I disagree. In addition to Kidd, they had KMart (in his prime), Van Horn (in his prime), and Kittles (in his prime). But it's close.
I disagree with your disagreement - especially WRT that 2001-02 Nets team. KMart was not yet in his prime (which was very short due to injuries). He was in his second season, averaged 14.9 PPG and only 5.3 RPG with a PER of 14.5. Those are all below his best numbers of 16.7 PPG, 9.5 RPG and PER = 18.7, which happened two years later.
Van Horn was already past his prime, with a PER of 16.0. His career best was was PER = 19.6 in 1998-99 when he averaged 20.9 PPG. He also had a PER of 18.1 and a scoring average of 19.9 PPG on 1999-2000.
Kittles was arguably the second best player on that team, and other than Kidd, the only one that really stepped up during the playoffs. His regular season PER was 16.1 and 16.7 for the playoffs.
Richard Jefferson was a promising rookie, but nothing special. He had a regular season PER of 13.4, which sank to 11.2 during the playoffs.
If you look at the top seven players, by minutes, on that team:
Regular season PER:
Jason Kidd - 19.1
Kerry Kittles - 16.1
Kenyon Martin - 14.5
Keith Van Horn - 16.0
Richard Jefferson - 13.4
Lucious Harris - 15.7
Aaron Williams - 15.1
Playoffs:
Jason Kidd - 21.7
Kerry Kittles - 16.7
Kenyon Martin - 13.4
Keith Van Horn - 14.3
Richard Jefferson - 11.2
Lucious Harris - 15.4
Aaron Williams - 10.8
So, it was basically Kidd and a couple slightly above average starters and a bunch of average to below average player during the regular season. During the playoffs, Kidd and Kittles were the only ones that showed up. With all their other starters performing well below average during the play-offs, it's a wonder they made the finals - but like I originally said, the Eastern Conference was REALLY weak back then.
It's interesting that the 01-02 Nets team went to the finals with no players averaging > 15 ppg.
Which kind of helps prove my point - one of the weakest finals teams ever.
That 2006-07 Cavs team was also pretty weak, after LeBron of course. They were probably a little stonger at the top, but not as deep as the 2001-02 Nets team. Big Z had PER = 18.0 in both regular season and playoffs. Drew Gooden was above average, and Daniel Gibson stepped up big time in the post season. But, after their top 5, the drop off was significant - especially in the playoffs. So, I could see the argument going either way.
In the end, neither team stood a chance to win the championship and both got swept.
BNM