# Jason Kidd Rumors Again



## Kobester888 (Jul 8, 2005)

Jason Kidd could be on the move, too, if Nets ownership deems it's time to rebuild for Brooklyn 2009. Yesterday, Kidd declined to speak with reporters. Nets spokesman Gary Sussman said a sore Kidd was "in the tub." It could be Kidd's last Nets-sponsored bath. 

Lakers minority owner Magic Johnson sat in the first row at the Meadowlands on Monday night and it's unclear if he was scouting Kidd for Jerry Buss. During the All-Star Break, when talks with the Lakers heated up, Kidd sounded upbeat about playing for the Lakers, raising speculation he initiated the talks. 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162007/sports/nets/nets__three_you_later_nets_marc_berman.htm

I wonder if the Nets still want Bynum.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

If Kidd is gone, Vince is gone. Should be fun too watch!


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

Please get Jason Kidd. For the love of god...


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

I dont think that Kidd would be an ideal fit for this team. His shot is suspect, he is old for a guard, and has a huge contract.

However, he is a great defender, a smart basketball player, and Im sure Phil could get the most out of him. I just dont know what we would have to give up to get him. It might be alot and I dont think you can mortgage the future on Kidd.


----------



## Kobester888 (Jul 8, 2005)

elcap15 said:


> I dont think that Kidd would be an ideal fit for this team. His shot is suspect, he is old for a guard, and has a huge contract.
> 
> However, he is a great defender, a smart basketball player, and Im sure Phil could get the most out of him. I just dont know what we would have to give up to get him. It might be alot and I dont think you can mortgage the future on Kidd.


Kidd can also rebound with the best of them and besides Odom we do not have anyone that can rebound the ball. But we do need a guard that can shoot the rock. I wish we could've have gotten Derron Williams he would've been perfect.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

elcap15 said:


> I dont think that Kidd would be an ideal fit for this team. His shot is suspect, he is old for a guard, and has a huge contract.
> 
> However, he is a great defender, a smart basketball player, and Im sure Phil could get the most out of him. I just dont know what we would have to give up to get him. It might be alot and I dont think you can mortgage the future on Kidd.


You want Jordan Farmar starting next year. Ha good luck. He isnt the ideal starter he would jus be a starter because we dont have anyone better and thats not exactly a good thing.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

Can someone please tell me how long Kidd's contract is? I'm curious because if it is for one year, I'd love to do it. I don't know if I want him for multiple years, though. Make no mistake, though. Kidd will help any team. Anyone that think that Kidd can't help this team doesn't know anything about basketball.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Pinball said:


> Can someone please tell me how long Kidd's contract is? I'm curious because if it is for one year, I'd love to do it. I don't know if I want him for multiple years, though. Make no mistake, though. Kidd will help any team. Anyone that think that Kidd can't help this team doesn't know anything about basketball.


I think he has two years left.


----------



## Maddocks (Jun 16, 2006)

SoCalfan21 said:


> Please get Jason Kidd. For the love of god...


we are in the same love of god boat with banners.

kidd might be old, but hes still tossing up triple doubles, odom should be getting kidd numbers and with kidd,kobe,odom. just give us the rings.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Listen, Kidd is a phenominal player, and would immediately improve almost any team. The problem is, he has I believe, 3 years left on a ginormous contract, and is already having health issues. The question isnt if he is better than Jordan Farmar, (I assure you he is) the question is if it is worth giving up a ton of young cheap players for one old player who is going to eat up the cap and possibly start to decline.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

This would also probably mean that we would have to give up kwame and Bynum, so that would leave a frontcourt of Mihm, (if we resign him) Turiaf, and no cap space.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Look at what Kidd's done in the playoffs this year. If we can get him, we need to get him.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

if GS can get Baron Davis for dale davis and bunch of scrubs 

i don't see why we cant do it

theres nothing more valuable than cap space when a team is talking about rebuilding

if we can offer kwame's expiring contract its going to happen

unless rod thorn pulls another "i'm gonna squeeze the last drop of orange juice from this orange" type of **** then no

we aint giving up bynum for some old dude with a jaw dropping contract


----------



## Silk D (Feb 6, 2006)

Pinball said:


> Can someone please tell me how long Kidd's contract is? .


he has two years and is owed somewhere around 40 million. 

no way he is worth giving up Andrew. If we can get him for Kwame/Farmar/picks etc., then do it yesterday. but we cannot give up andrew+kwame for a PG on his last legs.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Padding talent isn't the key here. Kidd is not an ideal fit for the team, its already been said, it doesn't matter how talented he is, its whether he will be that effective playing in this offense. He plays in an offense that is well suited for his style right now, the Lakers don't fast break, they're offense is built around half court execution, moving the ball and moving off the ball. Playing with guys like Kobe and Odom, Kidd simply will not be able to dominate the ball he does now. Have we not forgotten the Gary Payton experiment? The guy who put up 20/4/8 on Milwaukee the season before but was easily the weakest link on the team because of his inability to be effective with the offense running through Shaq and Kobe rather than the ball being in his hands? People, THINK first to see if it would be worth the contract and the players the Lakers would have to give up.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Drewbs said:


> Padding talent isn't the key here. Kidd is not an ideal fit for the team, its already been said, it doesn't matter how talented he is, its whether he will be that effective playing in this offense. He plays in an offense that is well suited for his style right now, the Lakers don't fast break, they're offense is built around half court execution, moving the ball and moving off the ball. Playing with guys like Kobe and Odom, Kidd simply will not be able to dominate the ball he does now. Have we not forgotten the Gary Payton experiment? The guy who put up 20/4/8 on Milwaukee the season before but was easily the weakest link on the team because of his inability to be effective with the offense running through Shaq and Kobe rather than the ball being in his hands? People, THINK first to see if it would be worth the contract and the players the Lakers would have to give up.


you're talking about gary payton. one dumb**** who doesn't know how to adjust to a new type of offense
one of the most stubborn fools the league can offer and the only reason he's riding on dwade's **** is cause dwade got him a ring

i want to believe Jkidd aint dumb like GP 

its not even worth comparing. whatever you throw at jkidd he'll likely find a way to adjust. old age is catching up to him perhaps the triangle might actually be something that will suit him. who knows


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Jason Kidd ors Again*

Payton played in every game, put up 15 and 5 and we got to the finals. He was the best point guard we've had in a long time. But hey, his stats went down the next year with Boston so maybe it was the Celtic's offense that was holding him back.

As for Kidd - no Bynum means no deal.


----------



## Shaolin (Aug 6, 2004)

A big problem with the Lakers "Reloaded" (and soon to be "Unloaded") season was that they had too many chiefs and not enough indians. A team needs to have a leader and clear role players.

Should the Lakers go out and sign a big name talent, you'll see the situation raise its ugly head again. OMG why did "X" take that final shot, when "Y" was wide open? Why isn't "X" sharing the ball? Why is "Y" hogging? Fingers pointed everywhere. 

Its another reason why I'd be reluctant to bring in superstar players.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Shaolin said:


> A big problem with the Lakers "Reloaded" (and soon to be "Unloaded") season was that they had too many chiefs and not enough indians. A team needs to have a leader and clear role players.
> 
> Should the Lakers go out and sign a big name talent, you'll see the situation raise its ugly head again. OMG why did "X" take that final shot, when "Y" was wide open? Why isn't "X" sharing the ball? Why is "Y" hogging? Fingers pointed everywhere.
> 
> Its another reason why I'd be reluctant to bring in superstar players.


I'd rather have that, then how it is now... where everyone knows Kobe will take the last shot everytime basically, and triple team him... and it makes it that much harder.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Eternal said:


> I'd rather have that, then how it is now... where everyone knows Kobe will take the last shot everytime basically, and triple team him... and it makes it that much harder.


Exactly. We need to find a player that has the balls to take advantage when the other team doubles and triples Kobe. Right now we dont.


----------



## Shaolin (Aug 6, 2004)

Eternal said:


> I'd rather have that, then how it is now... where everyone knows Kobe will take the last shot everytime basically, and triple team him... and it makes it that much harder.


I'd rather see a team that doesn't need to _rely_ on "the last shot", something that the Lakers have done too much of in recent years. Still I do see your point: they need to have a plan B option.


----------



## antoniskor (May 19, 2007)

Kobester888 said:


> Jason Kidd could be on the move, too, if Nets ownership deems it's time to rebuild for Brooklyn 2009. Yesterday, Kidd declined to speak with reporters. Nets spokesman Gary Sussman said a sore Kidd was "in the tub." It could be Kidd's last Nets-sponsored bath.
> 
> Lakers minority owner Magic Johnson sat in the first row at the Meadowlands on Monday night and it's unclear if he was scouting Kidd for Jerry Buss. During the All-Star Break, when talks with the Lakers heated up, Kidd sounded upbeat about playing for the Lakers, raising speculation he initiated the talks.
> 
> ...


i wish i will get him my fren!


----------



## P-Rez25 (Nov 24, 2006)

if we are gonna get a PG i hope that they get someone a lil younger than Kidd, he has maybe 3 solid years left in him and i dont want someone thats gonna decline on us and make us wish for Smush Parker. like Drewbs said, remember Gary Payton?


----------



## NOODLESTYLE (Jan 20, 2005)

If we could get Jason Kidd without giving up Bryant, Odom, or Bynum I'm all for it because the Lakers have shown time and time again they need a true PG. The Payton comparison in my opinion is unfair because Payton was known to be a offensive minded PG, on the other hand Jason Kidd is a triple double waiting to happen.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

NOODLESTYLE said:


> If we could get Jason Kidd without giving up Bryant, Odom, or Bynum I'm all for it because the Lakers have shown time and time again they need a true PG. The Payton comparison in my opinion is unfair because Payton was known to be a offensive minded PG, on the other hand Jason Kidd is a triple double waiting to happen.



My thoughts exactly on Kidd. 

Payton known as an offensive pt guard? He had a complete game that is true, but he didnt get his nickname, "The Glove" for nothing.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

NOODLESTYLE said:


> If we could get Jason Kidd without giving up Bryant, Odom, or Bynum I'm all for it because the Lakers have shown time and time again they need a true PG. The Payton comparison in my opinion is unfair because Payton was known to be a offensive minded PG, on the other hand Jason Kidd is a triple double waiting to happen.


The Nets are not going to trade Jason Kidd for scrubs and an expiring contract in Brown. Bynum at the very least will have to go, and personally, I don't think its worth that trade when he could be used as a trading piece for a big man.

Payton was an offensive minded PG. Yes, but that doesn't mean that Kidd's scoring deficiencies are any better for the team. In fact, talking about aspects other than offense, Payton was a far greater defensive player than Kidd. Really, Payton's ability as one of the best post up guards in the league and defense were reasons why he SHOULD have fit in the offense quite well until it became quite clear that he had trouble operating without the ball since Shaq and Kobe always had it. He wasn't really a consistent spot up shooting threat and had trouble making the right cuts in the offense. He couldn't control the offense, and drive and dish at his will because he rarely had the green light to do such things in the offense when the ball was always being run through the post. Thats just the way the offense works, its a half court, post up offense and its dependent on having players who can be effective off the ball otherwise the offense stagnates. 

Kidd's game doesn't suit this team. I mean, sure you can stick him on the team and they'll improve simply because hes not a bonehead like Smush Parker and will play some semblance of defense. But at the expense of making a trade for a big man? or trading away the little size the team has while taking on that huge contract? It's simply not worth it. A pointguard who can hit open jumpshots, not make dumb plays and defend can be had for cheaper while still giving the Lakers breathing room to perhaps trade for a big man. I don't understand the fascination with Kidd, he won't be able to dominate the ball like he has his whole career. How often do players in the triangle really average big assist numbers? Its a motion offense, the point isn't for one player to make plays for everyone else, the point is everyone on the team making plays for everyone else.


----------



## arhie (Jul 4, 2006)

Jason Kidd doesn't fit on the lakers at all. The lakers are going to be Kobe Bryants team regardless of whether Kidd comes or not. 
Right now in New Jersey up until the playoffs, the ball was mostly in Carter's hands during the regular season. If Kidd went to LA it would be in his hands even less. In the half court Kidd's job is mostly pick and rolls with the bigs, finding Vince and shooting open threes, every once in a while when Vince is unmotivated he will drive in to lead by example. If he comes to LA, I fear he will be reduced to a three point shooter. Kobe will not run the fastbreak either. And Kidd is not exactly the guy you need help to carry the offensive load.

You guys would be better off with Wince Carter. At least he can take the pressure off Kobe. I'm sure hes learned to be a little Kidd like after playing with him for three years. Heres some proof: Last two years 4 triple doubles, career before that: 1 triple double. Its a start, but Carter has learned to play without his athleticism. He can still shoot the three, and teams won't know who to stop if Kobe and Vince are hot. It will be very unlikely that they are both off in the same night. Plus Kobe will bring out the best in Vince, this is a lock. It could very well be the best 1-2 punch the league has seen since Jordan and Pippen.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Jason Kidd ors Again*

Like Kobe doesn't dominate the ball? Why not have Kidd do it instead and let Kobe stick to what he does best, scoring. (which Kidd would make him more efficient at) 

Farmar doesn't shoot well, and he is not a "typical" tri point guard, so why did the Lakers draft him? Obviously there is some value to point guards who can do more than shoot spot up 3's.

But I think the Kidd boat has sailed anyways. I could see us making a push for Andre Miller though.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

*Re: Jason Kidd ors Again*

I'm not trying to derail the discussion or anything, but maybe it is time to rethink what sort of offense the team runs when we're suggesting that one of the greatest PGs of all time doesn't "fit in".


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

*Re: Jason Kidd ors Again*



Bartholomew Hunt said:


> I'm not trying to derail the discussion or anything, but maybe it is time to rethink what sort of offense the team runs when we're suggesting that one of the greatest PGs of all time doesn't "fit in".



Thats not the point. The point is value. We are going to have to give something up to get Kidd. That something is going to have to be good in order to land, "one of the greatest PGs of all time." The question is if Kidd will add value beyond what we give up and what we could have gotten. Is getting Kidd worth it if we have to give up Bynum and still pay him 15 mil a season? Is he going to make up for the fact that we have 1 less big man and no cap room?

No one denies that Kidd would be a great piece for this team. But he isnt a free agent, and we have to give to get. What do we have to give them that we could Kidd in return? Probably more than we could afford.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

*Re: Jason Kidd ors Again*



elcap15 said:


> Thats not the point. The point is value. We are going to have to give something up to get Kidd. That something is going to have to be good in order to land, "one of the greatest PGs of all time." The question is if Kidd will add value beyond what we give up and what we could have gotten. Is getting Kidd worth it if we have to give up Bynum and still pay him 15 mil a season? Is he going to make up for the fact that we have 1 less big man and no cap room?
> 
> No one denies that Kidd would be a great piece for this team. But he isnt a free agent, and we have to give to get. What do we have to give them that we could Kidd in return? Probably more than we could afford.


Alright. My point still stands. Hence the "I'm not trying to derail the discussion or anything". Looks like I did that though.


----------



## Maddocks (Jun 16, 2006)

bynum will never become like shaq because hes not built like shaq. side by side only thing bynum has over shaq is he eats less.

give up bynum now. let some other team deal with his "dont blame me for the foul" looks


----------

