Not long ago, I was reading an article from a Dallas based sports publication and one of the comments that followed interested me. A fan asked if Jason Kidd will retire and go into the Hall as a Maverick or a Net. The writer seemed to think it was automatic that a player retires and represents the team he won a championship with 90% of the time. Therefor, he'd be remembered as a Maverick. I disagree with this. I've been arguing the subject with friends ever since I read that. My best example in support of my argument was Karl Malone. He left The Jazz to join a stacked Laker team most thought were unbeatable but were famously humbled by Detroit in The Finals. What if they had won though? Would Karl Malone go down in history as a Laker? Of course not. That's the most extreme case I can think of. In my opinion, KG is and will always be a member of the Minnesota Timberwolves too. I think a players body of work defines their legacy, not championships in most cases. Many greats never win a title. Last years Mavs were unquestionably Dirk's team. Not Kidd's. Jason spent the prime of his career with The Nets and meant so much more to this team and this franchise than he ever has in Dallas. What does everyone else think?