At MSNBC.com, this op-ed piece states that Kidd is a Royal Flush to Scott’s Full House - both worthy, but Kidd much more valuable to bet on, because he is a one-of-a-few superstar and Scott is merely a good coach.
Your thoughts?
And how Kidd managed the announcement?
In the article, they state that Nets’ management will be monitoring the media and radio talk shows to take the temperature of the public - don’t know how I feel about that - either Kidd is more important or Scott is, with public opinion counting comparatively little.
Bottom line - Kidd is more important, but Scott has done an admirable job and should have been (and should still be) treated with more respect - i.e., announce in private and let Scott manage communications of the news, or have a statement where respect for Scott is played up, while the decision is made…
There is no guarantee that Kidd will sign with the Nets even if Scott is fired, correct?
Keep Scott and ship Kidd’s ego to San Antonio or wherever. These demands should never be made publicly, and there is no reason to kiss Kidd’s ass. Just show it the door. It is possible that the animosity between Kidd and Scott could be the distraction keeping NJ from winning a title.
I like Byron Scott, but I think that team needs someone a little more dynamic as a coach.
And what they really need is more fire power. Coaching had little to do with their loss in the finals, they need more people for kidd to dish to, put more points on the board.
I think S.A. would be crazy to take Kidd over Tony Parker. Even though Kidd may be better, I think They have what they need and shouldn’t disrupt the chemistry.
Kidd should have made this demand before the brains behind the operation, Eddie Jordan, left. I don’t think Scott is a very good game coach, either, and New Jersey should ditch him whether or not Kidd stays or not.
Okay - so we have the denial that green_bladder posted (thanks green!)
So what is this - a big No Big Deal?
Was it a well-considered leak to the post to take the public’s temperature for such a move, with the “categorical” denial in place to protect all parties should nothing happen? (but if Kidd stays and Scott goes, clearly Kidd said something, so how trustworthy would the denial look?)
Is this just a play for Kidd to put forth an un-meetable demand to force a move to the Spurs?
Well they were throwing around Rick Carliale (Spelled wrong I know) and Doug Collins as possible replacements, which makes me cringe. Now if Van Gundy had been available it would be a different ballgame.