The Harris/Kidd trade was STILL stupid

Last night the Mavericks beat the Nets. Jason Kidd dropped 23 points points and 10 assists on his former team. I've seen at least two people say that proves that Kidd is better than Harris. For the life of me, I cannot understand that logic. A couple of points:

- Harris had 18 points and 7 assists; it's not like Kidd's numbers dwarfed his

- Apparently, some of my Maverick brethren have erased from their memories the night of December 19, 2008. That was the last time the Mavs played the Nets. In that game, Kidd had 17 points and 7 assists. Harris? Oh, he just settled for 41 and 13.

How anyone is trying to make the claim that Jason Kidd is currently better than Devin Harris is utterly beyond me.

Let's play with some more numbers. As a basketball fan, which stat line would you rather see from your point guard:

9.1 ppg, 8.5 apg, .423 FG%, .785 FT%

OR

21.4 ppg, 6.5 apg, .435 FGZ%, .817 FT%?

Would you rather have a player making $21.3 million this year or a player making $7.8 million this year?

Would you rather have a player whose best days are behind him or a player who is still getting better?

Oh, and would you like to have first round draft picks or would you rather see another team using yours?

Since making the trade, the Mavericks are 48-34 (16-13 after the trade last season, 32-21 so far this season) and the Nets are 35-49 (11-18 after the trade last season, 24-31 so far this season). The Mavs are clearly a better team. But have the results been worth mortgaging the promising future that they had when they were preparing to build around a nucleus of Dirk Nowitzki, Josh Howard and Harris?

You know what? Just for the heck of it, let me look at the 82 regular season games (a full season's worth) played before the trade.

DAL 58-24: (23-6 in the 2006-07 season, 35-18 in the 2007-08 season)

NJN 40-42 (16-12 in the 2006-07 season, 24-30 in the 2007-08 season)

So in making the trade, Dallas went from a .707 winning percentage to a .585 winning percentage. New Jersey went from a winning percentage of .488 to .422. Both teams got WORSE (which in and of itself is reason enough for the trade to not have happened) but the Mavericks had a bigger drop plus New Jersey has a brighter future thanks to having younger players and multiple draft picks for the next several years.

The Kidd trade was supposed to make the Mavericks a title contender. Well, that obviously didn't happen last season and, barring a miracle, it won't happen this season. The silver lining in the trade SHOULD have been the Mavs getting cap relief when Kidd's contract expires at the end of the season. But that is negated because even after the his contract comes off the books, Dallas will still be over this year's cap; and considering the state of the economy, next year's cap will likely be lower, meaning the Mavs wil be even further over the cap.

So as a recap: the Mavericks traded away a bargain priced future All-Star, multiple first round picks, youth, depth and wins in return for one aging point guard who has been unable to help them get any further than they were already able to get WITHOUT him. Yet the fact that Kidd played *slightly* better than Harris in ONE game (after Harris had already torched Kidd in a previous head to head meeting) is supposed to prove that Kidd is better and the trade was a good one? Please explain.