Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Teams looking to trade for Jason Kidd (Insider)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Teams looking to trade for Jason Kidd (Insider)

    http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/columns...had&id=1940340


    By Chad Ford
    ESPN Insider

    THE CONTENDERS

    Minnesota Timberwolves

    The deal: Sam Cassell and Wally Szczerbiak for Kidd.
    The other deal: Cassell and Latrell Sprewell for Kidd and Mourning.
    The three-way deal: Cassell and Szczerbiak to Portland; Kidd and Mourning to the Wolves and Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Ervin Johnson and Sebastian Telfair to the Nets.

    For: The Timberwolves have been after Kidd since this summer. They were one of the only teams willing to make a trade before seeing Kidd make a successful return from surgery.

    The first deal gives the Nets two players for the price of one. Put Cassell on the floor with Szczerbiak and Richard Jefferson and you have plenty of offense.

    Deal 2 gives the team about $14 million in cap relief (Spree is off the books at the end of the season) but little else. The team likely would release Spree. He's unhappy in Minnesota. Can you imagine how he'd react going to the Nets?

    In either case, the Nets would move Cassell to a third team. He wants a big contract extension (he won't get in New Jersey) and wants to play for a contender.

    The best option for the Nets is a three-way with Minnesota and Portland. The Wolves would send Cassell and Szczerbiak to Portland and Johnson to the Nets, the Blazers would send Abdur-Rahim and Telfair to Nets and the Nets would send Kidd and Mourning to Minnesota.

    Got all of that?

    That move would give the Nets around $18 million in cap room to work with next summer and they'd have their young point guard of the future in Telfair. The Wolves move closer to a championship. A combo of Kidd, KG, Spree, Eddie Griffin and 'Zo and Michael Olowokandi is as good or better than what the Spurs have. The Blazers also get better. They get a good point guard and Szczerbiak, whom they've coveted all summer. That should be enough to push them back into the playoffs in the West.

    Against: There are problems with all three deals.

    The first one fails to give the Nets any sort of cap relief. While the combo of Cassell, Jefferson and Szczerbiak would be potent, the team still has done nothing to help their frontcourt or salary-cap woes.


    In 2002, Abdur-Rahim (left), Kidd and Mourning (standing) were All-Star teammates. Could they soon be involved in a blockbuster trade?
    The second one gives them cap relief, on Spree's deal, but then leaves them with an unhappy Cassell.

    The third one depends on how you view Abdur-Rahim and Telfair. If you think Telfair is the next great thing at point guard and Abdur-Rahim is an underrated four, this deal probably looks great to you. If you think Telfair is overhyped and that Abdur-Rahim is a loser, it suddenly doesn't look so hot.

    Insider Verdict: The three-way deal with Portland and Minnesota is the only one that really satisfies what the Nets are after. It gives the team enormous cap room, a young prospect at the point and the ability to re-sign Abdur-Rahim if he fits in with what Frank is doing. While it isn't perfect, it might be the most realistic option out there for the Nets if Portland is willing to drop its pursuit of Vince Carter to do the deal.

    Dallas Mavericks

    The deal: Jason Terry, Marquis Daniels and Alan Henderson for Kidd and Mourning.

    For: It's no secret that Mavs owner Mark Cuban has coveted Kidd for a while. He made a serious pitch to Kidd two summers ago when the guard made his free-agent tour but eventually came up empty when the Nets refused to do a sign-and-trade.

    Would they be interested now? The Mavs have a ton of assets to use in a trade and an owner that won't gag at the amount of financial risk he has to take.

    Terry is a young point guard whose contract expires after the 2005-06 season. Daniels is signed to a long-term deal, but given the talent he's shown over the last year with the Mavs, he could be a bargain. Henderson's contract expires after the season, giving the Mavs $8.2 million in cap relief.

    Kidd and Mourning give the Mavs instant credibility in the West. They have looked solid this year at every position but the point. With the ball in Kidd's hands, the Mavs would be even money with the Spurs to make it to the NBA Finals.

    That's what Cuban is after, and Kidd might be the only player on the market who could deliver.

    Against: That said, will Cuban do the deal? He balked at signing Steve Nash to a lucrative six-year, $60 million offer because of Nash's age and durability. Kidd is older, less durable and makes more money.

    The deal also has pitfalls for the Nets.

    While Terry is great scorer, he isn't much of a point guard. The fact that he was beaten out by the rookie Devin Harris should be your first clue. Daniels has the chance to be special, but will he fit the Nets' style of play? Henderson gives some cap relief and some help at the four, but getting his contract off the books won't be enough for the Nets to make a serious free-agent play next summer.

    The Nets would have to wait until the summer of 2006, when Terry comes off the books, before they'd have enough cap room to make a big splash with free agents.

    Insider Verdict: If the Nets can't work out something with Portland and Minnesota for a three-way deal, working out something with Dallas is probably their next best option. Daniels is a very good prospect, Henderson gives some serious cap relief next year and Terry would give them great flexibility in 2006. I also think this is the best fit for Kidd. The Mavs aren't giving up too much depth here and should give Kidd his best shot at an NBA title.

    THE LONG SHOTS

    Golden State Warriors

    The deal: Mickael Pietrus, Speedy Claxton, Cliff Robinson and Dale Davis for Kidd and Mourning.

    For: The Nets are looking for young players and expiring contracts, and they get both here. Claxton and Pietrus would form a nice young, athletic backcourt to put alongside Jefferson. They are both signed to small contracts yet have big upsides, especially Pietrus. Robinson and Davis are both in the last years of their contracts and would help clear $16 million off the payroll next summer, giving the Nets around $12 million in cap room for 2005 free agents.

    It's also a slam dunk for the Warriors. GM Chris Mullin has been trying to turn around the culture of the Warriors – so far, to no avail. Adding Kidd changes everything. Remember what Kidd did with a young, underachieving team in New Jersey when he got there? Also, remember that Kidd is from the Bay Area and would be a huge draw for the Warriors.

    The Warriors could put together a starting five – Kidd, Jason Richardson, Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy and Adonal Foyle – that could make some noise in the West and permanently dissolve the stench the Warriors have made over the past decade.

    Against: The Warriors aren't on Kidd's short list of teams he's willing to play for. He's asked the Nets to trade him to a contender, and the Warriors don't qualify. That doesn't mean that Kidd would veto a trade to Golden State, but it would take some convincing.

    It's also a major risk for the Warriors. If Kidd gets reinjured, they're screwed. Given the curse that has hung over the franchise the past decade, that doesn't sound far fetched.

    Insider Verdict: This is a good deal for the Nets if they can get Kidd and the Warriors to agree. They get young players to develop in the backcourt, including one potential star in Pietrus. They also get the cap room to go out and pursue a decent four or five in free agency next summer. Factor in the three extra first-round picks they acquired this summer and the Nets have a great foundation to build on.

    Denver Nuggets

    The deal: Andre Miller, Marcus Camby and Nikoloz Tskitishvili for Kidd and Mourning.

    For: If the Nets were to decide that rebuilding wasn't the way to go, the Nuggets could be an interesting option. They have a starting point guard, a starting center and a young seven-footer whose salaries match Kidd and Mourning's.

    Kenyon Martin
    Does Martin hear the arrival of a trade bringing buddy Kidd to Denver?
    A combo of Miller, Camby, Jefferson and Jason Collins could be a playoff team. If Camby could stay healthy and Skita could give them real minutes, it might be an improvement for the team. The Nets would still have issues at the two spot and the four, but they do have draft picks that could help lighten the load there.

    Kidd would also be a godsend to the Nuggets. The team has struggled this season and needs a more vocal leader than Miller. They also want to run, and there's no better fast- break point guard than Kidd. Nene could immediately move into the starting center position with Mourning providing support off the bench. The only thing a trade like this doesn't address is that gaping hole at the two-guard position for the Nuggets. The team needs a shooter, and Kidd isn't it.

    Against: Do the Nets just want to be average? It seems like this trade could propel to the Nets back into the playoffs, but how far would they really go? If the answer is anything other than the Finals, why not keep Kidd and have the same result?

    If the Nuggets were to give up Nene as well, then you'd have to say that this was the best trade available for the Nets. But the Nuggets can't afford to do that. It would gut the team, leaving them too vulnerable in the middle. For the Nuggets to make a serious run in the West, they'd need either Nene or Camby. Unfortunately for the Nets, the deal doesn't work under the CBA if you substitute Nene for Camby.

    Insider Verdict: Kidd would love to be reunited with the Kenyon Martin in Denver. He'd love to lob passes to Carmelo Anthony and Nene in the paint. In fact, the Nuggets, according to sources, are his first choice. But the trade makes no sense for the Nets without Nene in the deal, and from what I can gather, the Nuggets aren't budging on their refusal to include Nene in this trade.

    Seattle SuperSonics

    The deal: Ray Allen, Luke Ridnour and Jerome James for Kidd and Mourning.
    The other deal: Vitaly Potapenko, Vladimir Radmanovic, Nick Collison, Ridnour and James for Kidd and Mourning.

    For: The first deal would give the Nets a bunch of coveted assets. Allen is still an All-Star and one of the top shooters in the league. He's an unrestricted free agent this summer, meaning there's a risk they could lose him, but it also means that the Nets are not stuck with him if things don't work out. Ridnour is a nice young point guard prospect who's shown major signs of improvement this year. James is a big guy who can play well when he plays hard. He's in the last year of his contract, which is where his real value lies.

    Howard Schultz
    Would Sonics' owner Howard Schultz want to break up his team's winning lineup to gamble on Kidd?
    The deal would give the Sonics one of owner Howard Schultz's favorite players. It would give Nate McMillan the floor leader he's coveted since Gary Payton left town. It would also give them some help inside.

    The second deal gives the Nets a couple young prospects in Radmanovic and Collison, and more cap room by including Potapenko, who is also in the last year of his contract. While they don't get a star of Allen's caliber, they do have more young pieces to work with here.

    Deal 2 probably makes even more sense for the Sonics. They would be a little thin in the backcourt if they traded Allen away. But if they can keep him, the combo of Kidd, Allen and Rashard Lewis could be the most potent in the league. While the deal leaves the Sonics pretty thin up front, the truth is that of all the bigs heading to New Jersey, Radmanovic is the only one contributing to the team right now.

    Against: Two things could really hold a deal like this up. First, Kidd did not include the Sonics on his list of teams he'd play for despite a strong relationship with Schultz. His goal is to win a championship and any way you slice it, it's tough to see how the Sonics win it all with the front line they have.

    The second problem is that the Sonics are playing so well right now, they might be unwilling to take the risk on players like Kidd and Mourning. They both represent huge financial risks to a team that has been very risk free since Schultz took over. This might be too big of a gamble for them.

    Insider Verdict: On paper, Option 2 is my favorite deal for the Nets. They get three young prospects in Ridnour, Radmanovic and Collison and still clear a ton of cap space. Realistically, however, I don't see it happening. Kidd's interest in the Sonics is minimal and Schultz doesn't seem brave enough to make this type of move.

    Portland Trail Blazers

    The deal: Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Nick Van Exel and Sebastian Telfair for Kidd, Mourning and Aaron Williams.

    For: The Nets could abandon the three-way trade talk all together and do a deal directly with the Blazers that would net them even more cap space.

    A deal of Abdur-Rahim, Van Exel and Telfair for Kidd, Mourning and Williams would give the Nets a little more than $20 million in cap space next summer once Abdur-Rahim and Van Exel both come off the books. They could even afford to re-sign Abdur-Rahim and still make a major play in the free-agent market.

    The deal would give the Blazers a player that could change the whole course of the franchise. The Blazers have been rudderless for years and would welcome Kidd's leadership. He'd be awesome running the floor with Darius Miles and Derek Anderson.

    Against: Kidd has made it clear that the Blazers aren't on his list of places he wants to be traded. While Thorn could callously trade him there anyway, he probably would opt to just make the three-way deal with Portland and Minnesota.

    Insider Verdict: I don't see it happening. The Blazers have been after Kidd for a while, but he won't return the love.

    THE IMPOSSIBLES

    Los Angeles Lakers

    Kidd originally had the Lakers atop his list of teams to play for, but it looks like it isn't going to happen anytime soon. To get a deal like this done, the Lakers would have to send Lamar Odom, Devean George and Chucky Atkins to the Nets for Kidd and Mourning. While that may be acceptable to the Lakers (though they'd take a huge hit in the rebounding department without Odom), it won't get it done for New Jersey. As much as they like Odom, he isn't enough to put them over the top. Why spend all that money when you aren't going to be a contender?

    San Antonio Spurs
    The Spurs made a huge push for Kidd two summers ago, but their interest in him has cooled considerably. They just signed Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili to huge free-agent contracts this summer, essentially killing any chance they have of making a deal. The only deal that would work under the cap for the Spurs would be something that sent Rasho Nesterovic, Malik Rose, Brent Barry and Bruce Bowen for Kidd and Mourning. Neither side would be willing to do that deal. Kidd knows now that he should've picked the Spurs over the Nets in the summer of 2003. But it's the Spurs that ended up better off because he didn't.

    Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

  • #2
    Re: Teams looking to trade for Jason Kidd (Insider)

    Kidd for Bender, Artest, and Pollard. NJ gets a local product in Artest and great talent between Artest and Bender if they can get their **** together

    ...

    That's my outrageous trade proposal for the day

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Teams looking to trade for Jason Kidd (Insider)

      We have a good point guard, I feel we don't need Kidd.
      Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Teams looking to trade for Jason Kidd (Insider)

        I think the most realistic out of them all is the 3-way deal between Portland, New Jersey, and Minesotta.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Teams looking to trade for Jason Kidd (Insider)

          Originally posted by TruWarier
          We have a good point guard, I feel we don't need Kidd.
          Tinsley would be the best backup in the league if we had Kidd!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Teams looking to trade for Jason Kidd (Insider)

            I'm sure someone with Tinsley's skills would love being a backup.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Teams looking to trade for Jason Kidd (Insider)

              Originally posted by canyoufeelit
              Kidd for Bender, Artest, and Pollard. NJ gets a local product in Artest and great talent between Artest and Bender if they can get their **** together

              ...

              That's my outrageous trade proposal for the day
              Kidds old and going down fast. He's got a lot of miles on him.
              Tinsley will be better than him VERY soon.
              No deal.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Teams looking to trade for Jason Kidd (Insider)

                Originally posted by PacerMan
                Kidds old and going down fast. He's got a lot of miles on him.
                Well with those qualifications there should be an Isiah signing any day now.
                The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                Comment

                Working...
                X