Reply With Quote
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=ykrb4z7
Have Finley coming back in 30 days. Throw in a 1st round pick and maybe Warriors respond.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...ozer-explained
Stephen Jackson's slight edge over Boozer explained
October 23, 2009 4:04 AM
By Marc Stein
First marquee player to be traded this season?
I went with Golden State’s Stephen Jackson when they asked me on ESPN2's NBA Fastbreak roundtable show Thursday night, even though Utah’s Carlos Boozer is in the final year of his contract and thus theoretically easier to move.
All the momentum that has built up in Oakland toward Jackson’s departure was the tiebreaker here. Everyone in the hoops universe knows that he wants to leave town and the Warriors have not tried to hide the fact that they've been seeking to accommodate that request by chasing what they deem to be a beneficial deal. The usual result when we reach those stages, no matter what other obstacles are in the way, is that a deal eventually gets done.
Yet sources close to the situation continue to insist that no deal is close for the Warriors with Opening Night just a few days away. Just as we said back on Oct. 9, it’s almost certainly too soon for Jackson suitors to feel the desperation required to convince one of them to go through with absorbing the three-year extension worth nearly $28 million that kicks in after this season for the 31-year-old . . . as well as Jackson's outsized personality. To this point, sources say, Golden State has only received proposals that are painful deals financially.
So the Dubs will open the season Wednesday against Houston hoping that coach Don Nelson is justified with his ongoing belief that he can work with Jackson for now and keep him sufficiently plugged in despite their recent sideline blowup.
Down the road? Cleveland and Denver, sources say, remain the two teams out there with the most certifiable interest in dealing for Jackson.
The Cavs, though, don't want to surrender Zydrunas Ilgauskas in a prospective deal because they want to keep all the size they can muster to throw at Boston, Orlando and the defending champs from L.A.
Nuggets general manager Mark Warkentien, meanwhile, reminded folks this week that the front-office team in Denver is not afraid to swing big with Chauncey Billups in place to police any chemistry risks in the locker room, telling the Denver Post: “If we get stuck, Big Bertha’s coming out.” The Nuggets, though, have also made it clear through a very measured summer of offseason tweaking that they are in no rush to take on any extra long-term money, which would suggest that Denver’s $8.7 million trade exception from the Billups-for-Allen Iverson swap will quietly expire Nov. 3.
Sources say that Dallas, already two-deep at versatile forward with Shawn Marion and Josh Howard, has informed the Warriors that they have "no interest" in adding Jackson to that mix despite Jackson's publicly stated wish to go to Cleveland, New York or one of the three Texas teams.
ESPN The Magazine's Ric Bucher reported on the aforementioned roundtable show that San Antonio has a level of interest in reuniting with Jackson as well, but that possibility -- while something that the Spurs have undoubtedly weighed after Jackson helped them win a championship in 2003 -- has likewise been downplayed this week as "remote."
The only other team we’ve heard mentioned as a potential Jackson chaser is Charlotte, although we’re obliged to note that the Bobcats weren’t on Jackson’s original wish list and don’t exactly seem like his kind of team.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=ykrb4z7
Have Finley coming back in 30 days. Throw in a 1st round pick and maybe Warriors respond.
If you do that deal, I'd leave Finley alone and just keep Hairston.
I know it's heresy on this board, and I advocated for acquiring Jackson before the RJ trade went down, but I want no part of Jackson on this team right now.
Spurs don't need Jackson right now. Without even playing a game, spurs have no idea where they stand. On paper, they look like a perfect team with a nice balance of star players and role players. Making the commitment to absorb Jackson's contract right now won't make sense. Also, Jackson will have to take a reduced role with the spurs, most likely sitting on the bench the last five minutes of the game. Don't know if he'll be happy with that.
Then you could say goodbye to resigning Manu....
Welcome back, perimiter defense.
If Spurs make a move for anyone to improve the team it won't be at Manu's expense.This year or next year or the year after. Holt and co are committed to being in the luxury tax at least the next two years. As long as Manu's health holds up Manu will retire in black and silver regardless of who gets brought in.
Stephen Jackson is the last thing that this team needs now that we have RJ.
Why wouldn't you want Jackson on this team? Do you honestly think Jackson will bring the complaining baggage to Popovich? A locker room he knows about. He knows the Spurs mantra. Knows Tim Tony and Manu are the first options. He knows how they value having a family type of atmosphere. He knows Popovich's way of doing things.
Spurs window to have a significant chance to win the le will be closed in 2 years. If Jackson complies with the Spurs way of doing things. ( Something he has done and proved by earning Pop's trust in starting for the 03' le team) Jackson would improve this team signficantly as the 3rd wing in the rotation. A RJ Manu Sjax rotation would be the best the Spurs have ever had. It's highly unlikely he would ruin the chemistry on the team. He's been through wars and respects Popovich, Tim, Tony, and Manu too much.IMO
I'm all for Jackson wearing silver and black again.
the best deal with GS for Jackson will be this: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=yl69qqv
you gets Jackson by dumping Bonner and Mason and on the way you bring third PG for insure.
I'm not.
There are only 2 scenarios in which, IMO, he would be worth the risk:
1. GS buys him out and he comes here for the minimum or the LLE.
2. Manu completely breaks down and we trade him for Jackson.
Otherwise, I'm not interested.
Like I said before, I know it's not a popular POV on ST, but I'd rather they go forward with team they've got and use their tradeable assets for a proven big, if necessary, or just let those contracts expire.
I think he's more concerned about Jack and Jeff butting heads. And how the would the SG/SF rotation work? Who starts, who comes in with Manu?
Personally, if the Spurs can get the numbers to work, fine by me. I haven't looked at the proposed trade yet, but I wouldn't want to lose any of Blair/Ian/Hill/Hairston. Bogans/Fin/RMJ/Williams/Haislip/Bonner, I'm fine with waving bye to.
No need for 3rd PG insurance, with Tony 35 mpg, Hill could play 25 mpg if the minutes were there, Manu could play 25 mpg if needed.
I don't think he's worth it considering he could be a chemistry deal breaker.
PG- Parker/Hill
SG- S-Jax/Manu/Hairston
SF- Jefferson/Finley/Bogans
PF- Duncan/Blair/Haislip
C- Mcdyess/Ratliff/Mahinmi
At least if you include Bonner in a deal we wouldn;t have to have him be the Spurs starting center
Bonner is here to stay. They are currently talking to his agent about an extension.......PG- Parker/Hill
SG- S-Jax/Manu/Hairston
SF- Jefferson/Finley/Bogans
PF- Duncan/Blair/Haislip
C- Mcdyess/Ratliff/Mahinmi
At least if you include Bonner in a deal we wouldn;t have to have him be the Spurs starting center
And here comes the Spurstalk riot....in 3....2..
maybe... but it will not hurt!
that is a kick ass team, it worth the money!PG- Parker/Hill
SG- S-Jax/Manu/Hairston
SF- Jefferson/Finley/Bogans
PF- Duncan/Blair/Haislip
C- Mcdyess/Ratliff/Mahinmi
At least if you include Bonner in a deal we wouldn;t have to have him be the Spurs starting center
Agreed. Leave Finley alone and keep and develop Hairston.
The Spurs just added millions to their payroll putting them into the lux. tax situation for several years to come with the RJ trade and then they go ahead and add another 28 with SJAx? I think Holt ain't going anywhere near that deal at all. If they did where is the money to resign Manu? Just not there IMHO.
Maybe so but it won't include SJax due to the fact that if Catapiller is sucking wind profitwise where would the money going to come from? Holt is a businessman but decided to loosen the purse strings this year and go for it understanding that there wont be many more qualilty years left in TD. "The future is now" sort of mentality.
Good assessment. Fully agree.
SJax thinks he's EN LED to start, would INSIST on starting.
We can agree to disagree on this matter.
I'd be all for bringing in Stephen Jackson or Andres Nocioni at the expense of Finley/Mason/ Mahimni plus 1st rounder ( if it needs to be added).
Quality big men in the NBA are scarce. Which is a reason for teams overpaying for big men with obvious deficiencies 8-10 million a year. ( Dalembert, Rasho's old contract, Beidrins, Dampier, Zach Randolph, Kaman the list goes on). And the best we could probably do in terms of trading for a big man would be Marcus Camby or Jeff Foster. It remains to be seen but all signs are indicating that DeJuan Blair is the real deal Hollyfield and will most likely see anywhere from 15-20 minutes a game. Same with Bonner. And Dice getting 18-25 mpg roughly.
Are Camby and Foster really good enough to where Pop would sit Blair, McDyess, Bonner in favor of them? The answer is no. Maybe Camby could two or 3 years ago no questions asked but that answer isn't a clear cut yes as it used to. Camby's role would be more limited.
Then you can rebuttal that by saying, " Well when we play the Lakers or teams with length that's where Camby or Foster can fit in. Then we would be more versatile on the front-line. "
That's why Ratliff was signed. There was a reason for that.
So my question continues, would Camby or Foster really be that much of a significant upgrade due to the limited floor time they would see anyway?
-Camby slightly, but not really he would share minutes with Dice/ Bonner/Blair therefore his addition wouldn't be as significant.
-Foster or any other middle of the road big man like Collison for instance...No. We have Ratliff for that role.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 10-23-2009 at 02:34 PM.
If we got Jackson we would be in the tax for the next 4 years if we resign Ginobili.
So I guess if Duncan retires in two years, there's no way in a championship contending team would want Stephen Jackson's services for 1 or 2 years?
If we can get rid of Rasho's contract for 8 million per year I'm sure if it came down to it we could get rid of Stephen Jacksons.
All signs are indicating Holt and co. will be paying the luxury tax til Duncan retires. They will pay it the next 2 years for sure.
I'd do Bonner and Mason for SJAX in a heart beat, throw in a furture first to sweeten the deal.
We need to win now, we have a two year window. SJAX would be the best perimeter defense player and clutch shooter. He can guard Dirk also.
Idk a 34 year old Jackson doesn't sound to enticing to me in a couple years. Lets wait and see how this team does before we start talking about more major trades.
IMO Id rather have a little flexibility in a couple years maybe resign Jefferson after he gets his major paycheck next season. If it looks like we still really need a trade I'd rather have Nocioni if SAC was willing or Camby then Jackson, at least Nocioni makes a little less and has a team option on his 4th year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
