We can't afford the amount or length of that contract. This would be a good time to try and get him back considering GS doesn't have much leverage but that would totally screw with out chemistry at this point.
Yeah I understand that. But he's been going with Anthony Randolph a lot at his 4 spot opposed to going really undersized with Maggette at the 4. Their SF/ and SG position is fine as it is with Azubuike, Marrow, Maggette.
I just think they if they would want value in a player back for Jackson it would be for a big man. Just my opinion.
Im not against trades but Im just afraid of the trade ideas we might see in response of a loss.
It might be in our best interest to hold on to our expiring contracts and see if Splitter is coming next year before committing even more money, especially with RJ's crazy contract.
As it is right now,
the only way I see us including Bonner in a deal for Jackson is if we get a big man in return.
Bonner
Mason
Finley
Mahimni
1st rounder and or Splitter
for
Jackson
Turiaf
I said Bonner and Hill
I agree though I gaurantee he salivates at playing Bonner next to Randolph and Biedrins. Bonner in GS would work out great though. Not alot of pressure to perform, run and gun let it fly.
Bonner would find IMO a permanent home in GS as long as Nellie is there.
They could win 25 in a row and the day after a loss, "This team needs a trade ASAP!"
Wow thats alot of players for just 2.
Considering I think Bonner and Finley or Mason's contracts are all that would be needed to get within the 125% rule.
My best scenario would be waiting until the deadline and see what the team needs..I'm just saying if Holt is willing to pay Jackson's contract long-term, I have no reason not to like it..our wing players would be completely unstoppable, it wouldn't even be fair to the NBA..
I personally don't feel like any player can come in and mess up the chemistry of this Spurs team with guys like Pop and Duncan, especially when it's a guy that has won a le here, and still appears to have great mutual respect with Pop and Timmy(along with the rest of the core)..
He would be gone by then.
I'd say the number 1 team vying for his services other than the Spurs (if they are) would be Cleveland.
that's part of the reason I would be for this trade..we won't have time to wait until the deadline..I'm not going to be heart-broken if we don't get him, but I'd definitely be hoping for it if the possibility came up in the FO talks..
Giving up Hill would just be silly..Golden State doesn't have that type of leverage right now..
I love Stephen Jackson and he's one of my all-time favorite Spurs, but no way in I'd be for giving Manu up even with all the question marks surrounding him this season. Absolutely no chance.
With you 100%.
I think adding Jackson to the team would honestly make me feel better about the team's chances.
Given their respective contracts, I rather have Foster than Jackson...
It would be within the 125 % rule, I just think Spurs would want a big man in return if they were to part with Bonner for Jackson. As much as I hate to say it, Bonner had a damn productive year last year and validated that he is indeed an NBA player, a rotation player at that. Without him at the expense of another wing would only put our roster at three proven nba commodities on the front court. And one of them can only play limited minutes ( Ratliff). Spurs front-line would be really thin.
Finley would be coming back after 30 days if he were to ever be included in a trade. imo
Therefore it would be 3 for 2
Agreed, I wouldn't add any premium (Hill, pick, Splitter rights) to expiring contracts in any offer for Jackson. I'd also wait for the deadline. If Cleveland comes up with a deal sooner than that, fine. They're not coming out of the East anyway.
I think if that trade were to be done.
I have a feeling that Haislip would be called upon to pick up the Bonner slack and Finley most likely would stay in GS and not be bought out.
Oh please....
Name me the playoff series Jeff Foster has won because he was a big reason, and then do the same for Jackson.
Jackson wins.
Period.
Haislip is not an NBA player. If Haislip were called upon to shore up front-line duties we would be in trouble regardless of the addition of Jackson.
Based on NBA preseason?
Uh, ok...
If he weren't an NBA player he wouldn't still be with the team.
On this much we agree. Any early season trade involving Bonner must bring back a big as part of the deal.
He was a gamble. A low cost, high reward gamble.
He's still on the team because he was given a guaranteed contract.
If it weren't for that contract, Marcus Williams may still be a Spur.
I can name playoff series Jackson has lost because he was a big reason. For example, the last playoff series he played...
Jackson's contract is atrocious.
Period.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
