PDA

View Full Version : Past Trade Target: Stephen Jackson



Spurs Brazil
05-02-2009, 07:51 AM
http://www.nba.com/media/act_stephen_jackson.jpg

Stephen Jackson | SG/SF
Born: 05/04/1978
Height: 6-8 / 2,03
Weight: 215 lbs. / 97,5 kg.
High School: Oak Hill Academy (Mouth of Wilson, VA)
Years Pro: 8

info (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/stephen_jackson/index.html)

2008-09 Statistics
PPG 20,7 RPG 5,10 APG 6,5 EFF + 19,51

mattyc
05-02-2009, 09:31 AM
Extremely likeable/hateable guy, depending on what way you look at life. I personally love him and would love him to come back to the Spurs after his stints in Indy, Atlanta and GSW. That said, I'd think it's extremely unlikely to occur.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38898000/jpg/_38898773_spurs203.jpg

He is a balla though...

http://dimemag.com/wp-content/Images/players/Jackson_Stephen/SJackson-15-1.jpg

GooberNuts
05-02-2009, 10:16 AM
I'd like to have him back, but this is not going to happen.

poop
05-02-2009, 10:16 AM
flattest nose since scottie pippen.

td4mvp21
05-02-2009, 10:19 AM
I still want SJax back on the Spurs.

tomtom
05-02-2009, 11:52 AM
Nice guy but he turns over the ball more than ginobili does

EricB
05-02-2009, 12:28 PM
Have been in favor of bringing him back since 2004.

Slight possibility you could get it done, but doubtfull.

roycrikside
05-02-2009, 01:26 PM
What's his salary/contract status? I think the Warriors (and Jackson) are open to a change of scenery. They want to go young and I think they prefer Randolph to be a SF rather than a PF.

They already have Maggette, Ellis, Bellinelli, Crawfod, Morrow as well, a lot of swingmen types. Outside of money, I think SJax would love to be a Spur again.

exstatic
05-02-2009, 01:42 PM
I'd much rather have him than RJeff. He makes $7M less ($7.65M), knows the system inside and out, and has balls the size of cannon shot.

MaNu4Tres
05-02-2009, 01:57 PM
I'd much rather have him than RJeff. He makes $7M less ($7.65M), knows the system inside and out, and has balls the size of cannon shot.

Yeah but his contract goes up a million every year and he would be on the books til 2013.

I rather trade for a bigger contract for just 1 or 2 more years.

exstatic
05-02-2009, 02:09 PM
Yeah but his contract goes up a million every year and he would be on the books til 2013.

I rather trade for a bigger contract for just 1 or 2 more years.

? So, you'd rather spend big bucks for a year or two on an unknown quantity in our system, rather than signing a system knowledgable, knockdown 3 point shooter, clutch playoff performer for 4 more seasons? Whatever. Getting Jax STILL leaves SA with $12.5M in 2010 caproom according to the figures in the "2010 plan" thread in this sub-forum. Getting Jax back now would be like getting Horry at 31.

MaNu4Tres
05-02-2009, 02:14 PM
? So, you'd rather spend big bucks for a year or two on an unknown quantity in our system, rather than signing a system knowledgable, knockdown 3 point shooter, clutch playoff performer for 4 more seasons? Whatever. Getting Jax STILL leaves SA with $12.5M in 2010 caproom according to the figures in the "2010 plan" thread in this sub-forum. Getting Jax back now would be like getting Horry at 31.

And if we resign Manu you can forget having capspace in 2010 or 2011 to add a significant player.

ducks
05-02-2009, 03:40 PM
why
manu should not make more then the mle

lefty
05-02-2009, 03:44 PM
I want him SJax back


We need his badasness

DAF86
05-02-2009, 04:52 PM
All those bitching about Manu can't ask for SJax to be back.

exstatic
05-02-2009, 04:55 PM
And if we resign Manu you can forget having capspace in 2010 or 2011 to add a significant player.

You think someone is actually going to sign here? Someone of consequence, one of those 3-4 players they mention when they talk about when they mention 2010?

MaNu4Tres
05-02-2009, 05:25 PM
You think someone is actually going to sign here? Someone of consequence, one of those 3-4 players they mention when they talk about when they mention 2010?

I rather have that possibility available than ruin that possibility by trading for a guy that's past his prime and has 5 more years on his contract.

exstatic
05-02-2009, 05:34 PM
I rather have that possibility available than ruin that possibility by trading for a guy that's past his prime and has 5 more years on his contract.

Four more years on his contract, he's clutch as hell, and never has relied on his quickness or hops. Jack could easily play to 37 or 38 in this league.

I'm beginning to come around to the "we won't be able to rebuild on the fly" crowd. Surround Tim with players to give him a chance to win for the next 3 years. Worry about later later.

Mel_13
05-02-2009, 06:01 PM
I rather have that possibility available than ruin that possibility by trading for a guy that's past his prime and has 5 more years on his contract.

How can the same guy who advocates trading for RJ be concerned about the cap killing effects of a player who makes 6.5M less than RJ?

Mel_13
05-02-2009, 06:03 PM
I'd much rather have him than RJeff. He makes $7M less ($7.65M), knows the system inside and out, and has balls the size of cannon shot.

Most definitely. The Warriors are likely to move one of Maggette, Crawford or SJax. They'll try to find takers for Crawford first, but if they get to the point of offering SJax it would have to be tempting for the Spurs.

Marcus Bryant
05-02-2009, 06:22 PM
I agree with ex. It's time for the prodigal son to return. Who cares what his contract looks like? The Spurs will be rebuilding primarily through picks once TD hangs it up. I'd rather have Jack for the next 2 years than Richard Jefferson.

exstatic
05-02-2009, 06:30 PM
how can the same guy who advocates trading for rj be concerned about the cap killing effects of a player who makes 6.5m less than rj?

+1

Mark in Austin
05-02-2009, 06:33 PM
Was Jack a Don Nelson guy or a Chris Mullin guy? If he's a Nelson guy, I doubt he's going anywhere unless either:
1. Ownership is short on money and a desire to dump salary overrides the Rasputin-like effect Nelson has on them.
2. Nelson has turned on him like he often does with his players.

Spurs Brazil
05-02-2009, 06:42 PM
Oberto + Bruce for Jax works

It'll depend if Warriors want to save money or not

Mel_13
05-02-2009, 06:42 PM
Was Jack a Don Nelson guy or a Chris Mullin guy? If he's a Nelson guy, I doubt he's going anywhere unless either:
1. Ownership is short on money and a desire to dump salary overrides the Rasputin-like effect Nelson has on them.
2. Nelson has turned on him like he often does with his players.

Even if he's a Nelson guy, Don's about ready to hang it up soon. And Pop's a Nelson guy, too.

The more I look at this, especially compared to other veteran swingman that could potentially be on the market, SJax could be the best target for the Spurs. Just think about replacing Fin in the starting line-up with SJax.

Spurs Brazil
05-02-2009, 06:46 PM
Is the Warriors close to the tax?

Mark in Austin
05-02-2009, 06:46 PM
Every year is supposedly Nelson's last. Fact is if GS is still willing to pay him, he's going to keep taking their money. He won a power srtuggle with Mullin and has basically carte blanche to do whatever he wants to / with that team.

There was a series of articles about six months ago that were linked to on Truehoop about how fucked up the situation is out there. I'd love to have Jack back, but I think it's a longshot.

Mel_13
05-02-2009, 06:50 PM
Is the Warriors close to the tax?

No, but they have two contracts that go to 2014 and two others that go 2013. They also have 4 swing players making at least 7.6M next year.

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/warriors.jsp

Mel_13
05-02-2009, 06:53 PM
Every year is supposedly Nelson's last. Fact is if GS is still willing to pay him, he's going to keep taking their money. He won a power srtuggle with Mullin and has basically carte blanche to do whatever he wants to / with that team.

There was a series of articles about six months ago that were linked to on Truehoop about how fucked up the situation is out there. I'd love to have Jack back, but I think it's a longshot.

Most of the scenarios discussed are, at least the Spurs could fit this longshot under the lux tax. It would be a perfect fit.

One can have hope.

MaNu4Tres
05-02-2009, 08:33 PM
How can the same guy who advocates trading for RJ be concerned about the cap killing effects of a player who makes 6.5M less than RJ?

Because RJ's contract is for just 2 more years not 4. So in the next 2 years if we don't end up with a title we can always have 2011 to sign another max player to pair with Tony for the future. We can't do that by signing someone with the contract like Jackson ( even though I would trade for him). And even though Jackson would cost 6.5 million less, it wouldn't really be if you look at it this way.

Spurs trade: Bowen, Oberto, Bonner, Mason
Milwaukee trades : Richard Jefferson

Milwaukee would buy out Oberto and Bowen to save 3.5 million on the books next year. Spurs would resign them for the minimum. So in essence Spurs really would be trading Mason and Bonner for Richard Jefferson.

Richard Jefferson would take Mason's minutes. So in reality we would only have to find Bonner's replacement, oh darn.

So yes it can be possible.

But all in all I'm down for Jackson or Jefferson or any move that would really improve our team around the big 3 for the next 3 years. All i know is our window is shutting fast and our FO needs to act quickly and rationally.

Mel_13
05-02-2009, 09:03 PM
Because RJ's contract is for just 2 more years not 4. So in the next 2 years if we don't end up with a title we can always have 2011 to sign another max player to pair with Tony for the future. We can't do that by signing someone with the contract like Jackson ( even though I would trade for him). And even though Jackson would cost 6.5 million less, it wouldn't really be if you look at it this way.

Spurs trade: Bowen, Oberto, Bonner, Mason
Milwaukee trades : Richard Jefferson

Milwaukee would buy out Oberto and Bowen to save 3.5 million on the books next year. Spurs would resign them for the minimum. So in essence Spurs really would be trading Mason and Bonner for Richard Jefferson.

Richard Jefferson would take Mason's minutes. So in reality we would only have to find Bonner's replacement, oh darn.

So yes it can be possible.

But all in all I'm down for Jackson or Jefferson or any move that would really improve our team around the big 3 for the next 3 years. All i know is our window is shutting fast and our FO needs to act quickly and rationally.

You keep saying, but you have yet to show it.

Show a 13-15 man roster that includes the Big 3 and RJ and stays under the lux tax without having 9-11 minimum contracts. You haven't shown it because it is not possible.

And the idea of RJ's two year commitment allowing the Spurs to point to 2011 to sign a big time FA is further evidence of your lack of math skills or your utter laziness to check the numbers. In 2010, Tim and Tony have combined salaries of 32.4M. In 2011, Tim will make 21.3M and Tony will be in line for a significant raise from the 13.6M he will make next year.

The Sjax contract is 4 yrs for 35.4M. RJ's is 2 yrs at 29.2M.

Which is the better deal?

lurker23
05-03-2009, 02:33 AM
Jack at his current contract and his current output is a steal. If there's any shot the Spurs could land him, I'd be all for it. I really don't mind his long-term deal; the thought of Parker+Manu+Jack+Duncan through 2012 makes me drool.


In fact, the more I think about it, I'd be willing to give up any player on the Spurs roster short of the Big 3 to get Jack back. Sure, Bruce+Oberto for Jack works, but I'd be willing to throw RMJ or even George Hill into the mix. Not that I want to, mind you, but sometimes you have to give up quality to get quality.

angelbelow
05-03-2009, 04:05 AM
price tag is a MAJOR con. hes pretty old too.

TheSpursFNRule
05-03-2009, 04:07 AM
price tag is a MAJOR con. hes pretty old too.

He's 31 and isn't declining really. 31 is young for spurs years. :married:

mountainballer
05-03-2009, 07:51 AM
first off, I don't think Sjax is on the market. GSW will try to get rid of either Maggette or Crawford, best case both. maybe they are willing to talk about Sjax when they get desperate because they fail to trade the other two. but this won't happen before the beginning of training camp and I don't think the Spurs have the time to wait that long with their major move. (and then the contracts of Bruce and Fab will have become guaranteed, so their value for other teams isn't as high).

but if he was on the market, sure he would be a great acquisition. age isn't a big problem. of course it would be nice if he was 2 or 3 years younger, but at least he should be able to play 2 more high level seasons. Ray Allen is 3 years older than him and he just played maybe the best PO series of his career.
even the last year of Sjax contract isn't that much of a bad thing. Spurs will need to make their big moves in 2012, this means the expiring contract of him might be the centerpiece the Spurs need to get a blockbuster trade done.
however, for the next two years at 7.6 and 8.4 the contract isn't bad at all. could be called bargain, if Sjax delivers big time.

GioSugar
05-03-2009, 09:22 AM
GSW 59,27m $ for 2009/10 for 11 players
http://hoopshype.com/salaries/golden_state.htm

exstatic
05-03-2009, 11:19 AM
price tag is a MAJOR con. hes pretty old too.

31 isn't that old for a non-highwire act. Jack plays his game pretty close to the ground. It's the same reason JKidd is still a VERY effective player in his late 30s.

You have to evaluate a player's game to see how they'll age.

EricB
05-03-2009, 11:31 AM
31 isn't that old for a non-highwire act. Jack plays his game pretty close to the ground. It's the same reason JKidd is still a VERY effective player in his late 30s.

You have to evaluate a player's game to see how they'll age.


Reason why Duncan is still great and will be geat for a while longer.

Close to the ground.

Jack however when tempted will drive to the basket.

iirc there was a few games he helped win in 2003 because of his drives to the basket and would either get a layup or duncan would tip in the miss.

Biggems
05-03-2009, 11:33 AM
Trade Bonner and Thomas to GS for Jackson.....I believe both will be coming off the books after next year. They get 2 bigs.......we get a wing we desperately need.

EricB
05-03-2009, 12:33 PM
Trade Bonner and Thomas to GS for Jackson.....I believe both will be coming off the books after next year. They get 2 bigs.......we get a wing we desperately need.


He would like Bonner, but again, why would GS do that?

DAF86
05-03-2009, 01:15 PM
He would like Bonner, but again, why would GS do that?


Originally Posted by Biggems

I believe both will be coming off the books after next year

TheSpursFNRule
05-04-2009, 12:25 AM
This in my opinion would be the best pick up for the spurs. We all know how good he is. Is his contract really that bad? Is he making over 10 million a year?

objective
05-04-2009, 12:48 AM
If the Warriors stay at the #7 pick, then that salary added to the shamsports numbers give them a total for 09/10 of about a little over 64 million.

The concern with Jackson is that he's coming off surgery.

objective
05-04-2009, 12:50 AM
This in my opinion would be the best pick up for the spurs. We all know how good he is. Is his contract really that bad? Is he making over 10 million a year?

his estimated salary (via shamsports, numbers differ from hoopshype and seem more in line with espn)

09/10 - 7.65

10/11 - 8.45

11/12 - 9.26

12/13 - 10.06

Whisky Dog
05-04-2009, 01:00 AM
Don't see a reasonable trade scenario that GS would go for. But if you did sign Jax it means no new deal for Manu unless he takes a major paycut.

objective
05-22-2009, 04:25 PM
Maybe there's hope for a Jackson trade after all.

There was a conference call Thursday (5-21) for GSW season ticket holders yesterday featuring the Team President and new General Manager fielding questions from fans.

A transcript from "Golden State of Mind" (http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2009/5/21/882722/warriors-conference-call-with)


Why the rush to sign Stephen Jackson?

Rowell [team president]: Need to get facts straight. We sat down last summer with the entire basketball staff and everyone was in agreement to extend. At the time of the extension there were 96 players in the NBA who were paid more than him. He's a player our coaches, front office, and basketball people wanted. If they want to move him later, it's a movable contract.

exstatic
05-23-2009, 12:29 PM
Don't see a reasonable trade scenario that GS would go for. But if you did sign Jax it means no new deal for Manu unless he takes a major paycut.

Nope. What id DOES mean is that Jack and Manu are your 2010 plan, and no one else is coming.

TDMVPDPOY
05-23-2009, 09:44 PM
Nope. What id DOES mean is that Jack and Manu are your 2010 plan, and no one else is coming.

fuck manu i do it....who knows if manu is going to bolt if he gets a better offer?

sure we can use the free cap to bring in someone, when was the last time a big name player would come here....

i rather have jackson then trying to sign someone with the 2010 plan.....at leasts his guaranteed on our books for another 2 years....if it doesnt work out, we can always trade him away and extend parker what his really worth and you got duncans contract going of the books in the same period as jacksons....

JustinJDW
05-25-2009, 03:14 AM
We need younger guys right now. We can't keep getting older.

exstatic
05-26-2009, 09:39 PM
We need younger guys right now. We can't keep getting older.

:lol Getting Steven Jackson IS getting younger...for the Spurs, anyway.

Nah. let's worry more about him being 31 years old, rather than his playoff assassin shooting, and multiple years of Mav killing in the playoffs.

Cant_Be_Faded
05-26-2009, 09:40 PM
I would take this man on the spurs if he was 40

urunobili
05-26-2009, 09:49 PM
I wish Jax was here... but he aint coming :depressed

to21
05-27-2009, 12:01 PM
He's been the one guy that's left I really miss.

Yeah he's turnover prone, but dude was a tough mofo.

DesignatedT
07-13-2009, 04:24 PM
we dont need sjax

Darkwaters
07-13-2009, 04:24 PM
What does PHX get out of that trade scenario?

AFBlue
07-13-2009, 04:29 PM
:repost: @ Spurs Think Tank...General Trade Discussion Thread

poeticism707
07-13-2009, 04:31 PM
Getting Captain Jack back would be a Spurs dream come true.

He's your Kobe Stopper as already a great defender (meaning he can and has slowed Kobe considerably), and he's brings A LOT to the table offensively, with FEARLESS shooting.

The Spurs FO would likely do this in second, but I'm not so sure GS gives up Jackson so easily. They probably want Amare and Jackson on the same team.

But if possible, FO do it!

Jackson is so fearless offensively, and so fearless and effective defensively against taller perimeter players like Dirk or Kobe, I'd even trade for him as our FIRST PRIORITY.

Meaning, even if Camby was available, I'd take Captain Jack with our expirings even before Camby.

Get Jack!

Again, I'd be shocked if the Spurs could actually get him though. In my estimation, the Spurs have better chance at getting Camby.

Marcus Bryant
07-13-2009, 04:34 PM
Dealing Bonner, Finley, and Williams straight up for Jackson would allow Golden State to clear something like $26 mil off their payroll.

Agloco
07-13-2009, 04:35 PM
Before we get off into Fantasy land, let's just point out that Golden state is trying to get a trade for Amare without letting go of Curry.

In this trade scenario. GS gets Finley, Bonner and Marcus Williams. We get SJax back.

Why would we do this? SJax was one of the best perimeter defenders outside of Bruce we had, and a clutch shooter.

We all would miss Finley...not so much for Bonner, but SJAX gives us all the intangibles that would just about Guarantee a championship.

Why would GS do this? 3 (2 veteran) players with expiring contracts may be very appealing to a rebuilding Phoenix Suns Team in a trade for Amare.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=m4x8vx


Modifying this for a 3 team deal with Phoenix included shows the following.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=nejgy8


The numbers work and their is motivation to do this in the FO's.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPER1kRfPM8

poeticism707
07-13-2009, 04:39 PM
Dealing Bonner, Finley, and Williams straight up for Jackson would allow Golden State to clear something like $26 mil off their payroll.

Man! If the Spurs somehow landed Captain Jack for Bonner, Finley, and Williams, I think I'd faint.

So would Phil Jackson the ENTIRE Lakers organization.

Marcus Bryant
07-13-2009, 04:48 PM
Of course, the Spurs would then add $26 million or so to their payroll for the next 4 seasons. So this would seem to be an unlikely scenario, but based on the last few weeks, you never know.

coyotes_geek
07-13-2009, 05:06 PM
Give it up. We're not trading for SJax.

InK
07-13-2009, 07:39 PM
This offseason is over for us. I don't think we are trading Finley and Bonner until January, those two guys expiring contrats will have the greatest value then plus and our needs will be a lot clearer after a few months of regular season then right now.

If a deal like this one presents itself though, i don't think we hesitate, but there is no chance a franchise in rebuilding mode trades its underpayed long term commited star player.

TDMVPDPOY
07-13-2009, 10:24 PM
maybe we could resign drew gooden and package him to the warriors, since the suns would want of their bigs, and we give them a backup big in gooden....hence i add in one of the young players rights we have....

Ice009
07-13-2009, 10:27 PM
If Stephen wants out let's get him.

I actually thought Stephen wanted to stay and the Warriors thought highly of him. Warriors could use the cap room and I would much rather have Sjax at SG than Mason. He is a big upgrade defensively and gives us someone who can guard Dirk or other long SFs for short stretches.

Edit: I just read one of the articles and it's from last year. What are you doing posting this stuff?

Marcus Bryant
07-13-2009, 10:44 PM
Man, it would be great to see Jack come back, but I can't see the Spurs taking on that contract. Yes, they dealt for Jefferson, but his has only has two seasons left on it. Plus this would be on top of Jefferson's contract and Manu's coming extension.

coyotes_geek
07-13-2009, 10:45 PM
maybe we could resign drew gooden and package him to the warriors, since the suns would want of their bigs, and we give them a backup big in gooden....hence i add in one of the young players rights we have....

We don't have bird rights on Gooden so we could only S&T him at a minimum salary.

ducks
07-13-2009, 10:54 PM
the only way sj would be on this team would be if manu was traded for him

ivanfromwestwood
07-13-2009, 11:05 PM
the only way sj would be on this team would be if manu was traded for himi agree. with that said, would you do it?

TDMVPDPOY
07-13-2009, 11:09 PM
i agree. with that said, would you do it?

who wouldnt? :lobt2:

mabrignani
07-14-2009, 12:20 PM
"shootin 3s like stephen jackson, say my name watch a bitch reaction"

jacks a beast, straight from Port Arthur Texas. gotta keep pimpin in texas

MoSpur
07-14-2009, 12:46 PM
Trade Manu for SJax???? Would you do it?

bishopospurs
07-14-2009, 04:00 PM
No, I think Manu retires a spur now, I would definitely give up Fin/Boner I mean Bonner/Williams for him

bigdog
07-14-2009, 06:14 PM
I'd take him back in a heartbeat.

iilluzioN
07-15-2009, 11:20 AM
one thing about Stephen Jackson is that he knows how to stop Dirk.

Ice009
07-15-2009, 11:40 PM
one thing about Stephen Jackson is that he knows how to stop Dirk.

When looking at trades for Sjax the thing I look at first is defense.

He is a huge upgrade over Finley, Bonner, Mason Jr. defensively. I don't think many people consider that aspect when discussing trades for Sjax.

He would be an upgrade defensively and obviously he can score a bit too so that would really make this deal even better.

Mark in Austin
07-17-2009, 08:54 PM
An even more appealing scenario for Phoenix with Maggette, Bonner and Mason included.

Amare to GS

SJAX to SA


http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=lc9s92

you're crazy if you think Kerr would trade for a chucker like Maggette & his contract - especially with PHX trying to shed salary.

I thought Jack & Nelson were tight. If Nelson wants him gone, Jack might actually be available. But he's 31 now, & damn that is a $$$ extension he signed.

If Nelson quits, all bets are off though - and at that point, I think GS tries to move either Maggette or Jack, and nobody is going to want a one-dimensional player like Maggette at 10M per year, so you never know.


But if we're playing borderline possibility trade machine, I think I'd opt for Nocioni over Jack. He's a year & a half younger and has a much more affordable contract over the same number of years.

waly.mg
07-17-2009, 10:45 PM
why
manu should not make more then the mle

:elephant:elephant:elephant:elephant

TDMVPDPOY
07-18-2009, 02:10 AM
if RJ doesnt panned out....

i be happy to ship his ass next summer for jax....

urunobili
07-19-2009, 03:46 PM
Jax is the ultimate Mav killer...

SpurCharger
07-20-2009, 12:22 AM
That Is the one Move I have never Forgiven Pop For, is lettin Stephen Jackson go..... He was So Clutch in 2003 for us...... But oh well!

bigdog
07-21-2009, 03:35 PM
That Is the one Move I have never Forgiven Pop For, is lettin Stephen Jackson go..... He was So Clutch in 2003 for us...... But oh well!

The Spurs did NOT let Jackson go. They offered him a contract, only for him and his agent to reject it and sign with the Hawks for a deal that was significantly less than the one the Spurs offered.

EricB
07-21-2009, 08:27 PM
That Is the one Move I have never Forgiven Pop For, is lettin Stephen Jackson go..... He was So Clutch in 2003 for us...... But oh well!

I'm sure Pop can't sleep at night thanks to you.

JoeChalupa.
07-22-2009, 11:47 AM
I'm sure Pop can't sleep at night thanks to you.


there's just no way you could be sure of that.

Sdayi135
07-23-2009, 12:27 AM
Pass...ship sailed in 2003. Give me Andres Nocioni instead.

Bruno
08-28-2009, 05:47 PM
http://dimemag.com/2009/08/breaking-news-stephen-jackson-wants-out-of-golden-state/

Breaking News: Stephen Jackson Wants Out Of Golden State


Dime: You made a big declaration earlier today by saying you wanted out of Golden State. When did you decide this?
Stephen Jackson: Itís not about a decision I made. Itís just things are in the air right now. I really canít get too much into it right now, but Iím just looking to go somewhere where I can go and win a championship.

Dime: Are the Warriors aware of this?
SJ: Yeah they all know.

Dime: Is there anywhere specifically you want to go?
SJ: Either Cleveland, anywhere in Texas or out here with Al in New York.

Bartleby
08-28-2009, 05:53 PM
Not sure how the Spurs could possibly afford him, but I'd hate to see him in Houston, Dallas, or Cleveland.

Bruno
08-28-2009, 06:00 PM
Well, I don't want him back given his contract but there are a lot of SJax fans here...

lurker23
08-28-2009, 06:40 PM
I'd love to have Jack back, but I don't see how he fits into this team after the RJ acquisition. There are only two ways I see the Spurs going after Jack at this point, and both seem very unlikely:

1. If they are somehow convinced that Manu isn't coming back after this year, or
2. Jack can be had for expiring contracts, something like Jack for Finley/Bonner/Hairston.

(Like I said, very unlikely.)

DPG21920
08-28-2009, 07:07 PM
He can be had for Mason and Bonner. Not to mention, he can easily play SG.

Edit: Did not mean he could be had, meant the salaries match. Huge difference.

Sausage
08-28-2009, 07:56 PM
Finley and Bonner would work too according to the ESPN trade machine. Finley Bonner and Mason would also work. I mean it's not a bad trade since all three contracts are expiring.

Thompson
08-28-2009, 08:31 PM
I doubt we'll have much need for this year's draft pick with Splitter (hopefully) coming over. Unfortunately I don't think we can trade it since we traded last year's pick. Maybe trade them the 2011 (protected) pick along with Bonner and Finley's expiring contracts?

I'd hate to see him on the Mavericks.

loveforthegame
08-28-2009, 08:37 PM
I don't see GS and Dallas making a trade. You think Nelson would gift wrap Jackson for Cuban? Not a chance.

Thompson
08-28-2009, 08:56 PM
I don't see GS and Dallas making a trade. You think Nelson would gift wrap Jackson for Cuban? Not a chance.

Actually I forgot about that. Donnie Nelson is his son, however. Does he love his son or hate Cuban more? I think Donnie might not want to find out the answer to that one.

tav1
08-29-2009, 10:33 AM
His contract is a killer, so I wouldn't move on him unless Golden State was willing to, more or less, cap dump him (which I doubt). 2003 was a long time ago.

Having said that, replacing Roger Mason Jr with Stephen Jackson would be an absolute coup, and especially on defense.

benefactor
08-29-2009, 11:21 AM
His contract is a killer, so I wouldn't move on him unless Golden State was willing to, more or less, cap dump him (which I doubt). 2003 was a long time ago.

Having said that, replacing Roger Mason Jr with Stephen Jackson would be an absolute coup, and especially on defense.
No doubt. If we can get him for Mason/Bonner then I am all for it. It would give us a lot of size and defense on the perimeter and it would add another proven clutch playoff player.

I actually think that it's a trade that Nelly might consider. Mason and Bonner are both run the floor pretty well and both shoot 40+ from behind the arc. That is all that is required to play for GS.

As far as his contract goes, it's about par for the course for a player with Capt. Jack's skills. Eating money at the end of contracts is nothing new. It's worth it if he can be the final piece that earns us a title this season or next season.

will_spurs
08-29-2009, 09:56 PM
As usual it all depends on what the price is. But SJax is an upgrade over Mason pretty much whichever way you look at it. And the Spurs have too many players right now, they can probably ship one on top of it. If GS is ready to accept something Mason+Bonner for SJax then definitely yes.

iilluzioN
08-30-2009, 11:05 AM
JOX guards Dirk very well, I say we go for him

Muser
08-30-2009, 02:41 PM
JOX guards Dirk very well, I say we go for him

Why would Boston want someone to guard Dirk?

DPG21920
08-30-2009, 03:45 PM
I want us to get him. If it were at all possible to get him without giving up Mason then the Spurs could just get the party started for a championship.

Shamsports say that he is making 7.65 million this season.

I'm not sure if Bonner+Finley+Williams total contract numbers (~6.5 million) would match up. As much as I don't want to Ian might have to be thrown in as well if we want to keep Mason.

If our defense really can't be all that great and we do get Jack the we should be able to outscore any team in the league.

I think our defense would improve drastically if we gave up either Mason or Finley for Jax. Spurs would still have problems with length and down low, but overall would be damn solid.

Parker is a decent defender, put SJax in place of Finley or Mason and that goes up, RJ is solid, Duncan and Dice?

MaNu4Tres
09-25-2009, 06:02 PM
Warriors willing to trade Jackson:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4504553

I'd call up Don Nelson and their FO and offer up Mason/ Finley/ Mahimni and a future 1st.

Steve-O-Matic
09-25-2009, 06:08 PM
Warriors willing to trade Jackson:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4504553

I'd call up Don Nelson and their FO and offer up Mason/ Finley/ Mahimni and a future 1st.

You'd get hung up on pretty quickly.

MaNu4Tres
09-25-2009, 06:09 PM
You'd get hung up on pretty quickly.

If that was the case I'd consider offering up Splitter as well.

If you can look through your crystal ball again and predict that they'd hang up emphatically, then I'd look to see what it would take to get Nocioni.

Steve-O-Matic
09-25-2009, 06:16 PM
Then you might as well start looking to see what it would take to get Nocioni.

Bruno
09-25-2009, 06:30 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-warriorsnets092009&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


While a source said the Warriors are open to dealing Jackson, his contract Ė with four years and $35 million remaining Ė makes moving him difficult.

As I've said since day one, nobody wants Jackson and his crappy contract.
Even if Spurs only offered only Mason + Finley for Jackson, Warriors would gladly accept.

MaNu4Tres
09-25-2009, 06:43 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-warriorsnets092009&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


As I've said since day one, nobody wants Jackson and his crappy contract.
Even if Spurs only offered only Mason + Finley for Jackson, Warriors would gladly accept.

I agree to an extent. Even though his contract is crappy length wise, 7.65 million next year at a 10 percent increase per year is a bargain for a 20/5/5 player .( Even though he's an inefficient 20 5 and 5 player.)

That's the case the Warriors would use to squeeze everything out of their trading partner.

Even though he would never have the ball enough to ever put up those numbers on the Spurs. Warriors would use that as ammunition to get everything they can.


If Mason/ Finley was all it took to get SJax I don't think the Spurs could turn that down. As long as Pop talked to him before the trade went down and he agreed to focus primarily on being a force defensively and spot up shooting/ and only creating whenever the opposition closed out hard to him at the 3 pt line.

In other words no step back/ ill advised mid range contested jumpers that he became accustomed to in GS.

Steve-O-Matic
09-25-2009, 06:56 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-warriorsnets092009&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


As I've said since day one, nobody wants Jackson and his crappy contract.
Even if Spurs only offered only Mason + Finley for Jackson, Warriors would gladly accept.

Not true. The Warriors have specifically stated they're not interested in a salary dump or (as Don Nelson put it today) "giving away" Jackson. They just signed him to his extension 10 months ago, he's a team captain and they love him (despite his recent comments). If they're going to trade him they want equal value in return, not expiring contracts.

MaNu4Tres
09-25-2009, 07:07 PM
If I'm the Warriors I'm calling Phx and flirting with the idea of SJAX/ Randolph+ filler and pick for Amare.

Bruno
09-25-2009, 07:25 PM
Not true. The Warriors have specifically stated they're not interested in a salary dump or (as Don Nelson put it today) "giving away" Jackson. They just signed him to his extension 10 months ago, he's a team captain and they love him (despite his recent comments). If they're going to trade him they want equal value in return, not expiring contracts.

Well, Nelson won't say "we are looking to give away Jackson". He is trying to get the best return for Jackson.

Jackson has publicly asked to be traded one month ago. He hasn't been traded. When he was linked to a team (Cavs or Mavs), there were reports saying that these teams weren't interested in him. Reports are now saying that he isn't easily tradable because of his contract.

In all likelihood, teams don't want Jackson and his contract. It's hard to come to another conclusion given what has happened this last month. If teams were really interested in him, one would have heard serious rumors or he would have been traded.

To me, it makes no doubt that Spurs aren't even slightly interested in Jackson. It makes no sense at all for them to add that kind of player with that kind of contract.

Steve-O-Matic
09-25-2009, 07:37 PM
I'm not debating any of that. I'm debating the statement that the Warriors would "gladly accept" Mason and Finley for Jackson, which simply isn't true. Ultimately the Warriors want to keep Jackson. They're not actively shopping him, nor are they attempting to rid themselves of his contract which they just gave him last November. If they're going to consider trading Jackson they're going to have to be offered something of substantive value in return that they can't pass up - not expiring contracts. They've made that perfectly clear.

Bruno
09-25-2009, 07:50 PM
Warriors are a young team. It makes no sense for them to keep an aging, malcontent and with a big contract Jackson.

Now, they are the Warriors. They signed Maggette for $50M and gave Jackson an extension. They did damn stupid things and they could very well continue to do so.

Steve-O-Matic
09-25-2009, 07:56 PM
He doesn't have a big contract, he has a somewhat long contract. $7M for a 20/5/6 guy who is a plus defender is a bargain. But that's irrelevant because the point is that they are NOT looking to trade him for expiring contacts, period. So you can forget the "gladly accept" Mason+Finley thing.

Bruno
09-25-2009, 08:03 PM
.But that's irrelevant because the point is that they are NOT looking to trade him for expiring contacts, period. So you can forget the "gladly accept" Mason+Finley thing.

Well, that's YOUR opinion that is based on NOTHING.

Steve-O-Matic
09-25-2009, 08:04 PM
Well, Nelson won't say "we are looking to give away Jackson". He is trying to get the best return for Jackson.


Which is exactly my point - they would want VALUE in return, not expiring contracts as you inferred with the "gladly accept" Mason+Finley declaration.

Steve-O-Matic
09-25-2009, 08:06 PM
Well, that's YOUR opinion that is based on NOTHING.

Umm, it's not an opinion, it's based on direct quotes from both Don Nelson and the Warriors owner. You might want to do a little reading up on this topic, pal.

Bruno
09-25-2009, 08:10 PM
Umm, it's not an opinion, it's based on direct quotes from both Don Nelson and the Warriors owner. You might want to do a little reading up on this topic, pal.

If you can't understand why a coach or an owner will never say "we are looking to give away this player", I can't help you, pal.

MaNu4Tres
09-25-2009, 08:11 PM
If you can't understand why a coach or an owner will never say "we are looking to give away this player", I can't help you, pal.

:lol

Steve-O-Matic
09-25-2009, 08:15 PM
If you can't understand why a coach or an owner will never say "we are looking to give away this player", I can't help you, pal.

You can cover your ears, scream "la la la la la la" and ignore the facts all you want but the truth remains that the Warriors are NOT looking to salary dump Jackson. You're the one who needs help, not me. First you said they'd "gladly accept" Mason and Finley (i.e. expiring contracts) and now you're saying they're trying to maximize their return. In other words, you've completley lost track of your own argument.

MaNu4Tres
09-25-2009, 08:25 PM
A GM or coach with the IQ of a 1st grader would know to never come out in public and say " We are willing to give away Stephen Jackson for expiring contracts". They will say and do anything to get the best offers of course. But fact is Yahoo has stated as Bruno mentioned earlier that a lot of teams have said NO thanks because of his contract.

Bruno
09-25-2009, 08:26 PM
You can cover your ears, scream "la la la la la la" and ignore the facts all you want but the truth remains that the Warriors are NOT looking to salary dump Jackson. You're the one who needs help, not me. First you said they'd "gladly accept" Mason and Finley (i.e. expiring contracts) and now you're saying they're trying to maximize their return. In other words, you've completley lost track of your own argument.

Me, ignoring the facts ?

Am I the one who ignores the lack of any kind of serious rumors about Jackson being traded ?
Am I the one who ignores reports saying that teams aren't interested in him?
Am I the one who ignores reports saying that Jackson is hard to move because of his contract ?

It's sure that Warriors are TRYING to maximise their return. It doesn't mean that they will succeed at that and get a good return for Jackson. Heck, it's far from sure that they will be able to get a as good return as Mason+Finley for Jackson.

I guess we can agree that we disagree. If Jackson is traded, we will then see what Warriors receive for him.

BG_Spurs_Fan
09-26-2009, 12:44 AM
You can cover your ears, scream "la la la la la la" and ignore the facts all you want but the truth remains that the Warriors are NOT looking to salary dump Jackson. You're the one who needs help, not me. First you said they'd "gladly accept" Mason and Finley (i.e. expiring contracts) and now you're saying they're trying to maximize their return. In other words, you've completley lost track of your own argument.

Dude, taking expirings for Jackson's awful contract would be nothing short of maximizing their return, however it's pretty clear few, if any, teams are in for him, not surprisingly. The Spurs are not in for him as well, at least that bit should be plain obvious.

Chieflion
09-26-2009, 06:36 AM
If I'm the Warriors I'm calling Phx and flirting with the idea of SJAX/ Randolph+ filler and pick for Amare.
No way. Amar'e's eye issue plus baggage and one year rental makes this a no go. Warriors management and fans literally have a hard on for Anthony Randolph as well. This is a no go on the Warriors side. On the other hand, if the Suns could cut costs, they would take the deal. Besides, they tried this on draft day and the Warriors backed out on it.

Any trade with Anthony Randolph in it is not even worth considering for the Warriors unless a superstar or Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant or Greg Oden comes with the deal.

benefactor
09-26-2009, 08:39 AM
Why would someone think that Nellie would't take Mason and Finley for Jack? Mason was one of the best 3pt shooters in the league last year. Is anything else required to play for GS?

ginobilized
09-26-2009, 11:34 AM
I just hope if we don't get SJax that the Lakers don't get him either. I don't get the feeling though that Pop wants him. Pop described RJ as "Stephen Jackson without the drama" in one of his press videos. We'll see how it plays out.

DPG21920
09-26-2009, 12:07 PM
Steve-O:

You are reading too much into what Nellie says. He has too say what he did in order to sound like a business man. Just in case he can fool someone into thinking they have to give up talent in order to get Jackson.

Deep down he knows that won't happen though and the most likely thing is that he is dumped for expiring contracts. But he cannot come out and say: "We are in a terrible position with Jack coming out and demanding to be traded along with his terrible contract, we would be lucky to get any takers..."

He has to put the front office spin on it and I would not read so much into it.

HarlemHeat37
09-26-2009, 12:24 PM
You don't even have to look at what Nelson says..this is exactly what I said when the rumors came up..NOBODY is going to offer anything of value to get Stephen Jackson, outside of possibly offering expiring contracts..

he's getting older, his contract runs too long..the only teams that would possibly be willing to take him on are contenders, or teams that are 1 move on the perimeter away from contending..

Looking at the potential candidates..Cleveland doesn't have anything to offer from a "value" perspective, LA isn't trading away Bynum, Dallas has nothing, Denver has nothing, Boston isn't giving Rondo or Perkins, Portland isn't trading any of their young guys(especially since they've been self-conscience about their image since the JailBlazer days, so they won't take somebody of Jax' character), Orlando isn't giving Nelson and they're already too deep on the wing..

So even if it actually took some value to get Jackson, which it doesn't, then there isn't even really a team that can offer anything better than the Spurs..Bonner and Finley would actually be very useful in Golden State's system, Bonner as a dream player for Nelson, and Finley as a leader..

Golden State has no option here..if they're thinking logically, then all they wanna do is get out of Jackson's contract obligations, so they'll take any offer which gets rid of him..if we give them that offer, Jackson will be in San Antonio the next day..

It's just a matter of paying him significant $ at an old age, which is what would happen later on in this contract..

If you ask me if I would take Bonner+Finley for Jackson, I'd do it in a heartbeat..but it's not my money here..I just don't believe it's realistically going to happen, especially at this point in time..maybe at the deadline..that offer would easily do it though..

DPG21920
09-26-2009, 12:51 PM
You don't even have to look at what Nelson says..this is exactly what I said when the rumors came up..NOBODY is going to offer anything of value to get Stephen Jackson, outside of possibly offering expiring contracts..

Agreed, that is what everyone has said.


he's getting older, his contract runs too long..the only teams that would possibly be willing to take him on are contenders, or teams that are 1 move on the perimeter away from contending..

Agreed.


Looking at the potential candidates..Cleveland doesn't have anything to offer from a "value" perspective, LA isn't trading away Bynum, Dallas has nothing, Denver has nothing, Boston isn't giving Rondo or Perkins, Portland isn't trading any of their young guys(especially since they've been self-conscience about their image since the JailBlazer days, so they won't take somebody of Jax' character), Orlando isn't giving Nelson and they're already too deep on the wing..

Cleavland: They have offers they can put together that fit positional wise, expiring wise and "talent" wise. Perhaps Delonte West (Only 500K is guaranteed next season), JJ Hickson (young big with team option next year) and Danny Green (who could be a decent role player down the road with an unguaranteed contract) for Jax? Not a bad offer and makes the Cavs a lot better.

Now would Cleavland take on an extra 1.5M this year and then his contract beyond?

Lakers: They have Kobe at SG and Ron at SF, I doubt there would be enough minutes there for them to take on Jax contract.

Dallas: They do have Josh Howard to trade. If Josh is struggling to play SG with Marion there, Jax might be an appealing option (although J-Ho is much younger and has a team option for next season). No question Jax is better right now.

I am not sure when Marion can be traded, but Marion for Jax works I believe and no question Jax is better. Similar contracts as well. From a talent standpoint, getting Marion would be about as good as they could hope for.

I agree with the other teams.


So even if it actually took some value to get Jackson, which it doesn't, then there isn't even really a team that can offer anything better than the Spurs..Bonner and Finley would actually be very useful in Golden State's system, Bonner as a dream player for Nelson, and Finley as a leader..

Golden State has no option here..if they're thinking logically, then all they wanna do is get out of Jackson's contract obligations, so they'll take any offer which gets rid of him..if we give them that offer, Jackson will be in San Antonio the next day..

It's just a matter of paying him significant $ at an old age, which is what would happen later on in this contract..

If you ask me if I would take Bonner+Finley for Jackson, I'd do it in a heartbeat..but it's not my money here..I just don't believe it's realistically going to happen, especially at this point in time..maybe at the deadline..that offer would easily do it though..

Agree here as well for the most part, but I think some of the teams you mentioned have the tools to get a deal done if they wanted to.

HarlemHeat37
09-26-2009, 12:59 PM
Oh, I definitely agree that they can make trades from a talent perspective, I just don't think they would do it..

I don't see Cleveland moving Hickson at all, since reports have been that they're very high on him, and the only way I see them moving West is if the weapons charge becomes a huge thing..I don't think they would cave in for Golden State's demands, since everybody knows the Warriors don't really have much to work with when it comes to Jackson..

I don't think Golden State would take on Marion, his game is going to continue to decline, and they'll just have to take on his contract for a long time..I agree that they would take Howard though, but I don't know if Dallas would make that move..

I honestly feel like our deal would be the best offer..they would be getting expiring contracts that could help them continue to rebuild, and also getting 2 useful players in their system..

Do you guys think there would be any chance of the FO taking ANOTHER contract like that?..

DPG21920
09-26-2009, 01:10 PM
I don't. I wish it would happen, but it won't.

nkdlunch
09-26-2009, 01:57 PM
I am very confident Spurs can grab him if they can convince GS and Jax himself. Which does not seem that hard.


Bonner, Finley + Mahinmi for Jax

nkdlunch
09-26-2009, 02:07 PM
what a bad ass team:

TP/Hill
Manu/Mason
RJ/Jax
Duncan/Blair
Mcdyess/Ratliff/Jones

iilluzioN
09-26-2009, 02:10 PM
S.JAX IS A DIRK/DALLAS KILLER! SIGN HIM!!!

Hill, Mason, SJAX, Blair, Ratliff is a starting lineup for another team almost, CAPTIAN JAX BITCHES

TIMMYD!
09-26-2009, 02:12 PM
Sjax, Nocioni, Bell=:lobt2:

Dunc n Dave
09-26-2009, 02:16 PM
I am very confident Spurs can grab him if they can convince GS and Jax himself. Which does not seem that hard.


Bonner, Finley + Mahinmi for Jax

NOT gonna happen. Nelson said they won't just give him away and there's no way they do a 3 for 1 trade when their roster is already overcrowded. They already have 15 guys under contract.

Spurs would have to give up a package of Mason and Bonner to get SJax. Nelson likes 3pt shooters and he'd get 2 out of the deal, one of them a bigman. I still think there will be teams out there that can offer a better deal to GS than Mason and Bonner though, so chances are slim for the Spurs.

benefactor
09-26-2009, 04:52 PM
NOT gonna happen. Nelson said they won't just give him away and there's no way they do a 3 for 1 trade when their roster is already overcrowded. They already have 15 guys under contract.

Spurs would have to give up a package of Mason and Bonner to get SJax. Nelson likes 3pt shooters and he'd get 2 out of the deal, one of them a bigman. I still think there will be teams out there that can offer a better deal to GS than Mason and Bonner though, so chances are slim for the Spurs.
Agreed. I think that Nellie might do Finley and Bonner, but in all likelihood he would ask for Mason in place of Finley to get the deal done. Finley will be done after this year and Mason is a player that GS can at least take a shot at re-signing after this year. A much as they like to overpay players, I'm thinking they would offer a contract that Mason would take if he plays well for them.

MaNu4Tres
11-16-2009, 11:12 AM
Jackson's a Bobcat:

Jackson/ Law for Bell /Radmonovic

admiralsnackbar
11-16-2009, 02:13 PM
Poor GS. They give Jax a terrible contract which inflates his ego past reckoning, creating a situation which demands the haughty egotist be traded for table scraps. Lose/Lose.

TDMVPDPOY
01-06-2010, 01:51 AM
man fkn jax has been balling since joining the bobcats

whats there record with him since joining the team? its like a turnaround, now they could be looking at playoffs bball...

all they need is diaw to get a straw out of his ass and play like that 10m dollar contract he is

FlAVaK
01-06-2010, 05:55 AM
3-6 before (Diaw 12.9 PPG on 11.1 FGAs)
12-12 after (Diaw 8.6 PPG on 7.9 FGAs)

I won`t call that a turnaround, especially because some of those earlier losses came @Boston, @Cleveland and against Orlando, Portland.

And Diaw scoring drop relates to the number of touches.
He was never worth his contract anyways...

ace3g
01-22-2012, 05:25 PM
Jackson overslept Friday morning and coach Scott Skiles said he wouldnít play. Shaun Livingston started in his place at shooting guard.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=As_eEDUVTZcPiEWllSZEbvUzPKB4?slug=ap-buckslineup

and Livingston will start in his place again, even though SJAX is available to play

AlexKennedyNBA Alex Kennedy
Shaun Livingston to start for the Bucks tonight, even though Stephen Jackson is available. It'll be interesting to see how Jackson responds.

Have to see how this scenario plays out toward the trade deadline...

--

UPDATE:

AlexKennedyNBA Alex Kennedy
Stephen Jackson didn't play in Milwaukee's win over Detroit on Monday. Jackson is frustrated, but sources say he hasn't demanded a trade.

AlexKennedyNBA Alex Kennedy
Stephen Jackson is someone to keep an eye on as the trade deadline approaches. The Bucks won't pay him $9,260,000 to sit on the bench.

TDMVPDPOY
02-08-2012, 02:22 AM
jax only has played like 10mins out of the bucks last 5 games...he doesnt know his role there...

maybe they should straight up trade for rj....


ps. jax wants an extention.....umm fail

stephen jackson
02-08-2012, 03:53 AM
give him a damn extension briing him here.
we gave pussy rj one.

venitian navigator
02-10-2012, 11:42 PM
at this point, I Think SJ would came here also without an extension...but just for the chance to increase his market value.
His relationship with Milwaukee looks like already brocken.
Only point is that maybe Milwaukee, probably, doesn't want two more years of RJ (also if with a better contract than the one they sold us...)...but is out of question that RJ could be a good complement to speedy play maker like Jennings...

ace3g
02-17-2012, 11:08 PM
Jackson Doesnít See a Future in Milwaukee

http://www.hoopsworld.com/stephen-jackson-doesnt-see-a-future-in-milwaukee

K-State Spur
02-18-2012, 10:34 AM
at this point, I Think SJ would came here also without an extension...but just for the chance to increase his market value.


The problem is that there isn't much market for 35 year old (which he will be when his contract expires) off guards who depend more on athleticism than pure skill.

That's why Jax knows that he needs to get paid NOW.

Besides, Jax's best role on a contender is defending (which he can't do like he used to) and taking his offense when it's there - not trying to justify the next big deal by chucking up shots left and right at the expense of more efficient scorers.

I'll use numbers of the previous 3 years (which Jax is probably going to fall off of even if he's happy, he's entering the mid-30s):

Jackson - 1.19 points/shot (1.02 this year)
-----
Parker - 1.26 points/shot (1.19 this year)
Manu - 1.38 points/shot (1.68 this year)
RJ - 1.32 points/shot (1.19 this year)
Neal - 1.24 points/shot (1.04 this year)
Leonard - 1.10 points/shot (this year only)
Green - 1.16 points/shot (this year only)

He's less efficient than everybody except Green & Leonard, and I don't want him taking their minutes unless he can defend like them, which I don't think he can anymore.

Then, top it all off with the fact that his contract is worse than RJ's because you can't amnesty it if you trade for it.

Don't see it.