"eventually"Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
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).
Printable View
"eventually"Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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.
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.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???
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.
:wtf My husband thinks its a good trade, too. I'm not too sure yet. Hopefully Nazr can get healthy and contribute.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?
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.
Walton complaining about someone else complaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walton Buys Off Me
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
LOL. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by timvp
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.
That is correct, good sir. Pop even mentioned it at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Helicopter Jones
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
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.
Lately Barry's been pulled out for horrific passing, not his D.Quote:
Pop's philosophy of pulling players out for a defensive lapse does not develop continuity (fluidity in a sense) nor confidence.
:lmaoQuote:
I enjoy reading your stuff because you know how to write (not bad for a guy from Texas)
You made me laugh out loud.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walton Buys Off Me
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.
Agreed.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.
Where's whottt when you need him?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Nobody on this team would have taken a lowball offer like that. Duncan, Manu, Parker, Rasho, Barry and the rest are all well paid.
Yeah the Spurs ended up giving $5M to Robert Horry (then parlaying it into Brent Barry) instead of giving it to Stephen Jackson.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.
Doesn't seem like the right move to me, looking at it in hindsight.
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 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.
*GASP*Quote:
I'm more upset about not picking up Claxton's option.
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?
Fegan, Dan.Quote:
Originally Posted by CHAMPS AGAIN
:cooldevil :makemydayQuote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
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.
I would say it gives me a woodie, but one of you pervs would take that the wrong way . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Uh, wait, let me rephrase that.