Why I don't want Jason Kidd, by Kori Ellis

[ducks]

**** KIDD

[SequSpur]

Well isn't it about time that the Spurs go over the cap... hmmmm... The cap is probably going down, therefore his percentage of the cap is going down too, so, I seriously doubt he gets 12...

You can't have everything.

You resign Ferry, Kerr and Willis for the minimum.

You part ways with either Jax or Claxton, preferably Jax.

You sign a Center, if J. Oneal comes then Plan A is in effect. You sign J. Oneal and just resign all of the former Spurs and make another run.

You know that Tony Parker just crashed in Game 5 and Game 6 of the NBA Finals so something better be done about the PG position. Whether its Kidd or Claxton. Can Parker revalidate himself? We'll see.

The money is there to reenforce the team with Duncan/Oneal or Duncan/Kidd.

Consider the cap and the weaknesses. PG and Center. The turnovers can be solved by one easy move, do not resign Jackson.

BTW... Manu and Parker are going to be passing that money plate in a few years also... The Cap Game is about to be broken.

Plus Tim and damn near any 7 footer can guard the post.

Also, I am sick of Duncan running the offense because our PG can't. Not because of skill, but because of youth.

Late.

[Whottt]

I think TParker is getting a bad rap for the last two games of the playoffs...

In game 5 he sucked in the first half but he came out and lit every one up in the third quarter for 12 points or so. He bounced back..

And the Nets were making stopping him a priority and they are a good defensive team.

In game 6 he sucked much like he did in game 5, but so did Stephen Jackson and he turned it around..I am gonna give Tony credit that he would have done that as well because he has done it every other time he needed to this year.

[spurster]

I agree that Kidd would still get his rebounds in a Spurs uniform. And his shooting may improve. But I still don't get how he'd get nine assists in the Spurs' offense. Would the Spurs change their offense to "Nets-style"? Because in the Spurs current offensive scheme, I can't see Kidd averaging nine assists.

The Spurs current offensive scheme, which in large part consists of TD being a point forward in the low post, is not a strength. It is a weakness.

Kidd has much better court vision than Parker. Kidd will penetrate and he will pass to the open man. And with Kidd and Duncan commanding lots of attention, someone will be wide open.

Kidd will also be better in transition. Kidd will also get the ball to the open cutters. BTW, the Spurs defense stymied Kidd on these two elements. And that was because the Spurs played defense from the first preseason game on, not from just when the playoffs started.

I can't believe that so many people have to see these issues in black-and-white. Why does Kidd have to be all good or all bad, but nothing in between? A careful analysis has to consider the advantages and disadvantages as objectively as possible. Kidd is not all good, as he certainly is not a replacement for DRob, but a lot of good would come from Kidd. If you can't see or admit this, why even try to be a student of the game? If you think the bad outweighs the good, that's ok, but to paint Kidd as a scrub is ridiculous.

[Guru of Nothing]

Very persuasive, but I'll try to create a visual here - Tim is taking a breather. On the floor is Kidd, Parker, Manu, Jackson and Malik. May not work against Shaq, but THAT would be exciting ball to watch otherwise. With Kidd, Pop's role is more that of an orchestra conductor - contantly changing the tempo. Again, Shaq and the Lakers present a steep challenge, but the Mavs and Kings appear to me to be target practice.

About the Lakers, if Tim negates Shaq, then the Spurs have the upper hand (ignoring any possible Laker upgrades), because the Lakers are so weak 3-12.

Now, you mentioned signing Kidd affects the Spurs' future with regards to Jax, Manu and Parker contracts. I agree. This is why Kidd is my 3b choice, at best.

JO - 1A
EB - 1B
GP - 3A
JK - 3B
Alonzo (short term) - a very distant 5
Tarpley - 100Y
Olowakandi - 100Z

One more thing about Kidd - I can't decide if he's a great player who has just never quite found the right home, or if he's just an out and out enigma, destined to never win a le.

Adios.

[SequSpur]

Kidd is a very good player. Very good. One of the best in the league...

J. Oneal or J. Kidd will drastically improve the Spurs offense and defense.

[Bounce580]

Respecting your opinion Bounce, if Kidd is a Spur. Who is manning the Spurs frontcourt? And who is the starting 1-2-3?

I know this argument has been covered a million times, bu I don't think there necessarily needs to be an assigned 1-2-3 position. I look at it more like wings and posts. 1-2-3-4-5 are just arbitrary numbers. As far as who do I think will be starting, I'd say the lineup would look something like:

G-Kidd/Parker
G-Parker/Kidd/Manu/Jax
GF-Manu/Jax/Bowen
FC-Duncan/Rose/Willis
FC-FA/Rose/Willis

I'm not going to even try to break down the minutes, because there's a ton of different possible scenarios. I think if anyone is going to lose minutes, it'd be Bowen and/or Jax. Not Parker, and not Manu.

The reason why I think it'd work is because in Kidd and Parker you have two entirely different point guards. Jason Kidd is a distributing point guard who can take over a good scoring load. His game isn't based on scoring, though. In NJ, he's had to carry the majority of the offensive load. His FG% has never been stellar, but he's still managed to get his points, assists, rebounds, and be widely regarded as the best (P)G in the game. Therefore, I think his FG% is kind of irrelevant. But in Tony Parker, you have an Isiah Thomas/Steve Francis type point guard. The only reason they're at PG is because they're short. Tony's game is scoring first. But, he's also capable of pushing the ball, and getting the team into the offense. Essentially it's like having two PG/SGs on the court.

I think Kidd would work great in San Antonio, because he would be able to concentrate on what he does best. Getting open shots for teammates. He doesn't have to be anything more than the third scoring option (behind Tim and Tony) and perhaps even lower than that (Manu or Jax). If you watch perimeter scoring, they're usually shots that they've created for themself, mostly starting at the perimeter. Kidd could get them wide-open shots at the basket. Timmy's scoring numbers might dip a little, but Manu, Jax, and Tony's increase. But when it comes down to it, Kidd's more than proven he's capable of putting points up on his own.

As far as adding a center, I'd be ecstatic if we were able to land O'Neal. But, if we're looking at the "if it ain't broke..." then we really only need a second or third tier center who can go for 8.5 ppg, and 7.9 rebs. We're not looking to replace David in his prime. There are plenty of players who could easily equal David's numbers from last year.

I'm not advocating Kidd over O'Neal. But I don't think Kidd would ruin the team by any stretch. A team built around Tony, Timmy, and Jermaine would be incredible. I just don't think Jermaine is leaving Indy. I'd me more than happy for him to prove me wrong, though.

Either way, the Spurs are in a of a position, and I'm thinking this will be a good offseason. It's safe to say we're looking at 60-65 wins next year.

Also, disregard this. I promised a friend I'd put the elephant somewhere in the post:

[DuffMcCartney]

I say the Spurs resign almost everybody, the only people they shouldnt sign are Ferry,Smith, and Bateer. Everybody else needs to stay where they were, i much prefer having Manu be with the second team than with the 1st as a starter. Jax was the starter and because of him we won 60 games, not really but you know what I mean. If its not broke dont fix it. Manu brings great energy off the bench, I dont think Jax could bring the same energy off the bench.

Imagine the same line up but with O'Neal or Brand....

C-O'Neal or Brand/Rose/Willis
PF-TD/FA
SF-Bruce/Jax
SG-Jax/Manu
PG-TP/Clax

That lineup works on so many different levels.

[KoriEllis]

The Spurs current offensive scheme, which in large part consists of TD being a point forward in the low post, is not a strength. It is a weakness.

Well it can't be that weak, they just one a championship with it. Seriously though, you seem to be willing to change the Spurs offense quite a bit. And I guess that's my real problem. Bringing on Kidd would lead to too many adjustments, especially for Duncan. And he's coming off back-to-back MVP's and I'm not sure how much I want to change his game. I'm just not sure that Kidd can make Duncan better.

but to paint Kidd as a scrub is ridiculous

Agreed, you'll never hear me say "**** Kidd". He's an incredible player; I'm just not sold on him being ideal for the Spurs. Kidd could come and prove me wrong (and believe me, I'd be overjoyed if he was successful).

---

Bounce, I hear you about the wing and post positions. I wasn't really asking you to assign someone at each of the 1-2-3, more I was wanting to know who you'd think would get the bulk of the minutes. By your post, I think you are saying to start Kidd/Parker/Ginobili and have Jack and Bowen platoon at the 2/3. I'm just worried about who will be manning the post with Duncan if we spend money on Kidd.

---

One more thing about Kidd - I can't decide if he's a great player who has just never quite found the right home, or if he's just an out and out enigma, destined to never win a le.

I wonder about Kidd finding a home too. If Kidd moves this offseason, Kidd will be the only first team All-NBA player in history to be on four teams his first 10 years in the league.

[T Park Num 9]

Protest Kidd in 03.

Sign Kidd?? Loose in the second round.


Sign Oneal?? Threepeat and going for more.


End of story.

[Whottt]

Agreed, you'll never hear me say "**** Kidd".

Of course not, a lady should never say such things, even a sports reporter..

If you'll allow me..

"**** Kidd"

Signing Kidd is like going to Wal Mart and buying their best all in one stereo system. Yeah it has every thing you want in a good system..you can do every thing you need to do with it..

But it's not gonna win a sound contest with a component system bought from an audio store and assembled piece by piece with every component selected with purpose.

Putting the rack system up against any single component of the component system, the rack system is gonna look and sound good..but when the component system is all put together it isn't even going to be a close contest.

And adding that all in one rack system as the amp of your component sytem is gonna make your high quality system sound like .

Maybe it's just me but his game is never gonna match up with a great half court team, it will win, it will be effective but it's never gonna win a contest.

To carry the analogy further..in this case we'd be paying 10 times as much for the all in one sound system from Wal Mart.

Actually since Kidd is 30 it'd be more like we are paying 10 times as much and buying it from good will.

Parker and Manu are here to stay, they need to be starting... and the veterans should be backing them up..not starting in front of them for gobs more money.

Maybe I'm wrong and this will all work out..and if so I am gonna have to eat a lot of crow but Kidd just isn't a half court player and the Spurs are championship half court team.

Oh and it's one of our tower speakers that needs replacing, not our amp

[MannyIsGod]

preface: I like any sane individual, want a YOUNG O'neal or Brand before Kidd.

I can't buy into the "If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It" argument, because the rest of the leauge IS fixing it, and we can't afford to stand pat.

Now, the natural progression of players like Jax and Manu should prevent us from standing pat no matter what we do, but still.

One thing I definetly don't understand, is when people say that bringing in Jason Kidd will hinder the development of Manu, Jax, and Parker. I STRONGLY disagree. The reason Kidd has been regarded as an MVP cantidate, is because he makes players BETTER. A backcourt of Manu/Kidd would be the most creative in the leauge, giving us an offense that would run very smoothly.

Imagine the Spurs, with defense just as good as it is now, but with an offense as powerful as Sacramentos. That is what you would have with a Jason Kidd addition to the Spurs. The strength of the Spurs is definetly defense, and that will not suffer greatly with a Kidd addition.

Can Tim Duncan survive in an offense with Jason Kidd. Are you kidding, OF COURSE HE CAN. He may get a few less touches in the post, but I guarntee those will be replaced by wide open dunks created by Jason Kidd. It would also be replaced by many wide open looks for the other players on the court. More scoring balance is not a bad thing, because if things aren't going well, you still have 4 down. This would create many more options on offense however, to back up the simple pick and roll and 4 down that has been our bread and butter for years.

The biggest question of course is who fills the void in the middle if Kidd comes. There are plenty of options, one being a sign and trade with claxton, another being using the limited cap space for a bigman.

I advocate Kidd as only a last resort, HOWEVER, I do not see at as a sign of doom if he does come. Great players find ways to play with each other and succeed, thats what makes them great. Both Duncan and Kidd are great, make no mistake about it, those 2 on the same team would be phenomanal, and calling a 2nd round exit based on a Kidd signing is VERY premature and shortsighted.

[Bounce580]

Were you satisfied with the perimeter offense last year? I, for one, think it was wildly inconsistent. From game to game, we were always wondering who was going to step up big. With Kidd, you don't really need to worry about that. You've got consistency in the post with Duncan, and you've got consistency in the backcourt with Kidd (who always leads to consistency from Jax/Parker/Manu).

Also (I forgot to mention this in my last post), how important is it to have a center in the league nowadays? If this were '94, with the Hakeems, Shaqs, Davids, Patricks, Alonzos, and Dikembes, then it would be pertinent. But who are the star centers in the league now? Shaq....maybe Yao in a few years. That's it. The game has gone the way of the power forward, and we're pretty solid there. Don't get me wrong, having O'Neal would be a of a luxury, but having a great center isn't a necessity anymore.

Jermaine O'Neal would form a near dominate frontcourt, but where do you see more of a problem? A young up and coming superstar (O'Neal) playing alongside the best player in the league, who shares his position. Or an "aging" (didn't he just turn 30?) guard who is at his best when he's deferring shots to teammates?

*disclaimer: I'm still for O'Neal before Kidd (not strongly, though), I'm just playing devil's advocate. But, I'd be ecstatic whether it was Kidd or O'Neal down here on the 16th.

[scott]

This thread is filled with a lot of great posts on both sides of the arguement, so I'm not going to bother adding my $.02 now.

I will, however, reiterate the same predictions I've had all along regard a Spurs with Jason Kidd.

1. We do not win the Midwest Division, and we fight our way to a 4 seed

2. Jason Kidd has a career low in assists (he already posted the lowest total since his rookie year last season)

3. Our defense goes from being a top 3 unit to a top 15 unit (middle of the pack)

4. Tony Parker lasts 10 games as a starting 2

5. Tim Duncan finishes out of the top 5 in MVP voting

6. We get swept by the Lakers/Kings in the playoffs

7. I start no less than 50 "Good thing we have Jason Kidd" threads

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Bounce,

You've got consistency in the post with Duncan, and you've got consistency in the backcourt with Kidd (who always leads to consistency from Jax/Parker/Manu).

The only thing the Nets offense consistently was with Kidd in the Finals was bogged down. The Spurs just wrote the book on how to stop Kidd in the half court, teams will have studied that tape forwards and backwards. And with Kidd not shooting worth a lick, he's a one trick pony. No thanks.

Also (I forgot to mention this in my last post), how important is it to have a center in the league nowadays? If this were '94, with the Hakeems, Shaqs, Davids, Patricks, Alonzos, and Dikembes, then it would be pertinent. But who are the star centers in the league now? Shaq....maybe Yao in a few years. That's it. The game has gone the way of the power forward, and we're pretty solid there. Don't get me wrong, having O'Neal would be a of a luxury, but having a great center isn't a necessity anymore.

And the other part of the PF thing is that you have to have weakside help with all the new hybrid zones. Further, teams are getting longer across the SF-PF-C part of their lineup, size is in.

Look at Phoenix - their shortest frontliner will be Marion at 6'8'. He's already got 3 inches on who will probably be our starting center (Malik) if we get Kidd. No thanks.

Sonics, Kings, Lakers, Mavs, Rockets, all will be sporting length across their entire front lines. We cannot hang with those teams inside with Malik at the center spot.

Jermaine O'Neal would form a near dominate frontcourt, but where do you see more of a problem? A young up and coming superstar (O'Neal) playing alongside the best player in the league, who shares his position. Or an "aging" (didn't he just turn 30?) guard who is at his best when he's deferring shots to teammates?

B. Does it matter that JO and TD both play PF? The Spurs don't play a traditional 1-2-3-4-5 offense. They play with two posts and three guards, so it doesn't matter who the two big men are as long as they're big.

As for Kidd, you're right - he's aging. He's only at his best when he's in transition, something SA showed how to shut down. And to top it all off on a defensive team like SA he'd be a huge liability against smaller guards. Parker and Speedy both had him for breakfast, get him to SA and you can start cueing the Marbury, Nash, Van Exel, Cassell, 'Dre Miller, Francis, etc. highlight films now.

AHF

[scott]

Also (I forgot to mention this in my last post), how important is it to have a center in the league nowadays?

Considering that the last 5 les have been won by a team with pretty good centers, I would say its fairly important.

[Bounce580]

I'm just saying that the league has gone the way of the PF, where as in the mid 90s, it was a center dominated league.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Bounce,

You're arguing semantics. C, PF, what difference does it make, they all feature a guy who tears people up on the block, and usually has some range too.

Did you not watch SA and LA win the last 5 championships? Being able to stop the easy buckets is a cornerstone to championship caliber defense.

We won't have it with Malik at center and Jason "Swiss Cheese" Kidd guarding quicker players on the wing.

AHF

[T Park Num 9]

I agree Aggie 120%


Kidd showed his supposed great D in the Finals against Speedy and T Park, and totally got burned.


Kidd's defense is pathetic.


NO ON KIDD!!!!!!!!!!!

[Marcus Bryant]

This team struggled to get any offense when opponents clamped down on Duncan in the playoffs. Some of you seem to have forgotten that. This team cannot afford to stand pat as some of you suggest. The criticisms I see of Kidd's game and how he would fit in SA border on the hysterical. Go ahead and delude yourselves into thinking that he would be a detriment to the Spurs going forward. I'm frankly tired of reading these weak ass takes. Go post those at you know where...that's where they belong.

[Jimcs50]

Marcus, you are out-voted, we are all wrong and you are right. Let us see if Pop agrees with you or the rest of us. Time will tell.

[MannyIsGod]

the thing is while kidd is not the the best option, he is also not a bad option like some of you make it out to be.

it has problems, but it also has many benifits, something people fail to acknowledge.

[SequSpur]

Kidd or Oneal is not a bad option. 2 of the best players in the NBA.....

[Ghost Writer]

"This team struggled to get any offense when opponents clamped down on Duncan in the playoffs." — MB

If you're counting on Kidd to create offense in the half-court in the playoffs, you're like a penny with a hole in it — hopeless.

"This team cannot afford to stand pat as some of you suggest." — MB

No one is suggesting that we stay pat. The logical thing to do is improve upon the one position we are losing from the championship rotation — the center spot.

"The criticisms I see of Kidd's game and how he would fit in SA border on the hysterical. Go ahead and delude yourselves into thinking that he would be a detriment to the Spurs going forward. I'm frankly tired of reading these weak ass takes. Go post those at you know where...that's where they belong." — MB

The reasons for Kidd hampering the current team from going forward are well-articulated in this thread, unlike your baseless take here.


The only way I endorse a Jason Kidd free agent signing is if Tony Parker is traded for a budding star in the front court.

You want Kidd? Fine. You better be prepared to break up a signifigant portion of the championship rotation. Seems like a lot of work to do just to accommodate one free agent signing.

I thought signing someone to the max was supposed to be a no-brainer.

If it's got this many people divided, I can't see it being the best thing for the team.

[Marcus Bryant]

Signing a run of the mill big is standing pat.

Yes, Kidd will improve the offense. Pop's not going to stick to 4Down like he had to with the current roster.

As for division among a bunch of armchair coaches that doesn't mean a damn thing...except that some of you are just a tad bit off. People complained bitterly when DA left, AJ, etc...