Hindsight 20/20: Spurs Made Mistake

Stephen Jackson should still be in a Spurs uniform. Last year, the Spurs tried to replace him with Hedo Turkoglu. That was a huge failure. This year, the Spurs tried to replace him with Brent Barry. That has so far proven to be a huge failure.

Whether it was caving in after the championship and giving him the 5-year, $24M he wanted or acquiring this past summer for 6-year, $38M, the Spurs should have made it happen. People now know him as the crazy guy with cornrows who attacked people in Detroit, but we as Spurs fans know that wouldn't have happened in San Antonio. He's a good guy who gets caught up in the thug life attitude and him fighting was more out of him trying to prove to his new teammates that he'd "ride" for them.

We're two-thirds into the Spurs season and anyone who doesn't think that Brent Barry has been a disappointment is lying. He hasn't been overly bad but he really hasn't done anything. He comes into games, misses a few shots, makes a bad pass and leaves. That's been his status quo for most of the season. He's hit a big shot here, made a nice pass there ... but overall he hasn't done anything to earn the 4-year, $22M contract the Spurs gave him. The playoffs will be the true test but if the regular season is any indication, I'm not holding my breath for any miracles out of him.

What this team lacks is what SJax brings. This team isn't as tough as the two championship Spurs teams. SJax brings a toughness. This team doesn't have any real leaders. Pop has admitted recently that SJax was a team leader and was the player who would get on other players if they weren't doing their job. The Spurs don't have that. SJax is a clutch shooter. Do the Spurs have that? It's not 100% clear, but it doesn't look overly likely.

Stephen Jackson should have been a Spur for life. He's that X-Factor player the Spurs need to lively up their squad and make it playoff and battle ready. His teammates know that he'll stand up for them and that he has their back. Can you honestly say that about any player on the team right now?

I know what you are going to say so let me clear it up now.

-I know the Spurs have the best record in the league. But finishing with the best record really doesn't mean anything in the playoffs. The best regular season Spurs team of all-time didn't win a championship.

-Someone is going to say that Stephen Jackson turns the ball over too much. For the season, he's averaging 2.8 turnovers per 48 minutes. "High-IQ" Brent Barry averaging 1.8 turnovers per 48 minutes. I don't think that one turnover is a reason to not have a guy on your team.

-It is going to be said that Stephen Jackson makes too much. If you add two more years to Brent Barry's contract, you have a six-year, $34M contract. The difference is only $4M over the life of the contract.

-It doesn't really matter if Manu or SJax starts. Manu can only play 30 MPG anyways and Jack could find more than enough minutes if he took the left over time from Manu and Bowen.

http://www.cnnsi.com/basketball/nba/...ackson_all.jpg

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...3763812949.jpg

no doubt timvp, but i still see barry as a need considering we needed a replacement for kerr's 3pt shooting as well, and beno was no guarantee coming into the year.....

would you have brought bruce off the bench or manu in the case of a resigned jax?

eitherway, hindsight is hindsight...i hope dev steps it up again soon!!!

I have to disagree. The Spurs just cannot make it happen financially. For the Spurs, this is why we couldn't sign him. Look at Malik.

I remember one game when Jackson won the game with a last second basket, or maybe it was to tie the game and go into overtime.

What I remember more are a series of constant turnovers and being in Pop's dog house. The same things people say about Barry, and they are probably true, I remember about Jackson. He's a good NBA player. Trouble is there are a lot of very good and excellent NBA players as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigzak25

would you have brought bruce off the bench or manu in the case of a resigned jax?

---

Either SJax or Manu. Either way, doesn't really matter. Manu could conserve his 30 minutes and play them in more important moments if he came off the bench. Plus the Spurs have proven they could win a championship that way. SJax off the bench would make more of an impact than Barry does, no doubt.

Yeah it's too bad he took far less to play somewhere else, which wasn't our fault...

And he wasn't playing that damn well in San Antonio, 43% and 32% while averaging 12 points....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usckk

I have to disagree. The Spurs just cannot make it happen financially. For the Spurs, this is why we couldn't sign him. Look at Malik.

---

Uh ... read the post. It's four more million over six seasons than a Brent Barry contract that was extended two years. Not exactly breaking the bank.

Quote:

---

I remember one game when Jackson won the game with a last second basket, or maybe it was to tie the game and go into overtime.

---

You don't remember Stephen Jackson's 3's turning the tide in the game where the Spurs won the title in 2003.

Stephen Jackson made some crucial, crucial shots for the Spurs. He's fearless ... I hope that someone on this season's Spurs team has the fearless, relentless attitude in the playoffs and can knock down shots from the perimeter.

In hindsight, we can say that he would have [insert $ amount] value to the Spurs...I wouldn't argue with your logic there. I still feel that the team offered him fair market value, and he turned it down. The Spurs didn't lowball him, they made a fair offer at the time. You're right, hindsight is 20/20, and when you combine our needs to the way he flourished under the discipline Pop provided, he might be worth his asking price...to the Spurs specifically. He wanted a lot more than he was worth on the open market. I can just as easily put the blame on him for passing up the Spurs offer. He's reaffirmed his rep as a headcase, and he has less opportunity for individual and team success in his current situation. He's hurt himself as much as the Spurs hurt themselves. In hindsight, he might reconsider refusing the Spurs original offer.

to the salary experts:
Hypothetically, had we paid SJ what he wanted, how might that have affected our ability to resign Manu and Tony, as well as our ability to bring in Scola? There are, of course, a million variables...but any guesses as to how it might have affected what the FO could have offered Manu and TP?

The only person to blamed for Jackson not been a SPURS is Jackson.I give credit to the SPURS front office for not give it.If he really wanted to be a SPURS he would have signed this past summer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurYank

What I remember more are a series of constant turnovers and being in Pop's dog house. The same things people say about Barry, and they are probably true, I remember about Jackson. He's a good NBA player. Trouble is there are a lot of very good and excellent NBA players as well.

---

Is Brent Barry a very good or excellent NBA player in the Spurs' system?

Doesn't look like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PM5K

Yeah it's too bad he took far less to play somewhere else, which wasn't our fault...

And he wasn't playing that damn well in San Antonio, 43% and 32% while averaging 12 points....

---

1) He took less money because the Spurs didn't give him the contract he wanted. At the time he was asking for 5-years, $24M. That looks like a bargain now.

2) Those stats are better than Barry's stats. Plus he was a young player who was getting better. That was his first full season in the NBA.

I find it ironic that you are willing to take a few big shots that Jackson hit and turn him into the missing link on this team, yet take only the negative aspects of Barry's performance so far this year, much of it caused by sporatic playing time. I have watched him miss many big shots for Indiana this year when that team had a chance down the stretch, when he should have made one more pass. And, I don't buy the argument that he is a good guy when surrounded by good guys. Are his beliefs so shallow that he patterns his life's behavior after those he happens to be with at a certain point in time? BS, let him thrive in Indiana.

If we signed Jax after our championship year, we wouldn't be able to afford Rasho.

I don't care about Stephen Jackson's percentages. He had that confident, step-on-their-throats mentality that the Spurs may be missing now. I'm not ready to right off Devin and Brent as guys who can fill that role. We'll see come playoff time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tekdragon

to the salary experts:
Hypothetically, had we paid SJ what he wanted, how might that have affected our ability to resign Manu and Tony, as well as our ability to bring in Scola? There are, of course, a million variables...but any guesses as to how it might have affected what the FO could have offered Manu and TP?

---

Parker was signed with his Bird rights and Scola will be signed with the MLE. The Spurs would have those exceptions no matter what.

Regarding Manu, the Spurs could have pulled it off and given him the same contract. In fact, if the Spurs would have signed SJax after the championship, they'd have MORE money under the cap because they wouldn't have had to get Barry. Even the 6-year $38M contract could have been done AND re-sign Manu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usckk

If we signed Jax after our championship year, we wouldn't be able to afford Rasho.

---

:lmao The horrah.

But yes the Spurs could have signed both SJax and Rasho. SJax would have cost less in the first year of his contract than what Horry was given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Parker was signed with his Bird rights and Scola will be signed with the MLE. The Spurs would have those exceptions no matter what.

Regarding Manu, the Spurs could have pulled it off and given him the same contract. In fact, if the Spurs would have signed SJax after the championship, they'd have MORE money under the cap because they wouldn't have had to get Barry. Even the 6-year $38M contract could have been done AND re-sign Manu.

---

But by doing that, we would be close to the Luxury tax.

I miss SJAX and only recently have gotten over losing him. We definitely lost out on the effective Jackson for Turkoglu trade.

But I'll be patient with Barry. I've thought for a while that his value will come in more next year. This just seems like an off-year for him, and starting afresh as a veteran in the system, he might be excellent next year. But I'm sad, now, to keep expecting him to blow up some game and nail 4-5 threes. Of course, the Spurs would be invincible if that happened.

There seems to be a trade-off. Barry has to exert so much more energy and effort on the defensive end, there can be no doubt it has impacted his performance behind the 3-point line.

Quote:

---

But by doing that, we would be close to the Luxury tax.

---

Umm... it would be no different than having Barry here. Stephen Jackson doesn't make much more than Barry per season. Barry will make almost $6M per year in his last year of his contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigVee

I find it ironic that you are willing to take a few big shots that Jackson hit and turn him into the missing link on this team, yet take only the negative aspects of Barry's performance so far this year, much of it caused by sporatic playing time.

---

What positive aspects am I missing from Barry? He hit a couple big shots versus PHX. What else?

Quote:

---

Are his beliefs so shallow that he patterns his life's behavior after those he happens to be with at a certain point in time?

---

Yes. I never said he was the brightest bulb in the closet.

Anyways, it's only basketball. It doesn't take many brain cells to bounce a ball.


:hat

Stephen Jackson is not a Spur today because Stephen Jackson chose not to be a Spur in the Summer of 2003. Part of the revisionist problem here is that had the Spurs caved in on Stephen Jackson, they would have faced all kinds of problems getting Manu and Parker done and wrapped up. I still think that management took a long look and determined that Manu and Tony were far more crucial to the team's long-term success than Stephen Jackson. I can't say that I disagree with that conclusion.

Just as an example, I can't see how the Spurs would have been able to keep Manu last summer if they had kept Stephen Jackson in 2003. You say it wouldn't matter who started, and in a basketball sense, that's probably true. But in dealing with Manu this summer, I think the decisional calculus would have been much different if Manu knew that he wasn't assured a starting role. Had the Spurs been unable to tell Manu that he would definitely start after Year 2, I think Manu would have walked. Given the choice between the two players, I definitely take Manu over SJ.

To me, this is a lot like the lamentations over the Antonio Daniels deal a couple of years ago. Sure, in the abstract, having that talent around would be a nice luxury. But decisions come with consequences, and in this case, it seems pretty clear to me that a consequence of bringing Stephen Jackson back is one of two things: losing Manu or leaving Parker to test free agency this summer. On the whole, I'd have done what the Spurs did.

At the time it would have been risky, Jackson had ONE good year. They have flashbacks with Malik and the other Jackson.

Hard for Barry to nail 4 or 5 threes when he has averaged 3.3 attempts per game this year.

Bottom line was that the Spurs were saving cap space for Jason Kidd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigVee

Hard for Barry to nail 4 or 5 threes when he has averaged 3.3 attempts per game this year.

---

I agree. It seems that Barry plays better with more playing time, especially when he starts. Should we pull another Hedo scheme?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Parker was signed with his Bird rights and Scola will be signed with the MLE. The Spurs would have those exceptions no matter what.

Regarding Manu, the Spurs could have pulled it off and given him the same contract. In fact, if the Spurs would have signed SJax after the championship, they'd have MORE money under the cap because they wouldn't have had to get Barry. Even the 6-year $38M contract could have been done AND re-sign Manu.

---

I'd still be worried about our ability to retain Sean Marks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Parker was signed with his Bird rights and Scola will be signed with the MLE. The Spurs would have those exceptions no matter what.

Regarding Manu, the Spurs could have pulled it off and given him the same contract. In fact, if the Spurs would have signed SJax after the championship, they'd have MORE money under the cap because they wouldn't have had to get Barry. Even the 6-year $38M contract could have been done AND re-sign Manu.

---

Sure, IN THEORY.

But the reality of the situation was that resigning Parker came down to Pop and Duncan convincing/begging Holt to pay out an extra $2 million over 6 years. Can you honestly tell me that Peter Holt would have anted up (even if permitted to under the cap) enough money to cover big contracts this summer for Jackson, Manu, AND Parker. Given the hand-wringing over that fairly-insignificant $2 million dollars, I'm skeptical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Sure, IN THEORY.

But the reality of the situation was that resigning Parker came down to Pop and Duncan convincing/begging Holt to pay out an extra $2 million over 6 years. Can you honestly tell me that Peter Holt would have anted up (even if permitted to under the cap) enough money to cover big contracts this summer for Jackson, Manu, AND Parker. Given the hand-wringing over that fairly-insignificant $2 million dollars, I'm skeptical.

---

That's what i'm thinking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usckk

I agree. It seems that Barry plays better with more playing time, especially when he starts. Should we pull another Hedo scheme?

---

No. I would say stop signing players for who they are and then expect them to be something they are not. After 10 years Barry is what he is, his game is what it is, and Pop is not going to change that. Either let him play his game or sit him down/get rid.

We really shouldn't judge what we did then. It was a different situation, so comparing that year with this year is a non-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Stephen Jackson is not a Spur today because Stephen Jackson chose not to be a Spur in the Summer of 2003. Part of the revisionist problem here is that had the Spurs caved in on Stephen Jackson, they would have faced all kinds of problems getting Manu and Parker done and wrapped up. I still think that management took a long look and determined that Manu and Tony were far more crucial to the team's long-term success than Stephen Jackson. I can't say that I disagree with that conclusion.

---

If the Spurs would have given him that 5-year, $24M he wanted after the championship, that is LESS money than they have tied up in Brent Barry and in the same amount of years. How would that have made a difference in re-signing Parker and/or Manu.

Quote:

---

Just as an example, I can't see how the Spurs would have been able to keep Manu last summer if they had kept Stephen Jackson in 2003. You say it wouldn't matter who started, and in a basketball sense, that's probably true. But in dealing with Manu this summer, I think the decisional calculus would have been much different if Manu knew that he wasn't assured a starting role. Had the Spurs been unable to tell Manu that he would definitely start after Year 2, I think Manu would have walked. Given the choice between the two players, I definitely take Manu over SJ.

---

First of all, the only team that was willing to pay what the Spurs wanted to pay Manu was Denver. But Denver got their number one option in Kenyon Martin. Who else was going to break the bank for Manu? Second of all, if Manu is just about starting, that isn't the type of team player you want on a championship team. But if he really, really want to start, you could either started both Manu and SJax or demote SJax to the bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Sure, IN THEORY.

But the reality of the situation was that resigning Parker came down to Pop and Duncan convincing/begging Holt to pay out an extra $2 million over 6 years. Can you honestly tell me that Peter Holt would have anted up (even if permitted to under the cap) enough money to cover big contracts this summer for Jackson, Manu, AND Parker. Given the hand-wringing over that fairly-insignificant $2 million dollars, I'm skeptical.

---

Then this is a problem going back to Holt. If he doesn't want to pony up $2M for Parker because a player like Jackson has two more years on his contract than a player like Brent Barry. What are the Spurs planning to not sign anyone else after Barry's contract is up?

I loved Jackson's fire. I don't think it's the Spurs fault for not resigning him. He had rather risked getting less in free agency that taking an offer that was less than what he wanted. And if it's true that it wasn't that big of a difference between what was offered and what he was asking, then it's even more of a no brainer. The Spurs' system really developed him into to something. Does anyone think he would have gotten that contract with Indy if it weren't for the opportunity given to him by the Spurs.

Quote:

---

Bottom line was that the Spurs were saving cap space for Jason Kidd.

---

Even in hindsight, this was a risk worth taking.

And if you want to make it into a Jackson/Barry choice, I'd still take my chances on Barry. That's basically a choice between a shooter and heart/killer instinct. As desparately as we need more heart/killer instinct, just having the shot at a pure shooter playing well with Tim is worth a little patience. I think it's ridiculous to say this team has no heart. Tony has occasional confidence issues, but he definitely has a huge heart. Manu is a stone cold killer...and he's only getting more confident. Plus, where Jackson will tear your heart out with a cold blooded score, Manu can kill you in any number of ways. I'm good with letting him be a primary focal point and giving Barry some time. If/when he gets comfortable in the system and gets his stroke back, it's going to be a nightmare for opposing teams. A confident, contributing Brent Barry would make this team pretty much unbeatable. Don't count him out yet. He is not Hedo Turkoglu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

If the Spurs would have given him that 5-year, $24M he wanted after the championship, that is LESS money than they have tied up in Brent Barry and in the same amount of years. How would that have made a difference in re-signing Parker and/or Manu.

---

Sure, but there were so many other moving pieces that summer and no real guarantee that you'd get anything close to the same production out of Stephen Jackson in years to come. It's not unlike their unwillingness to kowtow to Derek Anderson in the Summer of 2001. Why give in to a guy who's produced schitzophrenically in a single season? Why, in particular, when they had seemingly already decided, as 2003-04 loomed, to make Manu a starter in an effort to get him on the floor for more minutes? To me, it looks a whole lot like the Spurs had decided that Manu was their guy and they made a market offer to Jackson. Actually, a better-than-market offer, given the deal that SJ actually got last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

First of all, the only team that was willing to pay what the Spurs wanted to pay Manu was Denver. But Denver got their number one option in Kenyon Martin. Who else was going to break the bank for Manu? Second of all, if Manu is just about starting, that isn't the type of team player you want on a championship team. But if he really, really want to start, you could either started both Manu and SJax or demote SJax to the bench.

---

I'm not talking about breaking the bank, I'm talking about offering Manu more mintues and more opportunities to shine. Even great team players aren't entirely altruistic. They have to have some element of selfishness to them, particularly where they are dealing with short careers and diminishing returns.

Besides, if you argue that Manu would have been selfish for seeking a starting spot somewhere, wasn't Jackson equally selfish for demanding more money and years than the Spurs offered? Is that the type of team player you want on a championship team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Then this is a problem going back to Holt. If he doesn't want to pony up $2M for Parker because a player like Jackson has two more years on his contract than a player like Brent Barry. What are the Spurs planning to not sign anyone else after Barry's contract is up?

---

Sure it is. But you can't subtract Holt from the equation in looking back on the moves. And you can't tell me, with Holt at the controls, that the Spurs would have locked up Tony Parker this summer had they rolled out the money that you're talking about to Stephen Jackson and Manu Ginobili.

Had the Spurs signed Jackson at the expense of locking up Parker, that would have been a much, much bigger mistake than what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Useruser666

I loved Jackson's fire. I don't think it's the Spurs fault for not resigning him. He had rather risked getting less in free agency that taking an offer that was less than what he wanted. And if it's true that it wasn't that big of a difference between what was offered and what he was asking, then it's even more of a no brainer. The Spurs' system really developed him into to something. Does anyone think he would have gotten that contract with Indy if it weren't for the opportunity given to him by the Spurs.

---

Look what he did with the Hawks. That got him the contract more than anything.

I think Brent is a better ball player.

I'm interested to see what he brings come playoff time.

I was sad that the Spurs didn't get SJax signed. I agree with Kori that he was huge during our '03 run. He didn't get the kind of props that Kerr received for some of his late game heroics, but he was clutch. Add that to the fact that SJax is young, and I think his better days are still ahead of him.

But I've seen a lot from Barry that impresses me, and I'm not willing to write him off as not being a solid contributor until I see him in the playoffs.

Heck, Steve Kerr never left the bench in '03 during the regular season, and look what he did once the REAL season began.

Any judgments before the middle of April don't really count for much.

One thing we can now say, at least, is that Stephen Jackson made the right decision in turning us down.

Get over IT! Jax left us, not the other way around. We gave him a fair offer and he refused.

This is like some loser who can't get over the girlfriend that dumped him 2 years ago, even though he's got another woman right now who's just as good or better.

And if you compare the shooting Stats, Barry and Jax are almost identical this year. Jax just happens to crank up a ton more shots and get a lot more minutes. The difference is that Barry is a good guy while Jax is a hothead gangster.

Jax Fg% .415 3pt% .362 ft% .818
Barry Fg% .428 3pt% .365 ft% .810

Quote:

---

At the time it would have been risky, Jackson had ONE good year. They have flashbacks with Malik and the other Jackson.

---

I think that says it all.

I understand where you are coming from. I was a huge fan of Jackson. But I also am impressed by Barry. And here are a few reasons I still think we are better off.

1 - Even though I love raw energy, the spurs have always been a smart bball team. That is how we win. Elie and Avery were firery players, but they were also extremely smart players. I don't see Jackson as that type of player. Barry is.

2 - Barrys averages are not that far off of what Jacksons are given the difference in minutes. The difference is that Barry is ok playing 19 mins. a game. Jackson isn't.

3 - I still hope to see the January Barry more. 48.8 from the field, 50.9 from 3, 88.0 from the stripe. Maybe those will be steady numbers come May.

I guess I would like to evaluate this at the end of the year. Then I can say better, whether Barry was a better fit than Jackson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Sure, but there were so many other moving pieces that summer and no real guarantee that you'd get anything close to the same production out of Stephen Jackson in years to come. It's not unlike their unwillingness to kowtow to Derek Anderson in the Summer of 2001. Why give in to a guy who's produced schitzophrenically in a single season? Why, in particular, when they had seemingly already decided, as 2003-04 loomed, to make Manu a starter in an effort to get him on the floor for more minutes? To me, it looks a whole lot like the Spurs had decided that Manu was their guy and they made a market offer to Jackson. Actually, a better-than-market offer, given the deal that SJ actually got last year.

---

Huh?

The Spurs offered him a three-year, $11M contract. He wanted a five-year, $23M contract. Jackson would have been dumb to sign the Spurs' offer. He eventually got a six-year, $38M.

It was a smart business move by Jackson. The Spurs didn't take a risk and lost out.

Agreed?

Quote:

---

Besides, if you argue that Manu would have been selfish for seeking a starting spot somewhere, wasn't Jackson equally selfish for demanding more money and years than the Spurs offered? Is that the type of team player you want on a championship team?

---

I don't know any player that would turn their back on $25M. Do you?

I love watching LJ blow you guys out of the water. It makes me all warm and fuzzy on the inside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Besides, if you argue that Manu would have been selfish for seeking a starting spot somewhere, wasn't Jackson equally selfish for demanding more money and years than the Spurs offered?

---

How could you argue that?

Manu doesn't care about money, this guy wants to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Huh?

The Spurs offered him a three-year, $11M contract. He wanted a five-year, $23M contract. Jackson would have been dumb to sign the Spurs' offer. He eventually got a six-year, $38M.

It was a smart business move by Jackson. The Spurs didn't take a risk and lost out.

Agreed?

---

In the long run, Jackson got what he wanted. In the short term, Jackson got less than 3 yrs/$11 million. At the time the Spurs made their offer, it exceeded Jackson's market value. Jackson went to Atlanta, hoisted up 500 more shots than he had the year before in San Antonio, and ended up with a better deal. But you can't say that the 6/$38 was somehow in competition with the Spurs 3/$11 offer.

Quote:

---

I don't know any player that would turn their back on $25M. Do you?

---

And I don't know too many players who would turn their backs on opportunities to move into nearly-guaranteed starting positions. The situations are similar, but with different carrots and different means of measuring commitment to team. Besides, wasn't one of the deal breakers with Jackson the Spurs' unwillingness to guarantee him a starting spot? How exactly would a hypothetical Manu move to find starting minutes be indicative of a selfish player, when you seem to posit that Jackson's demand for more money AND a guaranteed starting spot wasn't???

No doubt that SJax should still be a Spur but he is not anymore and probably won't be. I do miss his agression style though

timvp, have you done anything but bitch for the last two weeks?

But hey. go ahead man, it's your forum. Just don't be surprised if all you have left is LakerGod.

"I hope that someone on this season's Spurs team has the fearless, relentless attitude in the playoffs and can knock down shots from the perimeter."


heck yeah, his name is Rasho!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

The Spurs offered him a three-year, $11M contract. He wanted a five-year, $23M contract. Jackson would have been dumb to sign the Spurs' offer. He eventually got a six-year, $38M.

---

"eventually"
Hindsight again. At the time, we were all talking about what a dumbass he was for getting stuck with the Atlanta contract (less than the 3/11 he turned down from the Spurs, if I remember correctly).

STFU Walton, you are the King of Bitch. There's nothing wrong with having this topic of conversation. Do you see Barry or Brown as a playoff clutch performer who is going to knock down perimeter shots in the postseason?

It's a discussion forum. Discuss.

been a dumb business move if stephen jackson broke his leg with hawks

if he played worse with hawks then spurs
it worked out ok for him
barry has been a huge dissapointment but all will be forgotten IF he pulls a steve kerr in postseason

Maybe so but I'm not the King of Beating A Dead Horse, your husband is. He whined and moaned for months about the possibility of Malone coming....Now it's come full circle and were back to the Stephen Jackson drama.......please.

We lost to Memphis and it was because we didn't have Malik Rose right?!

EVERY SINGLE basketball mind in the COUNTRY thought the Spurs made a great trade, but since we traded a 'good guy', it's bad right?

Get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

In the long run, Jackson got what he wanted. In the short term, Jackson got less than 3 yrs/$11 million. At the time the Spurs made their offer, it exceeded Jackson's market value. Jackson went to Atlanta, hoisted up 500 more shots than he had the year before in San Antonio, and ended up with a better deal. But you can't say that the 6/$38 was somehow in competition with the Spurs 3/$11 offer.

---

SJax knew that he was worth more than the three-years, $11M that was on the table. He was confident in his own abilities that he could go somewhere else and prove his worth. That same confidence is what makes him a good clutch shooter.

If you remember correctly, everyone was saying that Jackson was just a byproduct of Tim Duncan. That when Jackson left SA, he would be exposed. But that didn't happen. He went to ATL and put up better numbers across the board and earned himself that six-year, $38M contract.

The Spurs could have locked him up with a five-year, $24M contract. They didn't take the risk and lost, as the market indicated he was worth a six-year, $38M contract one season later.

It's like someone who didn't want to pay for a stock because they thought it wasn't a good buy at the time because there was a chance it would decrease in value. If a year later it almost doubles in value, then that person made a mistake. Plain and simple.

Quote:

---

How exactly would a hypothetical Manu move to find starting minutes be indicative of a selfish player, when you seem to posit that Jackson's demand for more money AND a guaranteed starting spot wasn't???

---

The starting clause could have been worked out in negotiations. Both sides never moved beyond their initial offers. They thought the other side was going to blink and it's a fact that they never even discussed details after proposing their initial offers. That makes it even worse because the Spurs probably could have locked him up for something like 5-year, $20M with no starting clause.

Oh well we have Brent Barry who MIGHT be a Steve Kerr in the playoffs.

Difference is the Spurs needed Kerr because Manu and Parker weren't who they are now..........this Spurs team will be fine.

Quote:

---

EVERY SINGLE basketball mind in the COUNTRY thought the Spurs made a great trade, but since we traded a 'good guy', it's bad right?

---

:wtf My husband thinks its a good trade, too. I'm not too sure yet. Hopefully Nazr can get healthy and contribute.

As for this thread, I don't think it's as much about SJax as it is about Barry/Brown. The Spurs are winning, but they need to find that Championship fire who can knock down shots. Hopefully Barry and/or Brown fill that role come playoff time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walton Buys Off Me

Maybe so but I'm not the King of Beating A Dead Horse, your husband is. He whined and moaned for months about the possibility of Malone coming....Now it's come full circle and were back to the Stephen Jackson drama.......please.

We lost to Memphis and it was because we didn't have Malik Rose right?!

EVERY SINGLE basketball mind in the COUNTRY thought the Spurs made a great trade, but since we traded a 'good guy', it's bad right?

Get over it.

---

Walton complaining about someone else complaining.

Classic.




P.S.

I said it was a good trade. Don't be mad because now you lost the player that you blame every Spurs loss on.

Go make another thread about how bad the refs are. :cry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Don't be mad because now you lost the player that you blame every Spurs loss on.

---

LOL. :lol

Now who will he blame now?

You know, Timvp, my guess is that the Spurs were probably a little gunshy about giving out big dollars to anyone with the last name "Jackson" after what happened following the '99 championship run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Helicopter Jones

You know, Timvp, my guess is that the Spurs were probably a little gunshy about giving out big dollars to anyone with the last name "Jackson" after what happened following the '99 championship run.

---

That is correct, good sir. Pop even mentioned it at the time.

But it doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake. Jaren wouldn't have gone on and put up the numbers that Stephen has.

The point of this thread is to point out would could have been and that the Spurs made a mistake. With mistakes, all you can really do is learn and move on. They have a great chance to win it all this season and that's all that really counts.

But if the same situations comes up again, they need to think twice before forgetting this tidbit of history. For example, if Devin Brown comes up clutch in the playoffs, there is a history to base further actions on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigVee

No. I would say stop signing players for who they are and then expect them to be something they are not. After 10 years Barry is what he is, his game is what it is, and Pop is not going to change that. Either let him play his game or sit him down/get rid.

---

That is what I believe... we brought Barry for his offense not his defense..

Pop's philosophy of pulling players out for a defensive lapse does not develop continuity (fluidity in a sense) nor confidence.

You used to be a fantastic poster, you still are. I enjoy reading your stuff because you know how to write (not bad for a guy from Texas) but this regurgitating angle is for what?

This is the best Spurs team I've ever watched play- that's coming from me (think about that). Yeah there's shit that I question- namely where we can find a consistent version of the Tim Duncan that absolutely DOMINATED the 2003 playoffs. Haven't seen him in almost two years, have you? How about we start with that? After all, he means a helluva lot more to our team than Malik Rose.

As for the outside shooting, it's less of an issue and I'll tell you why. We got beat by a team that essentially forced us to shoot from the outside because they had Shaq and Malone inside- that team or anything like it simply does not exist this year dude.......

Spurs will play Detroit in the Finals and it will go to seven and we will win.

Quote:

---

Pop's philosophy of pulling players out for a defensive lapse does not develop continuity (fluidity in a sense) nor confidence.

---

Lately Barry's been pulled out for horrific passing, not his D.

Quote:

---

I enjoy reading your stuff because you know how to write (not bad for a guy from Texas)

---

:lmao
You made me laugh out loud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walton Buys Off Me

this regurgitating angle is for what?

---

It's to learn. The Spurs have made mistakes before and they'll make mistakes again. When they acquired Charles Smith, they learned never take on a longterm contract, especially if the player has a history of injuries. Since that trade, they've been great about doing just that.

They thought they could beat the system and cultivate another Stephen Jackson instead of paying him the money. They thought he was easily replaced. But the facts have played out that he isn't easily replaced and that he wasn't just a good player on the Spurs, he was a good player period.

It was a history lesson on not getting too cocky. I think the Spurs thought they can take any shooter, give him the same opps that they gave Jackson and they'd get a similar player out of it because their system was the key.

Quote:

---

This is the best Spurs team I've ever watched play- that's coming from me (think about that). Yeah there's shit that I question- namely where we can find a consistent version of the Tim Duncan that absolutely DOMINATED the 2003 playoffs. Haven't seen him in almost two years, have you? How about we start with that? After all, he means a helluva lot more to our team than Malik Rose.

As for the outside shooting, it's less of an issue and I'll tell you why. We got beat by a team that essentially forced us to shoot from the outside because they had Shaq and Malone inside- that team or anything like it simply does not exist this year dude.......

Spurs will play Detroit in the Finals and it will go to seven and we will win.

---

Agreed.

Where's whottt when you need him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

It's like someone who didn't want to pay for a stock because they thought it wasn't a good buy at the time because there was a chance it would decrease in value. If a year later it almost doubles in value, then that person made a mistake. Plain and simple.

---

It's a mistake only if that guy didn't buy a better stock. I'd argue that in paying Manu, the Spurs got a better buy at that position than they would have gotten in Jackson. Since Manu is an All-Star, I'd say that the Spurs did alright.

You can say, again, that they could have had Manu AND Jackson, and I wouldn't disagree, but IMO Manu + Parker > Manu + Jackson, period. In those terms, while the Spurs MAY have been able to sign up SJ for the long-term, I think they're better off, over the long haul, with both Manu and Parker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

The starting clause could have been worked out in negotiations. Both sides never moved beyond their initial offers. They thought the other side was going to blink and it's a fact that they never even discussed details after proposing their initial offers. That makes it even worse because the Spurs probably could have locked him up for something like 5-year, $20M with no starting clause.

---

That's your assumption. There's no proof in the public record to show that it's true. It makes no sense to say that Jackson would have reduced his demand if the Spurs refused to give him a starting clause; if anything, the guarantee of a starting spot would have been more likely to diminish the counteroffer, while the absence of such a guarantee would have driven that price up. It's simple economics.

I'd just like to take a moment to thank timvp, FWD, and EHJ and all the other members at this site for your excellent contributions to the discussions on this forum. They really make me think.















They make me think "Damn...I didn't get any work done today!"

Have a great weekend, all!
td
:music

Jack picked the wrong agent if he wanted to remain a Spur, and if he really, really wanted to come back, he would've overridden Fegan. Ultimately it didn't matter that much to him. Besides, because of the contracts the Spurs planned to have with Parker, Manu, a DRob replacement and [insert possible max free agent here], the Spurs had a very real budget when it came to DA, Jack and Hedo. I doubt there was enough real middle ground to work anything out. So chalk it up to the Spurs' being cheap if that's the way you want to look at it.

I'm more upset about not picking up Claxton's option.

"Pop don't play that"


Anyone else remember this quote after Hedo was a Spur regarding SJackson's contracta?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Jack picked the wrong agent if he wanted to remain a Spur, and if he really, really wanted to come back, he would've overridden Fegan. Ultimately it didn't matter that much to him.

---

Because he didn't accept the three-year, $11M offer? If I were him, I would have laughed at that offer too. It wasn't his fault he was a free agent in the worst buying market in the last decade. He did the smart thing and signed a one-year deal, proved his worth and then signed a huge contract.

Nobody on this team would have taken a lowball offer like that. Duncan, Manu, Parker, Rasho, Barry and the rest are all well paid.

Quote:

---

Besides, because of the contracts the Spurs planned to have with Parker, Manu, a DRob replacement and [insert possible max free agent here], the Spurs had a very real budget when it came to DA, Jack and Hedo.

---

Yeah the Spurs ended up giving $5M to Robert Horry (then parlaying it into Brent Barry) instead of giving it to Stephen Jackson.

Doesn't seem like the right move to me, looking at it in hindsight.

Quote:

---

I doubt there was enough real middle ground to work anything out. So chalk it up to the Spurs' being cheap if that's the way you want to look at it.

---

Between three-years, $11M and five-years, $24M, there is a lot of middle ground. They didn't even try. And history proves that the Spurs would have still got the better of the deal if they took Jack's offer.

Quote:

---

I'm more upset about not picking up Claxton's option.

---

*GASP*

The Spurs made a mistake. How dare you say that.

:drunk

All this thread was very interesting, but I think that somehow the true point is missing.
SJax was a good player in black and white, but no one could predict that he will become that great.
Hedo was a better player with the Kings and is a better player now with the Magics.
Barry was the second best player in the sonics team last year and he is now having trouble in his first season as a Spurs.
I don't think that all these three players had a bad year when they were in San Antonio. The fact is that the Spurs type of game seems to affect the play of the SG.
It is really tough for SG since they are at best the third option.
In fact the whole system isn't designed for jump shooters. They don't have many shoots to get a good rythm. They have some open shoots given by double teams in Duncan but they aren't that many and they have a lot of pressure since they know they have to hit them to stay on the court.

I know that some of you will answer me that Manu is having an awsome season as a SG, but Manu is one of the best SG in the league, he is an extraordinary player who led his team to an olympic title, the first for a foreign team since the Dream Team was created. I am almost sure that he would score 20-22 points in almost any other team.
Furthermore, he doesn't relies in jump shoot as much as Barry, SJax or Hedo do.

I can't really agree that the Spurs made a mistake at that time.
Sure you can be optimistic and say that they will have re-signed both Manu and Parker and they will be a 70 win per season type of team, but they could as well lose one of these players. We can't be sure of what would have happened and I am not sure we could be better that what we are right now.

I am not that disapointed with Barry strugling with his 3 point shooting, I think it will be great if he could improve a little bit but meanwhile I am expecting a much better passing game and some intensity from him.
But if he doesn't fit, which other shooter will be better than him other than Stojakovic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CHAMPS AGAIN

The only person to blamed for Jackson not been a SPURS is Jackson.

---

Fegan, Dan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I love watching LJ blow you guys out of the water. It makes me all warm and fuzzy on the inside.

---

:cooldevil :makemyday


Also, if we had Stephen Jackson rather than Hedo Turkoglu last season, we would have a 3rd championship - no doubt.

We should save this thread to review after we see what Barry does in the playoffs.

The facts are that to date SJax is a proven playoff performer, and to date Barry is a proven playoff nonperformer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I love watching LJ blow you guys out of the water. It makes me all warm and fuzzy on the inside.

---

I would say it gives me a woodie, but one of you pervs would take that the wrong way . . .

Uh, wait, let me rephrase that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Because he didn't accept the three-year, $11M offer? If I were him, I would have laughed at that offer too.

---

You know how Fegan's presence affected the (non-) negotiaitons. Don't act like it was business as usual.[/quote]Yeah the Spurs ended up giving $5M to Robert Horry[/quote]For a year.

Quote:

---

Doesn't seem like the right move to me, looking at it in hisndsight.

---

Which is the most convenient time to look at it if you want to be right.

Quote:

---

Between three-years, $11M and five-years, $24M, there is a lot of middle ground. They didn't even try.

---

Fegan.

Quote:

---

The Spurs made a mistake. How dare you say that.

---

That was an easy call, AT THE TIME. Which is when I made it. Let Ghost bring this issue back up if he chooses.

I am a huge Stephen Jackson fan. I wanted him instead of Barry this past summer. The Spurs should never have let him go. The only thing he shared with Jaren Jackson was his last name which probably, unfortunate to Stephen, reminded Pop and RC about the mistake they made with Jaren's contract. He didn't get the offer he wanted, though it was market value. It just didn't workout.

Though Barry started out slow, he has raised his three point percentage significantly. Ultimately, Brent will be judged on how well he plays in the playoffs. I really don't care how he plays in the regular season, as long as the Spurs are winning.

timvp = SequSpur

I've been saying this shit since the 03 championship and was ridiculed for it. Finally, someone else is seeing the sequlight.

Bout damn time.

.

Jesus, I feel like I'm in a Halloween movie. This moaning over the FACT that Jax is gone (almost two years now, boys and girls) just won't die because TIMVP and some others apparently won't let it. I wonder if they are personal friends with Jax or something? If so, I'll give 'em props for personal loyalty to a friend.

But how much personal loyalty did JAX give to a coach and a franchise that gave him a chance. NONE! The NBA is a business and business decisions were made on BOTH sides. Grow up and go forward.

I like our team now, but last summer i was DESPERATELY hoping we would sign SJAX and reunite. He is much improved from two years ago. However, I dont know who would start because taking Ginobili's starting place away is like slapping in him in the face. He has proven himself as a starter this season and is at least consistent in scoring (not necessarily consistent with hitting shots, but getting to the free throw line etc.)
The best memory of Jackson i have is when he hit the trio of threes in Game 6 in the Finals. That was so awesome. He also hit threes in the Phoenix game 6 and the Mavericks game 6. I also remember going to a Timberwolves game and he hit a three with 2 seconds left to send it into overtime. He was definitely a fearless player.
I miss him but we have to move on. We should just be thankful for what he did two years ago for us.

Did all the great posters here forget about Hedo?

The Spurs possibly could have come to some compromise with SJax, but when Hedo became available, the Spurs picked the bird in their hand rather than the bird in the bush. Now in 20/20 hindsight, Hedo didn't work out, but at the time, it seemed very reasonable that Hedo could replace much of what SJax did. While Hedo faltered later in the Spurs playoff run, Hedo did play well for the Kings in the playoffs.

The correct view is that the Spurs, SJax, and his agent were making negotiations difficult and protracted. When Hedo became available, the Spurs grabbed him and said bye to SJax. We thought it was a reasonable move. If you want to apply Ghostwriter-like hindsight and what-ifs, yes, the Spurs obviously could have done better. However, hindsight is poor logic for an argument. You need to go back to what the situation was then and what we knew then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Lately Barry's been pulled out for horrific passing, not his D.

---

2 passes. 2 bad passes, one at the elbow of the free throw line from way out top, and the other on a bounce pass in the middle of the court...I think I saw Beno Udrih literally trip over his own feet and fall 3 times in the last game alone and not get pulled.

Pop needs to make a decision. Either let Barry play his game, or just stick to Devin. He's not a defensive presence. Period. So don't worry about that and let the guy get more than 4 shots a game and more than 18 minutes.

Give Barry a chance. He may suck during the season, but lets see how he does in the playoffs before we get our pitchforks and torches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

That is correct, good sir. Pop even mentioned it at the time.

But it doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake. Jaren wouldn't have gone on and put up the numbers that Stephen has.

The point of this thread is to point out would could have been and that the Spurs made a mistake. With mistakes, all you can really do is learn and move on. They have a great chance to win it all this season and that's all that really counts.

But if the same situations comes up again, they need to think twice before forgetting this tidbit of history. For example, if Devin Brown comes up clutch in the playoffs, there is a history to base further actions on.

---

I'm glad someone finally mentioned Jaren Jackson.
The problem with hindsight is that we have NO IDEA what would have happened had SJax taken the deal in 2003. The deal that was MORE THAN HIS MARKET VALUE. Because it was more than he was worth at the time, they actually repeated their mistake with Jaren- they just didn't have to pay because SJax was dumb enough not to take it.

Had Jax taken the deal, he might have still had some knucklehead move like he did in Detroit this year. Maybe it would have come off the court, but it could have easily still happened.

Had Jax taken the deal, he might have endured an injury that kept him from ever contributing again in a big way.

Had Jax taken the deal, he might have gone silent in the same way Jaren did. It's not entirely clear that in 2003 Jax wasn't just trying to prove he was worth big money. What has he done since then? Has he won a championship with Indiana or Atlanta (HA!) since then? No. In fact, if Indiana keeps going they way they've been going, he may wind up on two post-Spurs teams that don't make the payoffs.

The Spurs made a generous offer, a gamble on a player who had one good postseason, and the player turned it down. Time will tell whether that was a regrettable decision. Right now, I think they only one who regrets it is Jax.

As far as this year's Spurs, we DO need the fire - but we will have it. My prediction is that the players who will light it up in the playoffs are Duncan, Manu, Horry, and Brown. All of them have done so in the past.

We're not there yet, but we're damn good. The team knows they aren't there yet. But we don't want them there yet - it's still two months till the playoffs.

bump!

First of all you have to be blind to think that SJax wouldn't make the spurs better.

SJAX > Barry by a long shot. Nevertheless, Manu and Tony of 2005 are way better than in 2003, so much better that SJAX will not be missed because the spurs are going to win it all.

Barry will have his moment in the Sun and that's all the spurs need.

It all goes back trying to sign Kidd. Not only did Spurs end up getting fucked by Kidd (thank God) but they didn't put a priority in dealing with Jack. Beyond that Ludden said Pop had wated to draft Josh Howardbut was talked out of it to free up cap space. So possibly instead of Jack and Howard we have Brent. At least we don't have Kidd and no Manu.

I still think the flaw in the it was a mistake to not resign S.Jax at his price argument is the fact that it's not a zero-sum game.

My point is this: would you rather have Manu and Jackson or Manu and Tony? That is the choice you'd be looking at, had the Spurs made the big money offer that Jax wanted in 03. It could only be one or the other.

I'll agree that it's not technically as cut-and-dried as that. The Spurs could have, under this CBA, resigned all of them for the max. But from a practical standpoint it wasn't ever going to happen.

Doubt me? Remember all the hubbub during camp about getting Tony's new deal done? Remember that the stumbling block to Tony's new deal was a matter of $2 million over 6 years after Parker had already come down in his demands (and from what was sure to be his "market value?" That $2 million was all about the Spurs salary outlays over the long-term. Now, if you resign Jackson, you don't spend $20 million on Barry over 4 years, but you'd be spending more than that on Jackson. So, if the organization was gunshy on the new Parker deal with the handicap of Barry's contract, what makes anyone think that the organization would have still spent the money to renew Tony's deal? Nothing could.

Now, if you're in the camp that says that Tony's play doesn't merit his deal, Jax is your boy and you can complain about the Spurs manuevers. Personally, I don't see things that way and I think, all things considered, the Spurs have done a fantastic job of locking up a very good core at salary levels that the organization can feel comfortable about. Absent some crazy circumstance, this group should be very, very competitive for the next 4-5 years.

As I recall Jack wasn't looking for the kind of money he ended up getting from Indianna. He was looking for more like MLE money.

Quote:

---

would you rather have Manu and Jackson or Manu and Tony? That is the choice you'd be looking at, had the Spurs made the big money offer that Jax wanted in 03.

---

This is BS. One, Jax wasn't asking for big money, he was asking for the kind of deal we gave to Brent Barry this year.

Second, we are where we are today because of Pop's stupid ass fucking fetish over Jason Kidd.

We could be starting a perimeter squad of Tony, Manu, and Buckets today, if Pop wouldn't have had his man crash on an over age NBA PG who has since failed to get his team anywhere in the playoffs (when he's healthy enough).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by picnroll

As I recall Jack wasn't looking for the kind of money he ended up getting from Indianna. He was looking for more like MLE money.

---

Even MLE money is equivalent to or more than what the Spurs are paying Barry. My point is that if the Spurs were quite reluctant to spend the $2 million to settle things with Parker, and if the Spurs had already incurred greater salary obligations based on resigning Jax, I have no idea why anyone could realistically think that they'd have handled Tony the same way.

So for me, it comes down to whether you think the Spurs are better with Tony or Jax, since it seems unlikely that they could have had both past this season.

The Spurs and SJax probably could have come to a good deal for both sides if not for the Hedo "opportunity".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

This is BS. One, Jax wasn't asking for big money, he was asking for the kind of deal we gave to Brent Barry this year.

---

Now wait a second. You lead the charge around here on complaining about the reluctance to shell out for Tony and, again, that was with the burden of Barry's contract.

If they were reluctant to pay Tony with Barry's contract on the payroll, what makes you think they would have been willing to shell out when Jax would have commanded either more money or more years (if not both)? If you can square those two facts somehow, I'll hear you out. But please tell me why the Spurs wouldn't have balked at another $2 million to Tony if they were obligated for more salary going forward. I'm curious to hear the logic.

Holt's position, as I understand it or at least the conjecture about it, is that his threshold is the luxury tax. At worst it would have meant he didn't use MLE next year with Parker resigned. If CBA were favorable luxury tax-wise as some predict MLE may have even been a possibility next year.

What's done is done, but man, I'm so happy for my boy Jack tonight. He's got the whole world saying he's an idiot and he comes back and shows that he's still money in the biggest games.

Maybe it was a mistake. And maybe the Spurs learned their lesson.

Would Manu have gotten the money he did if Holt didn't finally wake up and realize he couldn't have a Championship team for a bargain price anymore?

Oh, well, the Pistons will beat the Pacers, and the Spurs will beat the Pistons, so it really won't make a difference to me.

Horry > Jackson.

If Indiana still doesnt want him.

Bring him the fuck back.

I also figured this would come back as a "Pop's fault" thread.

I agree with timvp, lets get SJax back, and while we are at it, lets get Steve Kerr and Danny Ferry too, those guys really contributed to the 2003 championship.

Hell, maybe the admiral would suit up and give us another ring...

I'm sorry for the sarcasm, no I don't like Stephen Jackson style. Spurs front office might have done a mistake letting SJax go, but they got Hedo Turkoglu, Ron Mercer and Brent Barry its not their fault none of those guys fit.

Move on already, if Brent Barry doesnt cut it, lets get someone else who does, that doesnt mean we should get SJax back.

Fuck Stephen Jackson, bring back Jaren Jackson!