Jason Does Dallas

Well, looks like Jason Kidd is getting traded to Dallas after all. The deal that eventually wound up getting made is worse for Mark Cuban's pocketbook, but better for the Mavericks, in that it winds up depriving Dallas of less depth than did the original conception of the trade. I still don't like this deal very much for Dallas, but merits aside it's worth considering the impact on Dallas' style of play.

The team still has, to some extent, the reputation it acquired during the Don Nelson / Steve Nash years of being an up-tempo run-and-gun team. In reality, under Avery Johnson the Mavs have become a sluggish, isolation-dependent team. This year they're 26th in the league in pace and 19th in terms of the proportion of baskets that come from assists. Last year's version of the team was 28th in pace. The year before they were 26th. These kinds of numbers are normally associated with an offense being "bad" since slow pace isn't amenable to high point totals and slow, isolation-oriented offenses can get kind of boring to watch. But Dallas has consistently put together a very effective offense using this style of play.

It's not, however, the kind of style you normally associate with Kidd, who's a poor shooter but an excellent passer. His Nets teams have always run a middling pace and featured many assisted baskets. Is Johnson going to try to fit Kidd into his style, and count on him mostly to provide defense and rebounding while running plays for Dallas' other scorers, or is he going to try to put together a dynamic offense more focused on Kidd's passing skills?

Comments

Is Johnson going to try to fit Kidd into his style, and count on him mostly to provide defense and rebounding while running plays for Dallas' other scorers, or is he going to try to put together a dynamic offense more focused on Kidd's passing skills?

My guess is the former this year, and--depending on playoff outcomes--perhaps the latter over the summer for next year.

Posted by right | February 19, 2008 3:39 PM

If they can't do the latter, then they are going down in flames.

Posted by Curtis | February 19, 2008 3:43 PM

I have to think it must be the latter, otherwise Mark Cuban is the dumbest man on the planet. Why trade for Jason Kidd if you're going to force him into playing Devin Harris's role?

Kidd helps them on the boards, and he helps make their offense less predictable. Those are both things that will help them in the playoffs. The Warriors aren't the only team who can learn to stop the Dirk iso over the course of a playoff series.

Posted by too many steves | February 19, 2008 3:50 PM

The deal that eventually wound up getting made is worse for Mark Cuban's pocketbook, but better for the Mavericks, in that it winds up depriving Dallas of less depth than did the original conception of the trade.

Not really. In the original plan, the Mavs were to lose Devean George, (and trade Stackhouse who would then return to Dallas). In the new plan, the Mavs lose Hassell, (and trade KVH who wasn't playing for them anyway). I don't see much difference between Hassell and D.George.

Incidentally, this is an amazing opportunity for KVH. He'll probably sit on the bench for New Jersey from now until the end of the regular season on April 16th, and collect a cool $4MM for his two months of work. (I read somewhere that the $4m is not prorated [if it were prorated he would receive 29/82 * $4MM = $1.415MM], but I'm not totally sure if that's true). In any case, it's a great way for the family man to provide for his family!

Posted by nbt | February 19, 2008 4:16 PM

Kidd is the type of point guard who knows how to deliver the ball to each teammate in the best position for them to score. He will adapt to maximize their strengths, but the team will naturally play a more up tempo game with him running the show.

Posted by Tim | February 19, 2008 4:22 PM

Kidd is the type of point guard who knows how to deliver the ball to each teammate in the best position for them to score. He will adapt to maximize their strengths, but the team will naturally play a more up tempo game with him running the show.

Posted by Tim | February 19, 2008 4:29 PM

It's not as though Dallas doesn't have the personel to play up tempo. They've settled for isolation plays the past few years because their point gaurd was Jason Terry.

With Kidd in the lineup, Terry can stop pretending he isn't a 2 and just play his game.

Posted by WillieStyle | February 19, 2008 4:32 PM

I imagine that the Mavs have played a slow, isolation-oriented offense precisely because they haven't had a top flight PG since Nash left.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2008 4:38 PM

Any comments on the future of the Nets?

Posted by blah | February 19, 2008 5:23 PM

BTW, here's Cuban on the trade: "First of all, Devin Harris is a great player. He's going to get better and better and better. But Devin Harris' strengths are more individual. He's a one-man fast break. He's blazingly quick. He's a great defender, but Devin Harris does his best job creating shots for Devin Harris. We've all seen him get to the rim and dunk the ball. We've all seen him get to the rim and draw an and-1, and he's phenomenal at that. But what's happened is we wanted to try to get shots a little easier for everyone else. I think that plays more to Jason Kidd's strengths. We just thought that getting a Hall of Famer like Jason Kidd - he's had 12 triple-doubles this year and is still playing at a Hall of Fame level - his strength is going to be making Dirk and Josh and Jet and Damp and everybody else a little bit better and making their life a little bit easier." (emphasis added)

Seems to me that they are looking at making the offense better, rather than defense/rebounding.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2008 5:35 PM

The Mavs are plenty capable of running, but they've always had a weird feature--Harris was way too fast. Thus Harris, like Tony Parker, essentially was their main fast break offense, with a large portion of their fast break looks centering around Harris trying to blow by a slower defender. Because Howard and Terry will be able to run with Kidd, I'd expect their assisted basket total to shoot up very quickly. They become a much more dangerous shooting spot up, transition and secondary break 3s, with Terry, Dirk, Howard and Stack all getting in on the action. The point isn't whether statisically Harris exceeds the stastical measures of Kidd's game--it's what options he provides the whole team. For fast break offense, it's a huge difference, though not clearly a great benefit. The relevant question is whether Terry and (especially) Howard are enough of an improvement as finishers that it's worth dumping the speed advantage that Harris gave the Mavs. And really, it's hard to tell without seeing them try, and may be hard to tell before giving them a few weeks to gel.

But in the half court, it's obvious that there's much to gain. Harris was not especially well-suited to the half court game, and essentially functioned as the third best kick out option after whichever of Howard or Dirk was not on the iso, then Terry or Stack. He certainly was not capable of zipping passes through traffic to a cutting weak side slasher like Kidd is. This means that Dirk and Howard can eventually learn to avoid forcing a shot in an iso when they might get something better out of moving the ball. The Mavs weren't much of a pick and roll team, in an era where the officiating has shifted to favort he play so much that lots of top flight teams use pick and rolls virtually every trip during crunch time (e.g. the Suns). And that's all just off the top of Kidd's head, before anyone draws up any plays.

The main point of the deal, as has been said before in the comments to this blog, is to plug the Mavs' major defensive weakness that the Warriors exploited: their undersized guards were no match for BDavis/JRic, nor was Devean George or Stackhouse of any use defensively, and plenty of Western conference playoff teams could give them similar offensive looks. Adding Kidd to match up against bigger guards is a useful upgrade on this basis alone. Terry and Harris were always a mismatched backcourt, and this fix for that structural flaw comes with the additional benefit of another marquee player to take the spotlight off of Dirk in crunch time. To think the "price tag" in terms of the Mavs future was too high, you have to greatly overestimate Harris' value as a player and removing from the context of the team and its strengths and weaknesses--like Hollinger always does.

Posted by MSB | February 19, 2008 5:52 PM

In any case, Al, you must be super-psyched to have Keith Van Horn back.

Posted by Antid Oto | February 19, 2008 6:04 PM

Forget the Mavericks. The real question is, can Mike Bibby lead the Hawks to their first playoff appearance in almost a decade?

I'm not much of a basketball fan, but as an Atlanta native it's nice to see the team finally get off the mat. Bibby/Johnson/J Smith/Williams/Horford is a lineup without any embarrasments on the court, though Williams and Horford are a bit out of position.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 19, 2008 6:07 PM

I found the following funny, from an article in SI about the trade:

"Great teams are built around point guards and centers," Celtics coach Doc Rivers said. "And Devin is going to be a tremendous point guard."

Ah, yes Doc. The Celtics have the best record because of Rajon Rondo and Kendrick Perkins!

In any case, Antid Oto, I always liked Keith, even if he never did live up to the hype, and am happy to see him finish his career as a Net. He was a big part of that first Eastern Conference championship team in '02. I'd bet you'd be surprised how many Nets fans have a soft spot for him.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2008 6:53 PM

The real question is, can Mike Bibby lead the Hawks to their first playoff appearance in almost a decade?

If the Warriors can get into the playoffs, anything's possible.

Posted by Kevin | February 19, 2008 6:53 PM

So Kidd can guard Baron Davis -- who's going to guard Monta Ellis now that Devin Harris is gone?

I still think the Mavs more realistic problem is gonna be at center, where they're going to miss Diop big time, especially against LA and SA. I say this as someone who's seen far too much of Dampier.

Posted by Alan in SF | February 19, 2008 8:27 PM

I don't think the trade helps Dallas much, if at all, and hurts them long term. I think the real weakness with Dallas is Avery Johnson - he's just not that good a coach.

Posted by blah | February 19, 2008 8:35 PM

I wonder if the Mavs will ever admit that, yes, it was a mistake to choose Eric Dampier over Steve Nash.

Posted by Freddie | February 19, 2008 8:42 PM

After this five game western swing with Woodson as coach, I look for Bibby to demand to be traded.

Posted by Th | February 19, 2008 8:54 PM

Avery might as well speed it up to take advantage of Kidd, and they're down to Erick Dampier as their last legit big so won't be winning championships in a grind-it-out defensive style anyway.

With the West getting bigger, I'm unsure how Dallas thinks adding Kidd and subtracting Diop is going to work, but I do appreciate that their ability to score with Kidd, Terry, Howard and Dirk is going to take a dramatic uptick, so that's really their only chance - outscore the opposition and make them beat you with jumpers as you collapse the paint so as not to get dominated by the elite Bigs in the West.

Expect a lot of zone from Dallas from here on out.

Posted by Jimm | February 19, 2008 9:29 PM

Of course, Diop isn't that effective defensively, so definitely adding Kidd gives them a better chance, but only if Dampier can avoid injury - if he goes down, Dallas will not have a legit center.

As for losing Devin Harris, that will hurt more in the future, since Devin is out with injury right now, but I do think it could haunt Dallas down the line, since they could have just stood pat this season, possibly even dropping into the lottery, and then just restrategized and regrouped in the offseason.

Shaq will have a limited timetable anyway, as Nash, so did Cuban really think they were close enough even with the rise of the Lakers that Kidd would really make the difference this season or next?

Because as far as I can tell they are still short bigs, no matter how fast they play or potent their offense.

Posted by Jimm | February 19, 2008 9:36 PM

One optimistic spin I can put on this would be that Cuban may be positioning himself to have the best chance to win this season and next, even if the odds are still stacked against him, with the eye that he's going to go after Lebron James or Dwyane Wade anyway in a few years time (2010/11 season), so why not shake things up, bring some toughness to the team embodied in Jason Kidd, and sacrifice Devin Harris, who would have to be dealt down the line anyway for a lottery pick or expiring to clear cap space for the max contract Bron or Wade will be requiring (Damp would be an expiring contract in 2011 himself and would probably be dumped too).

So, can a quartet of Wade/Bron, Terry, Howard, and Dirk win it all, surrounded by vet minimum contract players and rookie-contract guys? I would have to say yes, if they could get some decent bigs at a low price and perhaps even retain the services of Jason Kidd at a more reasonable rate.

Posted by Jimm | February 19, 2008 9:51 PM

BTW, anyone here with League Pass needs to turn off CNN and the analysis of white males between the ages of 22-24, and put on the Denver/Boston game. Great game so far, 2nd quarter in particular.

Posted by Andruw | February 19, 2008 10:07 PM

If Dallas is desperate for a defensive big man, they can always resurrect Kevin Willis or PJ Brown.

Posted by nbt | February 19, 2008 10:40 PM

Honestly I would have liked to see Dallas get rid of more of that bench. Those bums did nothing in the playoff meltdowns of the past 2 years.

The Mavs have as much talent as anybody right now. No reason they can't make this work.

Posted by Colatina | February 19, 2008 11:55 PM