It is not a problem for the Milwaukee Bucks, unless the Bucks make it their own problem.
Here's the short version of what madness broke Saturday. Kidd agitated for more money and power within the Nets organization after a glorious No. 6 finish in the East. The Nets' Russian management denied his attempt. Kidd's former financial adviser and current friend Marc Lasry co-owns the Bucks. Kidd's agent asked the Nets for permission to negotiate with Milwaukee. It was granted. Reports suggest Kidd's tenure in Brooklyn is over regardless of whether the Bucks send a draft pick to the Nets for the honor of hiring the legendary point guard in some capacity.
On that last point, my question is why? What has Kidd done to command any sort of power? He proved to be an improved coach by the end of the season, and Milwaukee's Larry Drew isn't exactly the second coming of Doc Rivers. But the Bucks had no intention of replacing Drew, even with plenty of good candidates like Lionel Hollins, Alvin Gentry and George Karl on the market. Kidd is not a better candidate than any of those guys, regardless of Lasry's comfort level with him. And while John Hammond has a mixed history as GM, if Milwaukee intended to replace him, is a guy with Kidd's reputation and no front office experience the right choice?
The stories emanating from Brooklyn -- particularly those found in Adrian Wojnarowski's piece -- are troubling when you consider Kidd is seeking a position of full control in Milwaukee. The Nets saw Kidd more closely than anyone last season and denied him a larger role or a pay raise. Isn't that a solid clue for the Bucks? If Brooklyn is willing to let Kidd walk after one season, chances are that he's not worth the trouble. A team with a $200 million payroll would rather lose him than increase his $3 million salary. Take heed of that.
Milwaukee, this is totally unnecessary. The triumph of landing Jabari Parker in Thursday's NBA Draft has seemingly captivated Bucks fans and made the requisite rebuild more palatable. If Hammond's other moves don't pan out, or his style doesn't match that of Lasry or Wesley Edens, then replace him with better front office talent and not with an empty suit with a big name. The Bucks have a long way to go. This is not the prudent route to take.
If there's any bright side, as the Bucks crawl out on this rickety limb, it's that Kidd does not appear to be the salesman he believes himself to be. Otherwise, he might be reigning atop the Nets instead of limping to Wisconsin. Perhaps the new leaders of the Bucks will see through Kidd and stay the course. One can only hope.