also become a softie who got drafted before his
            weaknesses were exposed by college ball.

            2. Krause just didn't get enough for an all-star level
            player. I had no problem dealing Brand. As long as it
            was for the right price. Chandler and Brian Skinner
            seems cheap to me. I felt for Brand they should have
            been able to get, in addition to Chandler, Maggette
            and a future #1 pick or two. Skinner couldn't get
            minutes for the PF-poor Clipps last year.

            Then there's Tim Floyd. I have very little confidence
            that he's the right guy to bring Curry and Chandler
            along. I watched last year as Jamal Crawford followed
            a promising early-season performance with three
            straight DNP-CDs. Floyd spent three years giving Corey
            Benjamin inconsistent court time, while playing the
            likes of Randy Brown, Rusty LaRue, Chris Carr and Fred
            Hoiberg. Floyd also was quoted as saying that he
            thought young players learned more on the bench than
            on the court and bashed Crawford and others for having
            the audacity to wear headbands.

            Ok, I'm in rant mode now and I'll stop. I'm gearing up
            for the Sleuth's rebuilding: Phase II.

            Ed Weiland

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
            http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
          • Jim Hekel
            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.
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 30, 2001
              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.

              --- harlanzo@... wrote:
              > At the risk of losing any semblance of an sanity or
              > objective
              > 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 they
              > want a team the will be quasi-competitive with no
              > players with high
              > upside like the young Griffin and Marbury for Kidd
              > (28) and a bunch
              > of low first round picks.
              >
              >


              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
              http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
            • harlanzo@yahoo.com
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 1, 2001
                --- 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.
              • Jim Hekel
                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
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 2, 2001
                  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
                  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                • harlanzo@yahoo.com
                  ... I never said that you thought the difference between Kidd and Marbury is very little. I meant that any form of objective analysis would yield the two
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 3, 2001
                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...> wrote:
                    > 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.

                    I never said that you thought the difference between Kidd and Marbury
                    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.
                  • Jim Hekel
                    You re entitled to your opinion, but I think most NBA insiders are scratching their head on this one. If the Suns were so intent on trading the best point
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 4, 2001
                      You're entitled to your opinion, but I think most NBA
                      insiders are scratching their head on this one. If the
                      Suns were so intent on trading the best point guard in
                      the game, you would think they could get more than
                      Marbury. This deal only makes sense if Phoenix also
                      gets Van Horn or Kenyon Martin, or better yet, both.
                      Marbury is a good example of a guy who's box score
                      looks great, but it doesn't give a full picture of his
                      value, or lack of the same. That's my opinion. Jim
                      Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.

                      --- harlanzo@... wrote:
                      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > 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.
                      >
                      > I never said that you thought the difference between
                      > Kidd and Marbury
                      > 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.
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
                      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                    • Al Hoffman
                      ... Don t forget Isiah Thomas. He was also a scoring point early in his career. As Detroit s arc progressed and others emerged (Dantley, Dumars, etc...), his
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 4, 2001
                        harlanzo@... wrote:
                        >
                        > 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.

                        Don't forget Isiah Thomas. He was also a scoring point early in his career.
                        As Detroit's arc progressed and others emerged (Dantley, Dumars, etc...),
                        his scoring curtailed. In fact, there is an anecdote in, IIRC, "The
                        Franchise" by Cameron Stauth about Thomas being royally teed off after a
                        playoff win over Chicago. Thomas had scored 40 points or so in a close win
                        & Thomas said something like "if I have to score like this then we'll never
                        win a championship." But Isiah is, to me, the prototype of a scoring PG
                        who changed his game to win a title. Can Marbury do the same if his team
                        gets closer to that level?

                        Al
                      • Dean Oliver
                        ... Not being an NBA Insider, but knowing a few people, I can say that the league is pretty split on the trade. Statistically, fans are definitely split, as
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jul 4, 2001
                          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Jim Hekel <jhekel@y...> wrote:
                          > You're entitled to your opinion, but I think most NBA
                          > insiders are scratching their head on this one. If the
                          > Suns were so intent on trading the best point guard in
                          > the game, you would think they could get more than
                          > Marbury. This deal only makes sense if Phoenix also
                          > gets Van Horn or Kenyon Martin, or better yet, both.
                          > Marbury is a good example of a guy who's box score
                          > looks great, but it doesn't give a full picture of his
                          > value, or lack of the same. That's my opinion. Jim
                          > Hekel, Rowley, Iowa.

                          Not being an NBA Insider, but knowing a few people, I can say that
                          the league is pretty split on the trade. Statistically, fans are
                          definitely split, as I've seen polls on websites with a lot 51-49%
                          votes. That implies that the Suns could not have gotten more for
                          Kidd.

                          Some numbers from 2001:

                          . Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points Game-by-Game
                          Player Poss. . Pct. . Prod. Win% Win Loss
                          Marbury 760 1507 0.505 108.7 1639 0.552 37 30
                          Kidd 711 1484 0.479 102.1 1516 0.623 48 29

                          . Def Stops Def. Net Net Net
                          Player Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
                          Marbury 399 0.156 0.404 107.2 0.557 7.5 6.0
                          Kidd 654 0.213 0.541 95.5 0.753 11.0 3.6

                          Net Pts/48M
                          v1 v2
                          Marbury 0.4 10.9
                          Kidd 1.6 5.7

                          Marbury is the better offensive player right now (not in or before
                          '99). Kidd is the better defensive player. Marbury is a more
                          volatile player, less predictable (hence the discrepancy between my
                          two versions of Net Points per 48 minutes).

                          Kidd has always had a better defensive rating than Marbury. Kidd is
                          part of the reason the Suns were a very good defensive team this
                          year. Other reasons were Coach Skiles and Shawn Marion. Since both
                          of those guys are still there (so far), the Suns should again be
                          pretty good defensively. That will make Marbury's offense much more
                          valuable. I think the concern is that the Suns' offense was pretty
                          weak even with Kidd -- will it get worse with Marbury trying to take
                          people one-on-one?

                          New Jersey does have some potential weapons for Kidd to go to, but no
                          one who could really be a star. The new draftees/tradees may work
                          out ok. Kidd has been known to breathe life into forwards who run
                          the floor -- McDyess and Marion are good examples -- so maybe he'll
                          do it with Jason Collins. Maybe he'll do it with Van Horn, but I
                          have my doubts about that guy. If NJ can form a defense around Kidd,
                          Van Horn, Collins, and SOMEONE (NJ is a frustrating franchise), they
                          can get up to 30-35 wins next year. As much as I like Byron Scott,
                          I'm not convinced that he can form that good D.

                          I look at the trade as pretty close to a wash. My initial reaction
                          was that the Nets won out slightly. If I have to give an edge now,
                          though, I'd give it to Phoenix.

                          Dean Oliver
                          Journal of Basketball Studies
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.