Naive is thinking that NJ will be able to hold out for whatever they want to demand from SA. McGrady may not have been a star yet in Toronto but it was generally accepted that he would be once he got out from under Air Canada's shadow. Once a free agent makes up his mind then it's over for his old team should he decide to leave. That's the way it's been since the current CBA came into effect. The only reason Detroit got anything back for Hill was that Orlando couldn't bring back Wallace and Atkins because they needed the room for McGrady. As for Claxton I'm not saying the guy's a star but he isn't crap either. Ditto for Ginobili and Rose. As for the "favorites" next year in the west, it's amazing how injuries to other teams were never mentioned when LA won the title back in 2000, despite a less than stellar run.
That Laker team, just like the 02 Laker team, barely won the title as well. I don't remember key injuries in the playoffs that year. Portland, the preseason favorite and team that really had LA beat only to fold in game 7, had all their guns I believe. I think the Kings and Jazz were healthy too, and I thought the Spurs had TD and DR healthy as well by the playoffs. I think everyone generally acknowledges we were in for a good showdown in 2001 however until DA got knocked out of the playoffs--as with the Spurs this year (except the Spurs had major injuries to all three of the teams that might have been able to beat them), that 01 Lakers team that cruised got a big time break due to DA's injury. Though I and most others think the Lakers still would have won that year, it was a shame the chief rival sustained that injury in the semis. BTW I think Dirk or no Dirk--I strongly believe SA would have beaten Dallas. Now if neither Webber nor the Fox/George injuries happen--anybodies guess. But just like the Rockets in 93, 94, Lakers in 00 and 02, a titled earned is a titled earned regardless if the margin of error was small. Similarly just because SA had all its chief rivals lost key cogs as La lost a key cog to a rival in 01--those events don't diminish from a title per see. I just wouldn't count on such events repeating if I was the GM fortunate enough to take advantage--I'd do the best I can to ensure the follow year their is a bigger gap favoring my so I have a bigger margin for error. I'll end with a final analogy. What do you call the graduate who had the lowest marks upon graduating medical school? "Dr." Similarly, what do you call the most fortunate and probably weakest final team left standing in modern NBA history? "Champion" You can't take away the Champion titled from the Spurs until next year.
2000 = TD missing entire playoffs. Otherwise I agree about the champs being the champs until proven otherwise.
in 2001 derek anderson was not playing in the LA series (WCF) after he suffered a seperated shoulder against juwan howard and the mavs in the semis. in 2002 D. Rob missed the first round against seattle, and only played 1 or 2 games in the LA series, as he was goin in and out due to injury.
Naive is thinking you can get Scottie Pippen for Roy Rogers. That doesn't happen any more. Hakeem decided to leave the Rockets before the season ended in 01. But yet the rockets got a first round pick out of it. NJ won't get everything they want. NJ will demand Parker and Ginobli, SA will offer Claxton, they will compromise with Parker. And the Spurs are stealing Kidd in the deal anyway, if it actually goes down at all.
When a team has the cap room to sign a player outright then NJ won't be able to play that. Especially in the case of Kidd with NJ's reluctance to give that 7th year making their offer $5 mil greater than what SA can sign him for outright, before taxes and cost of living difference. It's only when a team is capped out or doesn't have the cap room to sign a player outright that a free agent's old team is able to make demands. And even then they aren't always going to get what they want. Look at what happened with the Spurs and Derek Anderson. The Spurs asked for Bonzi Wells, IIRC. Did they get Wells? No. Nothing has changed in the league since 1999 when it comes to these scenarios, except for the date.
Bonzi Wells for Derek Anderson was more or less a wash, neither is or was a franchise player. Tony Parker for the best PG in the universe is something else. We'll see, I'm betting against SA getting him for free but we'll see soon enough.
If I recall many Spurs fans said Steve Smith was an upgrade over DA and they were thrilled to have him. Regardless, he (Smith) was far more accomplished than Tony Parker plus DA was not JK caliber of player either--thus JK for just Parker smells 10x worse to the Nets/Nets fans than Smith for DA did to the Spurs/Spurs fans.
The major decision is Kidd's. If he says that he wants to be in SA then that's it for Nets fans. SA can sign him outright. I'm sure Nets fans understand that. As for the DA situation...it was basically up to the Spurs whether or not DA got paid anything above the MLE for 6 years. Yet they went along with it. Why? I would think it would look extremely bad to force a player out of that type of money. Yeah, the Spurs demanded Wells and then ultimately had to take what the capped out Blazers gave them.
OK then. Now you must explain why Kidd choose San Antonio over Dallas in that situation? If Dallas offers up Nash or NVE in a sign and trade, that's a hell of a lot better than Speedy Claxton (free agent Speedy Claxton, mind you). If the Nets aren't willing to put up Parker, it becomes Dallas plus a 7th year and 20-25 mill more vs. San Antonio at 6 years. As a comparison of the players around him (better team)... In San Antonio: Duncan, Parker, Bruce Bowen, Manu, and Malik Rose In Dallas: Dirk, Finley, Nash/NVE, Raef, Najera, Bradley, and quite possibly a Malone/PJ Brown/Mourning type If I'm Kidd, and Dallas gets Mourning, I ask where to sign on the dotted line.
Sure, the Nets would love for Kidd to say he wants to go to Dallas instead of SA if he did decide to leave. As for Dallas they have no one named Tim Duncan on that roster. No comparison to be made.
Kidd isn't going to stay in New Jersey. Lets get that off our chest. New Jersey is clearly the best team in the East but don't have a chance against the top five teams in the West (Spurs, Kings, Lakers, Dallas, Portland). Kidd will be a Spur or Mav starting next season. But which place is better for Kidd? Well, if he plays with Duncan it is almost certain he will win a championship with the Spurs. While Dallas is a talented team, I still think they were lucky this year. Dallas, played against a Portland team that was missing Pippen who is always a key component during the playoffs. Then Dallas, played a Webberless King's team. They were fortunate to get to the Western Conference Finals. As for Kidd, he can help both team but neither team is going to get that much better because of Kidd. Don't get me wrong I think Kidd is a Spur star but both team have pretty good point guards. Kidd's stock is really inflated right now cause he was playing in the East. Don't be fooled by the hype. Kidd is no better now then he was when he was playing for the Sun's. Same player but different hype. If Kidd's interest is championships, you have to pick the Spurs
The whole thing comes down to: 1) Does Kidd's wife accept living in SA and maybe hinder her "TV career" that will likely last about one more year. If Kidd's wife says no way Kidd stays in NJ. Indications are he may want to come and she may be the hangup. 2) If Kidd's wife gives him the okay, should the Spurs get accepted offers from both Kidd and O'Neal (or somehow but very doubtfully Brand), which one would the Spurs take. If they take O'Neal or Brand Kidd stays in NJ. 3) Possibly Kidd could want to go to Dallas and with Spurs offer in hand go back to Thorn and use the offer as leverage to force a S&T to Dallas, thereby screwing SA, his buddy Duncan and NJ. Spurs need to negotiate the deal so that Kidd doesn't have a window of opportunity to leverage a SA offer against NJ to end up going to Dallas. The thing that isn't going to happen, Spurs doing a S&T for Kidd where they give up significant talent: 1) A S&T could get him a seven year contract but this would yield him no, I repeat NO, more money because the last year of that contract he'd be over 36, and the way the CBA rules are written the contract payout would be prorated to yiled NO more money thn a six year deal. He'd actually lose money in a seven year deal as opposed to signing one for six and then another contract even for vet minimum for the seventh. 2) A S&T would delete talent from the Spurs and hurt his chances of getting a ring if he were to come to SA.
I'm really interested, where did you hear this? It's no where in the Coon FAQ (at least that I found), and a quick scan of the actual CBA found no clauses tied to age. Could you provide some sort of source for this?
There have been a couple of different articles detailing the "over 36 rule's" actaul mechanics and how you end up with the total compensation package. Here's an excerpt quoted from todays SA paper from the Spurs beat writer without the structural details. The Spurs are hoping Kidd and O'Neal feel the same way. Of the two, O'Neal figures to be the most difficult to lure because the Pacers can guarantee him about $30 million more than any other team. In Kidd's case, money likely won't be much of a factor. If the salary cap increases to $42 million, the Nets can offer a maximum deal of $99.3 million over six years because of the league's "Over 36" rules. The Spurs can offer $94.5 million over six years. Because New Jersey has a state income tax, Kidd might be able to net more money in San Antonio. link to article After tax advantages in Texas it's been calculated Kidd actually makes $600,000 more playing for six years in SA as opposed to seven years in NJ. Probably he makes more in endorsements staying in NJ than that additional $600,000 on as oppoed to endorsements he can get in sleepy little SA. And then there's his wife and her wishes to consider. She's said she'd move to Timbuktu if that's what it took for her man to get a ring but you know how wifes are. Don't know where you find it in Coon's site. They refer to as the "over 36 rule" though if he references that.
