The Trade

In the end, the two principals were a mere footnote. In the season's first matchup between Jason Kidd and Stephon Marbury, New Jersey mauled Phoenix in the paint and couldn't miss a three-pointer as the Nets blasted the Suns 106-87 last night.

Still, we're about a quarter of the way through the season, and now is as good a time as any to take a look at the offseason trade of Kidd for Marbury. In my mind, it's one of the most misunderstood trades I've ever seen.

Sometimes, a story goes careening out of control, and zooms off so fast that the facts are left along the road about five miles behind in a bank of tumbleweeds. The story of this trade has been a lot like that.

To me, it was one of the most interesting trades of the offseason - but for exactly none of the reasons that have been cited in the mainstream press. To review, at the time the trade was made the main angle from our nation's media was:

1. Stephon Marbury is a ball hog.
2. Jason Kidd is a team player.

Once the season began, it got worse. The Nets tore out of the gates, and the rush of enthusiasm over their start led to a gushing of Netsmania, centered on Kidd. Everyone pointed to the trade as the reason. Articles were written saying Kidd was an MVP candidate. My father admitted to being a Nets fan for the first time in memory. Crazy things were happening.

The media got wrapped up in it as well. After the Nets started fast and the Suns didn't, the story quickly expanded to take in the following deep thoughts:

1. Stephon Marbury is a loser.
2. Jason Kidd is a winner.

So over-the-top was the reporting that after the Nets' 108-83 win over the Knicks, the AP game summary stated in a dry, matter of fact way, that Kidd had "taught the Nets how to win."

Sportswriters love sorting guys into winners and losers. It saves a lot of energy if you can say "the guy's just a winner," because now you don't have to figure out how exactly the team is better. The case is solved: The guy's just a winner.

(While I'm on the topic, how a guy who had won one playoff series in his life - and that when the other team's best player was injured - suddenly got this appellation is a pretty solid indictment of the media covering this story. And I don't mean this as a knock on Kidd. His teams didn't lose in the playoffs because he wasn't a "winner", they lost because they weren't good enough. Think about it: Michael Jordan can't "teach winning" to the Wizards either. How the hell's Jason Kidd going to? The reality is that either your teammates can play, or they can't. A player's leadership abilities and clubhouse cameraderie affect things at the margins, but they aren't going to turn Aaron Williams into Dikembe Mutombo.)

Fortunately, this version of the story began to crumble when the Suns starting beating the crap out of everybody about two weeks ago. Now that both teams are playing well (and in fact, both are playing better than anyone predicted at the start of the year), I thought everyone would be calmed down enough that we could sit down and take a rational look at the trade.

To me, there were four factors that defined this trade and made it so interesting, and none of them had to do with sorting guys into the "winner" and "loser" camps:

1. How big a factor was their age difference?
2. How real was Marbury's improvement last year?
3. How much would Kidd help the Nets' defense and hurt their offense?
4. How much would Marbury help the Suns' offense and hurt their defense?

Let's deal with them in order. The first topic is the easiest. Kidd is 28, Marbury is just 24. A 28-year old point guard will almost always be entering the declining phase of his career; a 24-year old is just entering his prime. For example, here's the PER for Marbury and Kidd over the last three years:

         1999   2000   2001
Jason    29.34  22.73  24.49
Steph    25.55  24.83  28.12

As you can see, Kidd could have just easily won the MVP award in 1999 - his PER was the third best in the league and tops among point men. But he has slipped since, and the words "Jason Kidd" and "MVP" didn't come up in the same sentence very often the last two years.

Marbury, on the other hand, was a rising commodity coming into this season. He had a PER around 25 the previous two seasons and then amped it up to 28.12 last season, which was the fourth best rating of any player in the league.

Which takes us to point number 2 above. This story didn't get much airplay, but Marbury actually had a hell of a year last season. He scored 24 points a game and handed out 7.6 assists, which is a lot for a guy who's alleged to have only cared about his points all season. (The Nets were terrible anyway since their whole lineup was in casts and slings, so Marbury was the scapegoat.)

When this trade was made, one thought I had was "how real was last season." Did Marbury have a fluke year, or was he ready to take it up a notch as one of the top five or ten players in the league?

His previous two seasons suggested a PER at one level, the type of guy who gets chosen as a sub for the All-Star game every year. But if the level he played at last year was a true improvement, then it was clear to me that Phoenix had a steal.

So how real was it? That question, to me, was perhaps the most defining one in this trade - and I haven't heard a single person come anywhere near asking it.

It's turned out that, so far, Marbury hasn't played up to that level. His PER this season is 25.00 - right at the level of his 1999 and 2000 seasons. This suggests that last year was a little beyond his real talents.

On to points three and four. It was been written widely and basically accepted as fact that Kidd has made the Nets' offense better, because of all his passing and team-first play and "making his teammates better," and also the fact that he isn't Stephon Marbury.

This is the one thing about the trade that irks me most (OK, that and the whole "winner" thing), because it's just absolutely, positively, dead wrong. If there was such thing as enbalmed wrong, this would qualify. Check it out:

- Last season the Nets' offensive efficiency of 98.9 was pretty bad. Only five teams were worse.

- This season, the Nets added Todd MacCulloch, returned Kerry Kittles, and thus far have gotten full seasons from Keith Van Horn and Kenyon Martin. Despite that, their offensive efficiency is worse: 96.9. Only three teams in the whole NBA rank lower - the Bulls, Heat and Grizzlies.

The Nets are not better on offense. At all. They're actually worse, and I don't think it's a big secret why. Jason Kidd, for all his passing ability, does enough damage with his 33% "shooting" that the Nets were a better offense with Stephon Marbury and four corpses than they are with Kidd, Kittles, MacCulloch, Martin and Van Horn.

In short, the only difference between this year's Nets and last year's is their defense. I've written that before in this space, and I'm going to keep yelling it until somebody wakes up to this reality (or at least until my neighbors call the police).

The Suns, meanwhile, have made a huge leap forward on offense. Their offensive efficiency of 106.1 is seventh in the league, while last year the Jason Kidd-led Suns' offensive efficiency of 99.0 was just as pathetic as the Nets.

Some of the improvement, no doubt, is because Penny Hardaway replaced Mario Elie in their lineup. On the other hand, they also lost a good scorer in Clifford Robinson this offseason, and the overall improvement in the Suns' offensive play is pretty striking.

Now let's turn to the defense. As I mentioned earlier, the Nets have made a phenomenal improvement on defense this season. Last year's defensive efficiency of 104.8 was the fourth worst in the league. This year's mark of 95.2 is the second best.

The Nets made a lot of personnel improvements this offseason: Van Horn and Martin have played full season, Kerry Kittles returned from a knee injury, Richard Jefferson improved their defense off the bench, and Todd MacCulloch shored up the middle.

That being said, Kidd has been first-team All-Defense two of the last three years and is a great rebounder as well, and he certainly deserves a lot of the credit for this. But he shouldn't get all of it, just as with Marbury above.

The other way you can tell Kidd's defensive impact vis a vis Marbury is by looking at the Suns. Last season Phoenix was the second best defensive team in the league, with a mark of 97.1. This year, they're still pretty good - their mark of 99.6 is tenth in the league.

So while the Nets' mark tends to support the idea of a big defensive impact for Kidd vs. Marbury, the Suns' mark doesn't. Phoenix lost a top-notch defender in Clifford Robinson this offseason and replaced him with Tom Givesupalotta, and I don't think replacing Mario Elie with Penny Hardaway improved their defense either.

So, here in summary, is how I score the four main points of the trade:

1. How big a factor was their age difference?

Important. Kidd's PER has declined again so far this year (to 20.00), which is worrisome for the Nets' end.

2. How real was Marbury's improvement last year?

Probably a fluke. His PER this year is 25.00, right around where he was the two seasons before last year. He's a great player, but I think now we can say he'll never crash the Kobe-Vince-Duncan party.

3. How much would Kidd help the Nets' defense and hurt their offense?

Kidd has helped their defense quite a bit, and beyond a shadow of a doubt hurt their offense.

4. How much would Marbury help the Suns' offense and hurt their defense?

Marbury has unquestionably helped their offense, and almost certainly hurt their defense.

Even though Marbury may not ever repeat his performance of last season, when you take it all in: age, impact on defense, and impact on offense, you have to conclude that Phoenix came out ahead. It essentially adds up as a straight offense-for-defense swap, except for one thing: Marbury is four years younger.

Kidd had his best year in 1999 and is in the midst of a decline that so far has shown no sign of abating, a fact that has been masked so far this year by the personnel improvements around him in New Jersey as well as the blissful ignorance of the media. Meanwhile, Marbury continues to play at a high level and likely will for several more years.

I don't think this deal was an overwhelming home run for either side, and in fact the other moves they've made have been far more important factors in each club's improvement this year than the trade itself. However, while the Nets have greatly improved their club and will probably make the playoffs, at some point they're going to realize that Phoenix got the better of the deal. And I know it's a pipe dream, but maybe the media will too.

Pot Shots

The funniest thing about last night's game was the effort of the New Jersey fans to boo Marbury every time he touched the ball. Steph handles it so much that by the end of the first quarter they were completely exhausted ... Could the Sixer bench be any more terrible? They combined for a whopping six points in last night's loss to Golden State. Come back Matt Geiger, all is forgiven ...

Chucky Atkins. Who knew? ... Last night was really the first time all year we've seen Shaq singlehandedly kick the crap out of another team (he had 46 points and 15 boards against Dallas). The scary part is despite that, the Lakers are 16-1.