After catching the tail end of this game last night while at a steakhouse, I found myself wondering "what might have been." Had we acquired J. Kidd, how historic would the Mavs-Spurs matchups have been (when Nash was a Maverick)? Would Nash even be a Sun right now if we acquired Kidd and those two had to dual it out 4-5 times a season and for a crazy playoff series every year? Not discounting the history and rivalry we have built without them, but do you seriously think Cuban would have even thought of letting Nash go if we had Kidd and they put up these numbers (which they would have) consistently against each other? I think we nearly missed out on what could have been the third greatest rivalry in NBA history (third to Russell - Chamberlain and Magic - Bird)....
That's a very interesting question
However, Nash wouldn't have been the MVP he is today if he stayed in Dallas ; I've always thought he was a very unique point-guard when he was a Mav , and I was happy to see him go to Phoenix, because he wouldn't be the 2nd or 3rd option there
yes, but Nash-Dirk vs. Kidd-Duncan? That's fly as .
Ahh...the butterfly effect. TP would still be backup pt or traded. SAS would prob have the same number of championships, the Atlantic Div would be more wide open/compe ive& Beno would be working at HEB.
I was in favor of getting Kidd just because I thought the combination of Kidd-Parker-Ginobili would be unmatchable uptempo on both the offensive and defensive ends. Not to mention whatizname.
In retrospect, it probably would have hampered Parker's development. Still, Duncan-Kidd-Manu-TP and a flagpole could win 60 games.
TP would be gone. Traded somewhere. Kidd would take up a lot of money; I wonder if Manu would be gone. Kidd's low shooting percentage would hurt this team, but he's an undoubtedly great PG, and we would at least be standing where we are right now, if not better (pending Manu staying with SA).
to be quite honest would we have needed both? i think we could have been serviceable with one out of the two and our history of sweet-shooting role players. plus who's to say one or both wouldnt have wanted to stay, even w/o the near-max contract?
They wouldn't have had money to keep TP or Manu. Kidd makes more than both of them combined.
They would have to take minimum contracts to stay. Neither one of them is a minimum player even if you wanted to pay them less than they make now. (Or maybe if you had Duncan and Kidd, then you could have given Manu 3M a year and filled the rest of the roster with minimum contracts ... but I don't think Manu would take 3M).
As stated, you would never have been able to keep both, and with Kidd's contract, keeping even one would be in doubt, and then you're left with JKidd trying to space the floor for Duncan with his ugly jumper.I was in favor of getting Kidd just because I thought the combination of Kidd-Parker-Ginobili would be unmatchable uptempo on both the offensive and defensive ends.
The Eeyores keep saying "we couldn't have paid them woe woe woe".
I'm trying to imagine what would have been on the court.
We'd be older now.. and that's a bad thing.. Id prefer a 24 yr old Allstar over a 35 (?) yr old one
The Spurs are much better off w/ Parker.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
