The Lakers must be falling over with laughter by now.
In the wake of their acquisition of Pau Gasol -- a trade that cost them nothing of value -- two of their biggest rivals for Western Conference supremacy responded by dealing key pieces of their core for Eastern Conference legends in their mid-30s. First, of course, came Phoenix's deal for Shaquille O'Neal last week, and now the Mavericks have jumped in with today's close-to-completion deal for Jason Kidd.
This isn't nearly as bad as the Shaq trade -- let me get that out of the way up front. But it has the same whiff of panic to it, coming as it did after the Mavs suffered consecutive whippings at the hands of second-tier Eastern teams, and following Mark Cuban's insistence that Dallas wouldn't unload half its team for Kidd.
Obviously, the two main protagonists are Kidd and Harris. So let me ask you a provocative question that I brought up when the three-way version of this deal was kicked around: Would you trade Harris for Kidd straight up?
Based on notoriety alone, most would offer a quick yes. But shine that light a little closer. Kidd's PER this season is 16.07, while Harris is way ahead at 18.66. This may shock some people who have only seen the reports of his triple-doubles, but Kidd is scoring at a much lower rate this season, shooting a hideous 36.7 percent from the field, and his turnover rate has skyrocketed. While he's far from the only culprit, his decline is one reason the Nets are 25th in offensive efficiency.
Per 40 minutes, Harris averages nearly seven points more; that's huge; he also gets to the line more and shoots a far better percentage. His true shooting percentage of 59.2 dwarfs Kidd's 48.3. Think about that difference for a second -- for every nine shots they take (including free-throw sessions), Harris has a one-point advantage.
Finally, Harris is a huge plus at the defensive end, where he has the quickness to defend the Parkers, Pauls and Nashes of the West and was second in the league in offensive fouls drawn last season, according to 82games.com. By my methods, he was the best defensive point guard in the league in 2006-07. Unfortunately, the one guy he struggled against was Baron Davis, a fact that may be seared in the Mavs' memories given how last season ended.
Kidd's two big advantages are passing and rebounding, and they're gargantuan differences, make no mistake. But if you break it down, it seems his numbers in those two categories might decline in Dallas' system.
As far as assists go, the Mavs are one of the league's most isolation-heavy teams and annually have among the league's lowest rates of assisted baskets; the Nets are the opposite and are annually among the highest. It's possible Dallas changes some of that to take advantage of Kidd, of course, but somehow I imagine the high-post isos for Dirk Nowitzki and Josh Howard will remain the bread-and-butter of the offense.
Additionally, Kidd's passing skills are most lethal in transition, but the Mavs run infrequently. While some still imagine this as a wild-west Don Nelson outfit, Dallas has been one of the league's slowest-paced teams ever since Avery Johnson took over.
On the rebounds, New Jersey's frontcourt rebounding was historically bad for the first two months of this season, as I mentioned in another piece earlier on -- leaving a ton of boards available for Kidd to grab. In fact, Kidd's rebound rate has declined quite a bit since Josh Boone took over for Jason Collins, as fewer caroms were left over for the guards. Similarly, he won't have as many boards available for him to snag in Dallas, where the Mavs were already seventh in the league in defensive rebound rate (nearly all of Kidd's boards are defensive).
OK, so he won't score as much as Harris, and he might lose a bit on his rebounds and assists. One can still come up with some offsetting positives. For starters, Kidd is a leader in a locker room that appears in need of one. Dallas' testicular fortitude has been questioned in the past two postseasons, so perhaps he can make a difference there. And it's possible he'll be more motivated in Big D than he was in New Jersey; at the very least, I suspect he'll suffer from fewer headaches.
In addition, Kidd is a good defender against bigger guards, which means Dallas might be able to play him and Jason Terry together for 40 minutes and dispense with the 30 scoreless minutes they're getting each night from the Eddie Jones-Trenton Hassell combo. (Although just in case they get nostalgic, Wright's addition makes it a trio of wing guys who can defend but can't score).
But before you get too excited, look into the future. Kidd is 10 years older and costs five times as much; even after Harris' extension kicks in he'll be triple the cost. Which player do you think you'd rather have in 2008-09? What about in 2009-10, presuming the Mavs extend Kidd, when he'll be 36 and Harris 26?
I know, I know -- this move was made primarily with this season in mind. So let's say after all that you still like Kidd better than Harris. Do you like him so much better that you're willing to include Stackhouse and Diop and two first-round draft choices?
Diop was Dallas' starting center and best low-post defender (Side note: guess that Shaq trade had them real worried, huh?), while Stackhouse was one of their most important bench players. In fact, the irony of this trade is that a big reason for Dallas' recent struggles is that Harris and Stackhouse have been injured.
The Mavs are 4-4 since Harris went out; Stackhouse has played only once in that time, for just 11 minutes. It's an ugly 4-4 too. Of the wins, two were against Memphis and one was Milwaukee; of the losses, the losses included one-sided setbacks against Detroit, New Jersey and Philadelphia.
That takes us to an aspect of this trade nobody is paying any attention to: Harris' huge impact on the Mavs' success over the past two seasons. In 2006-07, when Dallas won 67 games, guess who had the biggest on-court vs. off-court point differential? Hint: It wasn't the MVP. According to 82games.com, Dallas was a whopping +14.2 points per 48 minutes with Harris on the court. Moreover, the Harris-Nowitzki combo was the single most effective player combination in the league.
This year, the Harris-Terry-Howard-Nowitzki-Dampier unit has played 164 minutes together and outscored opponents by 43 points (that's a whopping 12.6 points per 48 minutes). The four most common Harris-Terry arrangements all have massively positive point differentials, adding up to an advantage of +20.7 points per 48 minutes (!). So much for the idea that you can't play two small guards together.
No, we're not done yet -- there's one final point to consider. The Nets will likely buy out Stackhouse, but there's no guarantee Dallas will be able to resign him; in fact by rule they aren't allowed to for 30 days.
In the meantime, is it that hard to imagine bench-starved Cleveland diving in with the $4.1 million remaining on its midlevel exception, or the Pistons ($3.86 million) bringing him back to Motown to replace the struggling Jarvis Hayes? For that matter, what about the Spurs ($4.4 million) or Suns (full midlevel) breaking out the wampum just to spite their Western rivals? Keep in mind, too, that these salaries would be prorated for the rest of this year, lowering the luxury tax hit those teams would take.
In the final analysis, then, it seems Dallas gave up quite a bit to make what is, even with the most rose-colored glasses, a marginal upgrade at the point. It's possible it could work, but my issue with this deal is that the risk and reward seem out of line. Much like Phoenix with the Shaq deal, I can't help but wonder if the Mavs are fixated on what Kidd was 18 months ago rather than what he'll be over the next 18 months.
Let me repeat that I'm not nearly not as down on this trade as I am on Phoenix's. But on balance, I think it puts Dallas farther from a title rather than closer. And as a result, I suspect Lakers GM Mitch Kupchak may be having a quiet chuckle when he checks his Blackberry today.
