That's right...
You're crazy, spurs want no part of him, that's why he is not here, that's why we lowballed him. He is a cancer and a turnover machine when it counts, so he hit a couple of threes. He was awful the year the lakers made quick work of us, single handedly losing games for us.
The Spurs made him the standard young role player contract offer of 3 years, $10 mil or thereabouts. Jack thought he was worth more and went shopping for a deal while the Spurs went shopping for other free agents. The Spurs wanted him back, but the way it played out Jack ended up going to Atlanta. A year later, Jack's payday arrived.
What year? 2001?He was awful the year the lakers made quick work of us, single handedly losing games for us.
sj will not be effective off the bench
Get him the over here... hes what has been missing on the Spurs squad.
For those of you who say he has a bad at ude, we need someone with that fire...
And for those of you who say hes a volume shooter....What Barry isn't??? SJax is Barry with, balls to take it in, and nuts in the 4th
Also, it's not like the Spurs' perimeter rotation is exactly the Fountain of Youth.
Such an awful idea. Plus, an awful idea with 0% chance of happening.
When will this thread die already?
Am I the only one who think the Spurs problems are not on offense, but defense?!?
We have plenty of clutch 3-pointers! Who drilled the 3 late in Game 7 to give us a 3 point lead! Manu did!
We don't need another player to jack up threes in the 4th, we need a player who can get back on defense, ie, another Bruce (who also happened to shoot 50% from the 3 in this year's playoffs, just not in Game 7, unfortunately).
Jackson can be a good solution but with a lot of "ifs".
- If he is ready to play less next year. There are only 96min available at SG/SF for Manu/Bruce/Finley/Jackson.
- If he is still coachable. I don't know how he is after geting his big contract.
- If he is reeady to be the 4th offensive option and to play solid D.
- If Pacers don't want too much for him. With his big contract and his past, Barry should be enough to get him.
then Jackson can be a good solution. However, I don't think that all these "ifs" will be respected, so no to Jackson.
The Spurs ONLY prob on D was guarding ONE guy...
Oh come on! Terry, Howard and Dirk all drove to the basket almost at will.
We were out-rebounded in the Playoffs as well.
Spurs had serious problems on D, and it wasn't just against Dirk!
SJax would cost the Spurs around $27.5 mil until 2010. Too much in my opinion. I'd throw that money somewhere else.
The Spurs dont need another Michael Finley, and even though Jacks younger, he is still not as good as Mike. We need a tough athletic big. CHRIS WILCOX IS WHAT WE NEED
I love what Jack did for us in the playoffs, but he wasnt even that great on the Pacers, even in a weaker conference. Suspect d and too many turnovers.
I see no evidence Wilcox would give us anything Luis Scola wouldn't. I suppose he'd be worth looking at.
What he would give us is a 6-10 to 6-11 foward/center who doesnt need his own shot, finishes at the rim and plays tremendous d.Basically a really good Nazr. Im not saying hes better than Scola, he might not be. But I do think he would be cheaper, less of a pain in the ass to bring over, and is about the same age
I was looking at his stats and see he produces about 8 and 5 in a shade under 20 minutes a game. I'm not sure why he gets so few minutes. In fact, I know very little about him. His salary level isn't that high at this point -- who knows?
14 points 8 and a half rebounds after he got traded to the Sonics, good feild goal percentage and blocks shots. Hes only 23. CHRIS WILCOX. Also do you think either Matt Bonner or old ass Eric Williams will contribute at all? I see Bonner maybe, but Im not sure
I'll look into him more. Why isn't Seattle wanting to keep him? Or are they? I see Washington is another suitor - whill he get too expensive?
And no, I'm not expecting much out of Bonner or E-Williams. Practically nothing out of Williams.
He is a restricted free agent and Seattle wants to keep him, but they already have 2 or 3 other fowards on their team not to mention 2 20 year old centers ( Petro and Swift) that they have used their last two first round picks on. They need more playing time as does Collison, so I think that they are going to have to let him go
Wilcox doesn't play anything near "tremendous d".
Can he even spell D?
Compared to what we had he does, and Duncan makes bigs that play with him better defenders, so he will. He played on a Seattle team where the second best big was Fortson or Collison,and when he was on the Clips he never got off the bench. For the time that hes on the court he shows flashes of being a great player often, especially the second half of last year. And he is only 23
Mard- his age certainly is a big attraction, apart from his size and production. I'd like to pull Scola first of all, but failing that, the Spurs could do worse than try for this guy.
How much is bringing Scola over going to cost though?
Chris Wilcox is a worse idea than bringing back Jack. Much.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote