From what I recall, the Magic worked the deal with Wallace and Atkins for Hill because there was not any cap room for them to be resigned in Orlando with Hill and McGrady on the way. When a team has cap flexibility like the Spurs do they don't have to start giving up talent to faciliate sign and trades like capped out teams do. New Jersey can place demands on a team like Dallas but not SA.
Just like some articles already mentioned, if Kidd wants to leave, New Jersey would prefer him heading Dallas with a sign & trade so they can get something in return e.g. Steve Nash. I doubt kidd would like to go to San Antonio just because of a ring... San Antonio just won a championship & if kidd joins them next season & ended up short of that, the pressure will be all on Kidd. Even if San Antonio do get another title... Kidd won't get much credit anyway because of Duncan.
If Kidd wants to take the six extra million to stay in mediocrity forever, then thats his choice. Some people just want to be losers, and theres nothing you can do to change it. Sure, i can see the spurs giving up Speedy, since they probably wont be able to keep him anyway. however, it would be a pretty dumb move to give up Parker, who still has a couple (really cheap) years on his contract. oh yeah, and theres the shooting thing.
Actually Kidd and his agent can place demands on any team that wants him, he has the power over every team involved--including SA. Asking SA to do what it takes to get him the max contract via S&T before agreeing in principal to go there is quite a reasonable thing for him to do. No matter how much cap room or cap flexibility the bottom line is Kidd can't get the full contract he has earned unless he just resigns with NJ or NJ helps facillitate a S&T, it is a whole lot more sensitive a subject than SA just telling Jason and his agent "forget the extra million bucks a year, you don't really need it anyway and we want Tony around for when you are all washed up." As SamFisher has said--there isn't a whole lot of presedent for players taking less money just so their new team can have more trade bait and more cap room--if SA/Kidd/his agent pulls this off that is a major exception to how things work in professional sports. It isn't like SA took Kidd when he was a project and noone else would where there might be any favors owed to them--JK is the best PG in the league and the best player in the whole FA market--SA has to show him the best faith they can because there are other good teams/situations that surely also will.
I sure hope the SA front office is as arrogant and aloof as KeepKenny--that would be one way for SA to flame out on the big time FAs they are now in a position to get and for the Rockets to catch their division rivals sooner rather than later.
I don't think McGrady was an s-n-t, could be wrong though. But he's the only one I can think of. But he hadn't really shown much yet either to get the max. But if it's only a 6 mil difference, that's different. That sorta screws NJ.
And it wouldn't be arrogant or aloof of Jason Kidd to demand that San Antonio trades Parker in order for him to get a bit more money? Once again, a s&t is a viable option, but it would be foolish for them to just give away Parker, as you have suggested.
TMac was a sign and trade, it was just a future first round pick, though. NJ can also give him the 7th year (be it outright, or if they cooperate in a sign and trade. Thus, it comes 20-25 mill extra over one more year. This is a key difference- Kidd's 30ish, and this is probably his last contract, unless he finds some Stockton longevity and stays a couple extra years afterwards. McGrady was what, 22? McGrady, like KG, will sign another high dollar, long term deal after this one's through, thus the 6/7 year thing was no big deal. In fact, TMac threatened signing for low money elsewhere, which he could do, simply because was basically as old as a college senior. Kidd's already in the midst of his prime, this is it for him in terms of being highly desirable free agent. MrSpur- It makes no sense for NJ to take Speedy Claxton. Claxton is a marginal guard. You better be ready to give up Tony Parker, because even if Kidd decides to leave NJ, would he really choose San Antonio a 6 years and 20 mill less vs. Dallas at 7 years and 20 mill more in a sign and trade? If you think he would, you're joking yourself. Further, San Antonio simply doesn't have enough talent to really negotiate anything else. They added another future first to their arsenal (via Phoenix), but that team is really Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and veterans- the rest are a bunch of very limited players. Re: the Hill/Wallace/Magic/Pistons situation- there was money to resign Wallace, they just chose to use it on Bo Outlaw instead.
6 million over 90 million, 20 million over 90 million, not to mention on top of endorsements, at that point money/contract is more symbollic (am I getting what I should because other guys who I can kick there ass get that much) than meaningful anyway. Arrogant, somewhat perhaps, but Jason Kidd is the best PG in the league and the most desirable FA out there and thus in control of the situation. Unless he feels fully respected by the Spurs why should he go there--just for trying for a ring as a 2nd fiddle when he came pretty close to getting one being the guy on a good young franchise doing everything they can to keep him? It is the Spurs that are trying to recruit him and make him feel wanted. If they won't send some little newby PG who I just schooled and who barely was on the court in the 4th quarter of the NBA finals so that I get my full contract I might not feel fully respected. KeepKenny--I don't think you realize how horrible of a trade Parker for Kidd is from the Nets perspective--better than nothing but still horrible, if SA gets in a position for this offer they should not flinch.
NIKEstrad, there is some contention on this point. Some are saying because Kidd would be like 37 or 38 at the end of his contract the CBA prevents him from getting the full 7 year deal with NJ that J. Oneal will get from Indiana for instance (whether he is kept or S&Ted. I know you are pretty on top of such matters, can you confirm/reject? TIA
Yup, Kidd and his agent hold all the cards. if SA wants Kidd, they are going to have make a show of good faith by sucking up the extra 6 million it will take to match NJ's offer and by clearing out Parker, who NJ would likely demand. The days of Roy Rogers for Scottie Pippen are over. How do you think Houston managed to get a first round pick for Olajuwon when he had all but severed his ties with the team anyway? That's one of the reasons why the Webber sweepstakes never materialized, Sacramento offered him the most money and he made the most prudent financial decisioin. Jermaine O'Neal has alos apparently decided to stay in Indy as well, despite their uncertainty. Kidd will be advised to do the same thing. That would be a good deal for the spurs. I don't care how young parker is, if somebody offers you Jason Kidd for him straight up and you don't do it you're insane.
Tim Duncan already stated that he'll prefer a bigman addition to take over Robinson's spot instead of a point guard... why the hell do they need the best point guard in the game? They already proved they can win a championship with Parker so why tinkering with their chemistry? Tony Parker isn't doing a shabby job. He out played Kidd several games in the finals & he's only going to get better. Besides, he's much cheaper than Kidd... SA should try to help Duncan out by fill their hole in the middle as the first priority, especially in the western conference - bigman rules!
mavs will get zo and lure jason kidd to come home. Cuz marc cuban can do a SND with nash. AND besides getting money he will give his wife a good job for working for his broadcasting station. ANd a bad ass locker with games. Why go to san antonio they don't nned kidd to win it already proved it. Go to dallas and be the guy that put the team over the mountain
Why didn't Toronto get more for McGrady than a pick? Nothing's changed. If a free agent decides on a new team then that's it. Sure, the Nets would like to get back a Parker in that scenario but they're not the ones calling the shots. Regarding Webber, the team(s) he wanted to go to didn't have the cap flexibility to sign him straight up. As for Claxton a number of teams seem to think he's something other than "marginal".
Did I not give you the reason in my first post? First, people thought Orlando overpaid for TMac- nicknames like "TMax" etc. He was a 15 ppg scorer, anda huge gamble that has obviously paid off. Second, TMac held more leverage than Kidd- he had/will have another 90-100+ mill contract after this one because of his age. This is Kidd's only real chance to cash in, and you better believe that 20-25 mill will make a huge difference. Please show me the teams just clamoring for Claxton. Teams are talking about him for the 1.5 vets exception, or maybe a small part of the MCE. Yep, Denver is going to go sign hm to a 50 mill contract, forget Miller, Arenas, or even Kenny Anderson or Tyronn Lue. Claxton is a 6-0 guard who's more 2 than 1, and his last name isn't Iverson. He's a decent 3rd or 4th guard, who could start in a pinch, but not much more. Again, I think the Spurs have a VERY good shot at getting Kidd, but if they're not willing to put up Parker in sign and trade (and NJ would be dumb to accept any less), what makes you think he'll take San Antonio over Dallas plus an extra year and 20-25 million? That's simply naive. Desert Scar- I have not heard that, and I can't imagine the players association allowing such a clause into the CBA. Look at Hakeem- his deal was for 4 years (or 3?) at a pretty advanced age. I think that'd be something that would be decided by the team. The reason for the limits on contracts was to avoid Magic Johnson situations (he signed a $25 mill, 25 year contract as a rookie). I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any limitation based on a player's age. If anything, the CBA supports longevity (age) by forcing higher minimums (and higher maximums) and the league even pays a portion of the salary of a veteran signed for the minimum to adjust for difference in "minimum" based on experience.
The "staying with chemistry" theme really worked great for the Rockets in 95 before the Drexler trade, the Rockets in 96, and the Lakers last year. If you are not improving, you are basically getting worse because the rest are getting better. And it isn't like the Spurs runs were as dominant as the Lakers in 01--the Spurs needed 6 games in every series, rarely dominanted from start to finish, and all the other teams they faced had major injuries except NJ. The Spurs earned the titled, but a ton went their way (ture for the Rockets 94 and 95 titles as well) and I guarantee you a complacent attitude will not get them back. Normally I would agree with you, that other big man should be priority #1. But there is only one A quality big man URFA, and it is quite remote Oneal won't sign with Indiana or do a S&T because of the extra 20-30 million, plus he isn't quite ideal for the Spurs anyway because his strengths are a lot like TDs except he obviously isn't as polished. The only other A quality FA is Kidd, who the Spurs do have a good chance at landing and where their current PG position is weaker than most of their playoff competitors. Do you go for the only A quality player you have a great chance at or overpay for a B quality player at your most needed position (B Miller, Kandi or Rasha)? If I were them I'd go for Kidd and then a PJ Brown or something like that, before going for B. Miller (cost them at least 9 mil per year) and perhaps Payton or Reggie Miller with whats left. I guess neither option is that bad--but I think you got to go for the best player that is realistic--and that guy is Kidd, and then take the rest to fill other spots.
If Parker is the stumbling block that keeps the Spurs from getting Kidd, they are just plain dumb, especially if he goes to Dallas. The status quo for San Antonio was just good enough to get them past a depleted Dallas team w/o Nowizitski and did not have to deal with Sacramento or an injured Webber, and to get them a 6 game victory over an overmatched Nets team. The only team that SA established themselves as better than, and by that I mean "we won't need to worry about them next year if they stay the same and we stay the same, ceterus paribus" was the Lakers, but if Shaq loses weight and they get payton than even this becomes questionable. It's like what D-Scar said, the Rockets 96 team was, for all intents and purposes, the same as the champion 95 team that whipped the leagues best teams in the playoffs, but they never had put together a squad that could beath Seattle and Hakeem was not able to reach the same transcendant level of the prior two years, so they got run in 4 that year. Then they went out and added Barkley, and got through Seattle. Kidd is just better than Parker. Much, much, much better. They should be grateful that he's all they will cost him.
Unlike the Lakers or Rockets example, the Spurs can stay idle with their main roster & improve next season because they are a talented young team... players such as Parker, Gino, Jackson & Claxton (if they sign him) will improve & team chemistry will also improve... no need to mention the championship experience they had together this year will be a big plus. Can't u see the potential? Even if they got some luck going their way for the title... so what! they can prove everybody wrong again with a more experienced, deeper roster next season... Normally I would agree with you, that you go for the only A quality player if you have a chance. But hey, the Spurs just won a championship for god's sake, don't mess with it till proved otherwise. It's not like they are one piece away & need some tinkering with their roster e.g. Dallas. Point guard position is not their main weakness & Parker is doing a good job. Didn't you saw him outplayed Kidd several games in the finals? Just like Duncan said, and I think he meant it, that the first priority should be a center to fill Robinson's hole, you get the feeling that the MVP dosn't like to play center & bang with Shaq, & the first priority of the Spurs organization is to keep Duncan happy... Again, big man rules, that's why the east with elite guards will never get past the west's giant front line... If they can't get an elite big man this year... can't they sign up a veterian for 1 year to temporarily fill the spot (e.g. a mourning or malone) & save the money till next year where they might have a chance at Garnet?
CRC, with Duncan about to resign this offseason I think this is SAs only chance to land an A quality player except via trade. Yes Parker had 2 good games I think, but in many of the critical games the journeymen Claxton and Kerr were relied on. People also seem to forget how atrocious he was in half the games--including all versus Phx. If you starting PG is even close to elite level that should not happen--you don't see even 2nd tier guys like Nash and Bibby not in the game in critical junctures. Parker has fine talent--but he has a ways to go as a proven steady playoff caliber PG. I would not pin my hopes on him if I were the Spurs if a sure thing like Kidd was out there. Now having Payton there for 2 years or so would lessen my concern. Also, remember Dirk was injured, Webber was injured, Fox and George were injured while Horry finally ran out of gas. Shaq and Kobe will be back, maybe with a healthier more inspired version of both, Sac will be loaded again, and with Mourning or malone Dallas might get that interior toughness they need. As with the Rockets in 94-95--the gap between the champion and rest is razor thin, shoot the young lEastern Conference team gave the Spurs all they can handle. If the Spurs stand pat next year they may easily find themselves out of the playoff by the semis and they have blown their chance for adding a long term fixture to help Duncan (be it Kidd, Oneal, or possibly Brand, Hamilton, B. Miller, Arenas, etc.). Now GP or B Miller or Kandi (at least get a decent center for many years) would not be bad--but don't mistake that for missing out on a Kidd or Oneal caliber of player. I have to disagree with you Sam here. The Lakers also had an injured Fox and George, a finally limpless Horry, and an overwait uninspired Shaq--and still were a rimmed out 3 from having 2 games to close out the Spurs in the semis. Also, Kobe has hasn't turned 25 yet. Just a little better health, hunger, and some lineup tweeks with a Brown/Howard, a Payton, maybe a veteran mimimum signing of Barry, Peeler or Piatowski off the bench--that team is the favorite next year over SA or anyone IMO.
