Jason Kidd is a Bay Area legend from his days at St. Joseph's in Alameda, Ca. to playing for the California Golden Bears, and a fitting end to his career would be to see him on the Golden State Warriors.
Just not next season.
Kidd will be an unrestricted free agent and with the Dallas Mavericks clearly having other thoughts about their point guard spot next season, the Warriors have been rumored to be in the mix for his services.
Nice idea, but a wrong one.
Kidd has said that he will not play for the league minimum and that only a mid-level deal will get him to lace up his sneakers next season. The Warriors, after making their big moves at the trade deadline will only have $5.6 million left to spend this summer and signing a 39-year-old backup point guard should rank near the bottom of their offseason to-do list.
The Warriors, with what money they do have, should look to bring in someone who will help defensively. They already have enough guards who don't play defense, why add another one? At 39 and 17 seasons into his NBA career, Kidd won't be on the floor enough to warrant the money he would be getting. Sure, it's not a ton of money, but it's all the Warriors have and since they have Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and Charles Jenkins needing minutes, a point guard, no matter who, should not be a top priority this offseason.
Kidd would presumably be brought in to backup and mentor Curry, but why should they use all of their available money on a backup point guard? We've all seen Curry play. He doesn't need a mentor, he just needs to stay healthy. However, if someone were to mentor him, wouldn't it make sense for the guy they brought in to coach this team, Mark Jackson, not a bad point guard himself to do it?
Should the Warriors sign Jason Kidd?
Plus, if the Warriors end up using Kidd and Curry at the same time—which would happen—that might stunt Curry's growth as a point guard. Curry needs to take the next step as a premier point guard in the NBA next season and he doesn't need Kidd to help him do that.
He just needs super glue on his ankles.
If Kidd does sign, what happens to Charles Jenkins? He proved in the last few weeks of the season that he is going to be a player in this league and that he will be fully capable of not only backing up Curry, but stepping in if/when Curry does go down for any length of time.
Bringing in Kidd would limit Jenkins minutes, greatly reducing his impact. He deserves the chance to play when the Warriors have a full and healthy roster.
Then, there's Brandon Rush. He was tremendous off the bench and would be a much more valuable commodity than Kidd for this team next season. His minutes would likely decline as well with Kidd on board. The Warriors are just fine heading into next season with Curry, Thompson, Jenkins and fingers-crossed Rush as a backcourt rotation.
Look, there is no doubt about Kidd's talent. Sure, his skills are diminishing, but he is a future Hall of Famer, an overall class act, and even shooting 36 percent from the floor, he still makes an impact. He will be a nice addition next season, just for someone other than the Warriors.
The Warriors need to avoid signing Kidd because he would tie up all of their available money as a player who plays the same position as the face of the franchise. He would also reduce the role of Jenkins and all but eliminate the chance of adding a defender in free agency, which should be a top priority this offseason outside retaining Rush. And did I mention that he is 39 years old and can't play defense?
Adding Jason Kidd right now just does not make sense. Maybe someday he will end up as Golden State Warrior...as an assistant coach.