I think this is a classic how do you judge the words "MVP". Is it best player, or the guy who means the most to his team.
I love J-kidd for making at least a few of my years watching the nets enjoyable, but Duncan was on a different level those years. Look up the stats of the people on Duncan's team that year. He had nobody and got the Spurs 58 wins in a ridiculously tough conference.
A huge of part of the nets success during that 5-6 year period was the conference they played in.
I took a look at it. It's pretty good, not to mention it's still the same players from last year, so they had some experience together which gained them team chemistry. As well as having one of the best coaches also.
The key players for the Nets were there last year as well, players like Martin, Keith, Kittles and they couldn't get it done.
Kidd came in playing along with those same players, and it resulted into a finals appearance. I mean, I don't know what more to say honestly. You take Kidd out, they're not even in the playoffs, thus like the year before. That's pretty much why I don't see how you can't have Kidd as the MVP.
True, conference was weak. The East was for majority of those years back then, but the Pistons started to take over and held down the #1 seed in the East for a while. So it''s not like the Nets were completely taking advantage of a weak conference, they only made it twice. At that time the East has always been open for anyone getting to the Finals.