Lakers trying to get Jason Kidd?

[Russ Smith]

Nets seriously considering Kidd-to-Lakers deal
Monday, Feb 12, 2007 1:18 pm EST

The New Jersey Nets are seriously considering a deal that would send All-Star point guard Jason Kidd to the Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers have offered two first-round draft picks and several expiring contracts, in return. Chris Mihm, Aaron McKie and Jordan Farmar have been mentioned, as has center Kwame Brown. Nets' center Jason Collins could also be involved.

Source: New York Post


Kind of interesting, the Nets have Marcus Williams so getting Farmar wouldn't make much sense unless they intend to trade him or Williams later?

Not sure Kidd fits the triangle either, usually they look for a PG that can make jumpers.

 

[abomb]

Nets seriously considering Kidd-to-Lakers deal
Monday, Feb 12, 2007 1:18 pm EST

The New Jersey Nets are seriously considering a deal that would send All-Star point guard Jason Kidd to the Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers have offered two first-round draft picks and several expiring contracts, in return. Chris Mihm, Aaron McKie and Jordan Farmar have been mentioned, as has center Kwame Brown. Nets' center Jason Collins could also be involved.

Source: New York Post


Kind of interesting, the Nets have Marcus Williams so getting Farmar wouldn't make much sense unless they intend to trade him or Williams later?

Not sure Kidd fits the triangle either, usually they look for a PG that can make jumpers.

Yeah, these rumors have been around for about a week now and arent dying down too much. I would hate to see Farmar go and losing a (eventually) healthy Kwame Brown puts the Lakers very lean with bigs.

 

[Suns_fan69]

If Jason Collins is around that'd be a decent consolation however. He's not fantastic but should be a more than capable backup for Bynum, even in the triangle.

Kidd may not have a consistent jumper but pairing him and Kobe scares me. I hope they don't pull this off.

 

[scoutmasterdave]

Kidd may not have a consistent jumper but pairing him and Kobe scares me. I hope they don't pull this off.

For some reason this doesn't scare me much. Having Kidd on the team takes the ball out of Kobe's hands a lot more, which is a good thing. Other team members may benefit, but in that offense Kidd's lack of a decent jumper would be exposed.

 

[Suns_fan69]

To be honest it's more on the defensive end. Nash vs Parker or Farmar on offense was a mismatch. With Kidd defending him he'll have to work much much harder on offense.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

From a defensive standpoint this would be a coup for the Lakers as their PG's are an aboslute mess on that end of the floor. However, I don't see how a guy like Kidd will fit into the triangle offensively. We saw a few years back with Gary Payton how a running point could not transform his game to fit that offense and I wonder if it will be the same with Kidd.


Jordan Farmar is going to be a damn good player in this league too but if I were him I'd be happy I was leaving the triangle. His skill set is a much better match for an up-tempo offense.

 

[Ryanwb]

Won't someone consider Smush Parkers feelings?

 

[Diawsome]

Nets seriously considering Kidd-to-Lakers deal
Monday, Feb 12, 2007 1:18 pm EST

The New Jersey Nets are seriously considering a deal that would send All-Star point guard Jason Kidd to the Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers have offered two first-round draft picks and several expiring contracts, in return. Chris Mihm, Aaron McKie and Jordan Farmar have been mentioned, as has center Kwame Brown. Nets' center Jason Collins could also be involved.

Translation: We will trade you our garbage for your all star.

 

[D-Dogg]

Why can't we move Smush instead of Farmar. I'd much rather have Kidd/Farmar than Kidd/Smush.

I'm not a big fan of this trade proposal for a declining Kidd. Meh. We are slumping hard right now, and it would be nice to suit up for a game with all five of our starters instead of three of them. Luke out seems to be hurting worse than when Lamar was out. Kidd won't fix that.

 

[Espo]

Why can't we move Smush instead of Farmar. I'd much rather have Kidd/Farmar than Kidd/Smush.

I'm not a big fan of this trade proposal for a declining Kidd. Meh. We are slumping hard right now, and it would be nice to suit up for a game with all five of our starters instead of three of them. Luke out seems to be hurting worse than when Lamar was out. Kidd won't fix that.

Because no one wants Smush parker. Farmar at least still has potential upside. Smush is a worthless role player on most teams.

 

[elindholm]

We are slumping hard right now, and it would be nice to suit up for a game with all five of our starters instead of three of them.

Yeah, that must really suck. Fortunately, as a Laker fan, you're programmed to intone that injuries are never an excuse for anything.

 

[D-Dogg]

Yeah, that must really suck. Fortunately, as a Laker fan, you're programmed to intone that injuries are never an excuse for anything.

They aren't. They happen, and you have to win through them.

And btw, there NEVER is any excuse for losing. The refs didn't do it, the injuries didn't do it. The only reason a team loses is because the players didn't play, or the Coach made bad decisions. That's it. You play through bad calls and someone steps up when there's an injury.

Right now, nobody is stepping up for the lakers and lamar looks braindead. That's the way it goes.

 

[D-Dogg]

Because no one wants Smush parker. Farmar at least still has potential upside. Smush is a worthless role player on most teams.

I know that...and I'm not a fan of the Kidd deal because it hurts our PG position after a couple of years of usefulness, and I don't think Kidd is the piece that puts the Lakers over the top so it is a move that hurts the team in the long run without giving it immediate gain.

 

[elindholm]

And btw, there NEVER is any excuse for losing. The refs didn't do it....

That's true in most cases, not all. The rules are in place to ensure a level playing field. The job of the officials is to enforce the rules. If they don't enforce the rules, it's not a fair competition.

Your position is that a superior team should be able to overcome an uphill playing field. Generally, that's true. But they should also be able to overcome, say, a two- or four-point handicap to start the game. Would it be fair for opponents of the Mavericks to be spotted a 4-0 lead before tipoff, since the Mavericks, as the league's best team, should be able to overcome it? No, of course not, even though the reality is that the Mavericks would overcome it nearly all of the time.

If someone cheats at golf and, because of it, claims a narrow victory, no one would say that the "losing" player "didn't deserve to win." The whole point of any contest is to perform as well as possible within the confines of the rules that define the contest.

If you don't understand this, you don't understand what rules are for.

 

[jenna2891]

That's true in most cases, not all. The rules are in place to ensure a level playing field. The job of the officials is to enforce the rules. If they don't enforce the rules, it's not a fair competition.

Your position is that a superior team should be able to overcome an uphill playing field. Generally, that's true. But they should also be able to overcome, say, a two- or four-point handicap to start the game. Would it be fair for opponents of the Mavericks to be spotted a 4-0 lead before tipoff, since the Mavericks, as the league's best team, should be able to overcome it? No, of course not, even though the reality is that the Mavericks would overcome it nearly all of the time.

If someone cheats at golf and, because of it, claims a narrow victory, no one would say that the "losing" player "didn't deserve to win." The whole point of any contest is to perform as well as possible within the confines of the rules that define the contest.

If you don't understand this, you don't understand what rules are for.

:golfclap:

 

[D-Dogg]

If you don't understand this, you don't understand what rules are for.

The rules of basketball are subject to the perception/view/angle of the ref making the call on the floor, in a split second. Honestly, as much as they suck they are damn good to catch everything they do.

Regardless, you play the game knowing the refs can play a hand in it. Case in point, in the NYK/LAL game the other night Curry barreling out of control runs over a planted Smush and tosses a prayer into the basket. No charge called, and would have been his 6th foul and basket wiped out. Moments later, Curry gets an alleyoop dunk for basically the win. REGARDLESS of how this went down, and that according to the rules of the game Curry should have been fouled out and his 4 points there not happen, the Lakers lost the game.

In fact, they had ample opportunity to still win it. Lamar proceeds to dribble 7 seconds off the clock and the only shot he can get off is a step-back, fadeaway 20 foot jumpshot that he airballed. Despite the poor officiating on the one particular play, it wasn't an excuse...the Lakers played through it and still put themselves in a position to win the game. Then players failed.

IF basketball officiating were perfect, then you'd have a point. But it is not; it is not even close. Just like tight rims, soft spots on the floor or obnoxious fans in the crowd, poor calls are just an element of the game that players must overcome, and must be prepared for. If you don't understand this, then you place too much faith in "rules."

 

[elindholm]

The rules of basketball are subject to the perception/view/angle of the ref making the call on the floor, in a split second. Honestly, as much as they suck they are damn good to catch everything they do.

Agreed.

REGARDLESS of how this went down, and that according to the rules of the game Curry should have been fouled out and his 4 points there not happen, the Lakers lost the game.

I'm not talking about charge/block calls, which are always subject to the judgment of the officials.

the Lakers played through it and still put themselves in a position to win the game. Then players failed.

Same as the Mavericks starting down 4-0. If they "play through it" and lose by two points, what does it tell you? That they outplayed their opponents by two points. Shouldn't that be good enough to win?

If you don't understand this, then you place too much faith in "rules."

All sports have lucky bounces. I'm talking about objective truths. Charge/block calls never fall into that category.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Nets seriously considering Kidd-to-Lakers deal
Monday, Feb 12, 2007 1:18 pm EST

The New Jersey Nets are seriously considering a deal that would send All-Star point guard Jason Kidd to the Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers have offered two first-round draft picks and several expiring contracts, in return. Chris Mihm, Aaron McKie and Jordan Farmar have been mentioned, as has center Kwame Brown. Nets' center Jason Collins could also be involved.

Source: New York Post


Kind of interesting, the Nets have Marcus Williams so getting Farmar wouldn't make much sense unless they intend to trade him or Williams later?

Not sure Kidd fits the triangle either, usually they look for a PG that can make jumpers.

i had this same debate with a lakers friend of mine the other day. though i think farmer has promise he's likely duplicative of marcus williams.

and i think kidd, though likely to improve the lakers, is the antithesis of the types of guards phil jax has paired with his mercurial scoring guards (jordan and kobe). typically the sidekick has taken one of two forms: the undersized shooting guard (paxson, bj armstrong, and derek fisher) or the big defensive guard (brian shaw, ron harper, aaron mckie). none of those was a pass-first push the pace point. it seems an unlikely marriage.

also, wasn't vecsey the one to break this story? doesn't that rob it of all validity?

 

[D-Dogg]

REGARDLESS of how this went down, and that according to the rules of the game Curry should have been fouled out and his 4 points there not happen, the Lakers lost the game.

I'm not talking about charge/block calls, which are always subject to the judgment of the officials.

I contend that all calls are subject to the "judgement" of the officials because they have to actually "see" the breaking of the rule before they call it (even if it is a clear rule, they can't call it unless they see it). In the example I'm sure you are thinking about, the ref is looking at Walton's arms on Nash trying to see if it is a clean play or a foul, and misses his foot on the line (for a split second that it was there). May not be a "judgement call" in the sense of whether that is illegal or not, but a judgement on where to look at the play. Refs are imperfect and mistakes will be made. As I've also mentioned, directly following that, the Lakers still had to score twice to win the game, and the Suns had chances to stop them. Playing through blown calls comes with the territory, and yes it does suck. Just as playing through injuries comes with the territory, and sucks just as hard.

Same as the Mavericks starting down 4-0. If they "play through it" and lose by two points, what does it tell you? That they outplayed their opponents by two points. Shouldn't that be good enough to win?

You bring up some interesting points in this example, but you arbitrarily spot the opponent 4 points to start the game. That's a bit different than a couple of blown calls in the course of a game that, frankly, all teams expect to have take place. Though it would never happen because teams aren't spotted arbitrary points, it is an interesting way to look at a result and I can see how you can relate the spotted points to points from blown calls in a game. I see where you are going with it, but I don't quite agree. "Good enough to win" means you not only outplayed the other team, but all the other elements as well (injury, illness, obnoxious fans, crowd noise, bad calls, tight rims, new nets, poor confidence, turnovers, whatever). You don't only play another team in basketball, you play the venue, which includes the refs.

Is it an excuse for a warm weather football team going into, say Chicago in the snow and losing and blaming it on the weather? You prepare, and adjust.

 

[D-Dogg]

i

also, wasn't vecsey the one to break this story? doesn't that rob it of all validity?

Wow, very good point. Especially after TJ Simers basically called him out for parroting a fan blog in an article.

 

[Gee!]

I would love to see this happen.. Imagine the kind of dirt Jomanna could undercover in the lakers locker room! woohoo!

this has disaster written all over it..

 

[elindholm]

In the example I'm sure you are thinking about, the ref is looking at Walton's arms on Nash trying to see if it is a clean play or a foul, and misses his foot on the line (for a split second that it was there).

That is one of the cases I was thinking about. I disagree with your broad definition of "judgment." A "judgment" call is when you look at it on the replay and think, "Well, yeah, that probably should have gone the other way." An objective call is when you see the replay and say, "Whoops, they sure missed that one."

An NBA game could have fifty referees working it, and there would still be debate over block/charge calls. There wouldn't be debate about awarding a jump ball to someone standing out of bounds.

As I've also mentioned, directly following that, the Lakers still had to score twice to win the game, and the Suns had chances to stop them.

Yes, and as I've mentioned, giving the trailing team "do-overs" until they finally get it right isn't something the winning team should be expected to overcome.

You bring up some interesting points in this example, but you arbitrarily spot the opponent 4 points to start the game. That's a bit different than a couple of blown calls in the course of a game that, frankly, all teams expect to have take place.

Now you're just being obstinate. It's not arbitrary, it's illustrative.

Earlier this season, there was a scoring error in an NBA game where some team wound up with two points more or less than they should have. (I can't remember the details, but I think one of the teams was the Raptors.) It directly affected the outcome of the game and the league was forced to apologize for the error.

Similiar issues show up in other sports. In a women's match at Wimbledon a couple of years ago, lost by one of the Williams sisters (Venus, I think), the chair umpire zoned out and awarded an extra point in a tiebreaker to the other player. This was an outright, objective error that significantly changed the course of the match.

Or, in men's gymnastics at the last summer Olympics, a clerical error led to a routine being scored too low. The victim ended up with the silver medal instead of the gold that, by correct scoring, he would have earned. Now, this is a ******** sport in which all scores are subjective and can be debated endlessly, but wouldn't you agree that this kind of mistake is in a completely different category?

"Good enough to win" means you not only outplayed the other team, but all the other elements as well

That's lovely, but I have news for you. By that standard, there are many games in which neither team is "good enough to win." And yet, someone wins. Should those games still be decided fairly, as much as is possible, or should the victory be handed to the inferior team, because their opponents cannot claim to have met your "good enough to win" standard?

Is it an excuse for a warm weather football team going into, say Chicago in the snow and losing and blaming it on the weather? You prepare, and adjust.

This isn't even close to analogous and you know it.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I contend that all calls are subject to the "judgement" of the officials because they have to actually "see" the breaking of the rule before they call it (even if it is a clear rule, they can't call it unless they see it). In the example I'm sure you are thinking about, the ref is looking at Walton's arms on Nash trying to see if it is a clean play or a foul, and misses his foot on the line (for a split second that it was there). May not be a "judgement call" in the sense of whether that is illegal or not, but a judgement on where to look at the play. Refs are imperfect and mistakes will be made. As I've also mentioned, directly following that, the Lakers still had to score twice to win the game, and the Suns had chances to stop them. Playing through blown calls comes with the territory, and yes it does suck. Just as playing through injuries comes with the territory, and sucks just as hard.



You bring up some interesting points in this example, but you arbitrarily spot the opponent 4 points to start the game. That's a bit different than a couple of blown calls in the course of a game that, frankly, all teams expect to have take place. Though it would never happen because teams aren't spotted arbitrary points, it is an interesting way to look at a result and I can see how you can relate the spotted points to points from blown calls in a game. I see where you are going with it, but I don't quite agree. "Good enough to win" means you not only outplayed the other team, but all the other elements as well (injury, illness, obnoxious fans, crowd noise, bad calls, tight rims, new nets, poor confidence, turnovers, whatever). You don't only play another team in basketball, you play the venue, which includes the refs.

Is it an excuse for a warm weather football team going into, say Chicago in the snow and losing and blaming it on the weather? You prepare, and adjust.

i think you're missing his point (or at least the point that i find salient in this argument). i don't think he's arguing about a single blown call. i think he's arguing about the concept of officials swallowing their whistles come playoffs. that's essentially not enforcing the rules. and that does favor one team over the next. it favors the team that decides to break the rules (physical play is the best example - according to the rulebook the knicks of old would likely have fouled out for the remainder of their careers in half a season) and because the officials have decided to call the game that way, that team gets to break the rules with impunity. now you could say that as long as both teams get the benefit of whistle swallowing it's an even playing field. but that's not the case. not when one team is purposefully built to succeed in compliance with the rules while the other team takes advantage of poor, if consistent, officiating.

 

[elindholm]

i don't think he's arguing about a single blown call. i think he's arguing about the concept of officials swallowing their whistles come playoffs. that's essentially not enforcing the rules.

This is also a serious problem, but in fact I am talking about specific, individual blown calls at the moment.

 

[D-Dogg]

There wouldn't be debate about awarding a jump ball to someone standing out of bounds.

But they would actually have to SEE it. Refs miss things, it happens. It sucks, but it happens.

You bring up some interesting points in this example, but you arbitrarily spot the opponent 4 points to start the game. That's a bit different than a couple of blown calls in the course of a game that, frankly, all teams expect to have take place.

Now you're just being obstinate. It's not arbitrary, it's illustrative.

No, I'm not. There is a difference it saying you are spotting another team 4 points, and having bad calls in a game lead to 4 additional points. The team is prepared for the latter. If the Mavs agreed to that type of spotting of points and lost by 2, then no, they weren't good enough to win because that is part of the elements they were facing. Just as they know going in that bad calls could break their way, or the opponents way and they either need to overcome them or capitalize on them. It is a fact of the game that bad calls happen and teams MUST prepare.

Earlier this season, there was a scoring error in an NBA game where some team wound up with two points more or less than they should have. (I can't remember the details, but I think one of the teams was the Raptors.) It directly affected the outcome of the game and the league was forced to apologize for the error.

Similiar issues show up in other sports. In a women's match at Wimbledon a couple of years ago, lost by one of the Williams sisters (Venus, I think), the chair umpire zoned out and awarded an extra point in a tiebreaker to the other player. This was an outright, objective error that significantly changed the course of the match.

Or, in men's gymnastics at the last summer Olympics, a clerical error led to a routine being scored too low. The victim ended up with the silver medal instead of the gold that, by correct scoring, he would have earned. Now, this is a ******** sport in which all scores are subjective and can be debated endlessly, but wouldn't you agree that this kind of mistake is in a completely different category?

Yes, those are all in a completely different category because scorekeeping is supposed to be precise. Those are unfortunate, and are definitely gripe-worthy events (but are also uncommon).

"Good enough to win" means you not only outplayed the other team, but all the other elements as well

That's lovely, but I have news for you. By that standard, there are many games in which neither team is "good enough to win." And yet, someone wins. Should those games still be decided fairly, as much as is possible, or should the victory be handed to the inferior team, because their opponents cannot claim to have met your "good enough to win" standard?

How so? One team handled the totality of the game better than the other. It actually flows into my example of the weather elements being in play in a football game that you don't feel fits in the discussion. The totality of the game is what determines winning and losing. Not simply the skill of one team or another. Why do teams want to get home court advantage in the playoffs? To tilt the balance of the elements in their favor. Why do people cringe when a certain ref is calling their game if they feel he shows bias against them? Because the balance of the elements are changing. The game is about much more than who puts more points on the board...it is how those points are scored and how the team overcomes/captializes on the totality of the game to score them.