We had chemistry last season too and where did that get us. The issue with the Spurs about SJac cannot be chemistry could it. He's played on the team before so the Spurs know him quite well.
Didn't Pop also say last season or the year before that not everyone has to be a Choir boy to play on the team?
I would like people to stop going on about it unless they heard it directly from the Spurs they don't want him for chemistry reasons. Surely it would have to be his contract? or maybe the want a big man more? or GS want too much for him.
Last edited by Ice009; 11-02-2009 at 10:17 PM.
Maybe so. But it doesn't mean they are interested in Jax anymore so than when he first left.
And definately not worth giving up Manu. But...if the team would think he would be worth it in a trade for Mahinmi/Mason and or Finley...I wouldn't scorn that decision either.
But I'm not going to fret over it not happening.
Is that even a relevant question? He's shown that he'll use a team for money, and then throw them in front of the bus. I'd like Jack 2003 back, but I don't believe that person exists any more. The Spurs were able to control him, because he was cuttable, not making much money. That's not the case any more.
Can you read? Both Broussard (retraction) and Aldridge are saying SA is NOT TALKING TO G.S. You wishing it will happen won't make it so.
I'm not wishing anything mate and yes Goldenstate thing is relevant. I am saying
that SJax wants to win and that is what he cares about right now so I don't think we will have ANY problem at all with him here playing up. If you think otherwise that is your choice.
I said the SPURS need to talk to Goldenstate about him as I think he would be a great addition and help a lot. I'm not up late at night wishing we got him on the team. I would just like to see the Spurs look at all available options like SJax who wants out. If you can improve the team a great deal by making a trade why not do it or at least look into it???
Personally I do want him on the team if all it takes is some of those players, but I am OK with us not getting him and looking at other options like a big man instead.
let's look at the facts:
Sjax has been on the market for several weeks, no matter what has been announced or disclaimed every other day.
but no deal happened.
why not? we know most points, but again:
-his deal runs till 2013 and is structured very cap unfriendly and will pay the then 35 years old Jackson 10 million per. even a team in win now mode will hesitate to swallow such a contract.
-Sjax has a history of getting into trouble. even if he didn't in the last years, pictures of him getting into the stands or reports of him firing a gun during a fight are still in the mind of most GMs. (fans tend to call a guy reformed if there are now shocking news for 3 weeks)
-Sjax has a reputation of being disloyal. this point is constantly ignored on this site, but it might be the major reason why GSW didn't find a taker till now. a guy who signs a big extension and immediately turns around, starts to whine and demands a trade (to a winning team).
what do teams see:
-a good player (good but not good enough for a franchise player), who thinks be is better than he really is and always feels he deserves more (money, respect, minutes, shots)
-a great athlete, but turning 32 this season. the critical point for all players who's game is based on athleticism.
-he might be available for a not so big price, but the risk for the taker is quite high.
Cleveland currently is the team that has a big need (considering the precarious West situation), is in the win now mode and is willing to burn as much money as needed to keep Lebron and/or win the ring. they won't be willing to give up any player, who might be needed down the road (like Z. they know they will need size against the Celtics and Magic, but Shaq is old.)
my guess is, they constantly offer the smallest possible package (like West+Hickson+J.Williams), knowing that there isn't much compe ion for Sjax.
and the Warriors will scatter rumors that there are many interested parties, like Spurs, Hornets etc. to get a somehow interesting offer.
naive "newsbreakers" like Broussard are just tools in this game.
lets see how we fare against the lakers and dallas before talking about jax
They are actually the two teams I am thinking about when talking about acquiring him. His perimeter defense could be a great help against those teams.
Anyway, I like your suggestion. Let's see how we match up with the good teams first.
Sjax Is A Good Player.... But Not better Then Manu.... Finley/Mahinmi/Mason...... but nobody else...
Duncan
Mcdyess
Jackson
Jefferson
Parker
Ginobili
Hill
Blair
Hairston
Ratliff
Finley
Haislip
This team would have to rely too much on small ball, I thought that was a big time no-no to most people. Looks good on paper, but I don't think it'd work and I don't for a second think the Spurs have even the smallest interest in trading for Jax.
Has this thread really gone this far?
How can you people really be arguing over S Jax?
You guys are idiots.
Ok, let's look at this from a slightly different point of view.
The only thing I look to is this... the Spurs know their clock is ticking. Duncan has two or three left at championship level. TP has two years left on his deal. RJ has a 15 mil PO next year. Manu is in the final year of what has been a dissapointing extension due to injuries. Manu doesn't HAVE to sign back with the Spurs; the Spurs will likely not give Manu the same money he got before if he isn't back to his All Star/6th-man level. The only 3 players we know FOR CERTAIN will be back next year are Tim, TP and Dice. Realistically I would expect RJ not to turn down a 15 Mil option (if his time here sucks he isn't going to get 15 Mil elsewhere and if he is an All Star he is going to want a long term deal at the 15 Mil level and I don't see that happening).
Let's face it; this is the last rodeo for the Tim-led Spurs. If Manu isn't the cog that is going to drive the train he is going to be traded. With an expiring contract and his pedigree there are a bunch of teams that would LOVE to get him. If the Spurs have shown anything, it is that no matter who you are you are not safe from being traded or cut (Elliott, Kerr, Malik, Bowen, Barry - some of the most beloved Spurs, ok so not all the greatest but the idea is still there).
For the first time ever Holt went over the cap; he knows the clock is ticking. This is the time to get another ring or it ain't happening. TP is not a certainty to re-up, nor is Manu or RP. The current roster is not going to win it all. You can aregue and holler all you want that it can be done, but not in the state they are in. Manu isn't 2003 or even 2005 Manu. Mason and Finley aren't going to lock up Kobe/Dirk/LeBron/Pierce on D like Bruce did. We are destined to be the biggest threat to the Lakers and nothing more at this point. Now we obviously do not know about player progression; I mean, who knew in 2001 that TP was going to be an All Star? , Speedy got more crunch-time play in the 2001 Finals than TP did. So that mean, yes maybe Blair and Ian could rise to be that Pau or similar not quite an All Star but a great complimentary player. At this point, I don't ever see Ian being that.
The point is, Holt knows what we all know - time is winding down. There is a major rebuilding upcoming. He is doing things he hasn't done before. Our Euro picks haven't panned out after Manu and TP like they were supposed to. Something else needs to be done. That something may be bringing back an at ude in the hopes that Pop and Tim are the ones that can reign him in.
All I am saying is that I don't believe that we can say there is no way we will trade Manu and no way we would bring in a big contract and no way we will bring SJax back, because a year ago we would have all said there is no way Bruce gets traded and Holt goes over the cap - but it happened. Everyone being indignant about how the Spurs are this way and Holt is that way and Manu is this to the city and all that stuff - you might as well can it because there are only 4 people on the bench that we know will for certain be there at the end of the year: Tim, TP, RJ and Pop.
We all want All Star Manu to be there, but I truely believe that average Manu will not.
Couldn't disagree more.
Are there other talented players out there who can be had for less than 10 million at age 35? I think so.
Is Jax a disruptive whiner if he doesn't get big time minutes to stroke his big time ego? I think so
Are we better off without him. I think so.
I agree with the majority of your post, mountainballer, and especially Cleveland being the most likely suitor. But I have to take exception with Jack being the type of player that relies on his athleticism; I'm not sure if some teams view him as a great athlete, but I think they'd be a little misguided if they did.
Jack should actually age pretty well. He's actually more of a below the rim player than some would suspect and he has the size and strength to still be effective on both ends of the court, as he hits the inevitable slow-down that all players do. He's got a post game, a must-honor 3-point shot, and the length to keep him compe ive defensively by using more spacing than quickness.
Now don't get me wrong, he won't be worth what he'll be getting paid. (that contract is just a killer) But if, and I stress 'if', there's an owner not worried about the cash as much as a le and Jack comes in with the right mindset and at ude? They'd have a nice player for pretty much the duration of the contract; it'd definitely be a big gamble though, given the cap ramifications and the potential volatility Jack presents.
I'm sure the '01 mention, in regards to the Finals, was just a typo so I'm not going to bother with that. But I believe it's safe to say that we can say that Manu won't be getting traded this year; well, unless there's some absolutely devastating turn of events that for all intents and purposes ends the Spurs' season rather abruptly.
The Spurs believe, and rightfully so, that given a healthy Ginobili they're in the ballgame with a look at a championship. I think they're a role-playing piece or two away from being a likely suitor to the crown, but they're definitely in the ballgame with a shot given a couple of fortuitous breaks.
You know you're not going to get equal value for Ginobili and there's no one out there that you could honestly bring in that would help complete the championship puzzle better. There's just not some lesser talent out there that possesses a better, more needed, skill set at a different position; they need what Manu brings from the wing position and the only people that bring what he has, well, they'd be franchise players that the Spurs will never acquire.
And to the notion that Manu isn't the '03 or '05 player he used to be. Well, given health, and considering '08 was his best individual year, he's actually better than '03 and closer to '05 than you might think; '05 was the best Manu in most people's eyes because of the spectacular playoff run but Manu absolutely peaked individually in '08 prior to the ankle injury.
Manu's a gamble in a lot of ways given his health and importance to the team's le aspirations. But given Tim's window, it's a gamble they've got to take.
SI.com Roundtable
2. Stephen Jackson wants out of Golden State. If you were a general manager, would you take a chance on him? What team would be the best fit for his talents and mercurial personality?
Thomsen: I doubt he'll be traded because he has four years at almost $36 million on the books (including this season). He could help contenders like the Cavaliers, Nuggets or Hornets, but they would have to give up a little talent in the exchange -- and even then the weight of Jackson's contract might be too much for them to bear. The Bobcats, Knicks and Timberwolves all have needs on the wing, but Charlotte isn't likely to spend the money, New York is saving for 2010 and Minnesota may prefer to wait and see if its cap space can be applied for a more established star.
McCallum: I've always had a soft spot for Jackson, who, like Artest, is a good guy at heart. So, yes, I would take a chance on him. The normal answer here is that he has to go to a team with a clearly defined "culture," a place where he can be kept in line, like San Antonio. But he's already been there, so that's out. He needs a strong coaching figure on at least a decent team. Here are three suggestions: Washington, New Orleans and Utah.
Mannix: It depends on what your situation is. If you are a team on the brink of a championship -- say, Cleveland -- you might be willing to take a chance on a hard-nosed swingman with a history of making big shots in the playoffs. But if you're a middling team -- say, Chicago -- there is no reason to add Jackson's questionable at ude and big contract. Still, the most logical destination remains Cleveland. The Cavs have not been shy about taking on massive egos (see O'Neal, Shaquille) if they think it will help them win a le. And Jackson is still a dangerous shooter who would get plenty of open looks in that offense.
Markazi: I would have no problem taking a chance on Jackson. At this point in his career, Jackson doesn't want to be on a rebuilding team. Despite his trade demands, I don't see him as a cancer. He won a championship with the Spurs in 2003 and helped the Warriors pull off the biggest upset in playoff history in 2007. Last season, he was one of four players (along with LeBron James, Chris Paul and Dwyane Wade) to average at least 20 points, six assists and five rebounds. This isn't some head case at the end of his career; Jackson is one of the best players in the league when he's motivated and in the right situation. I would think Cleveland would be the best fit for him.
Trade Manu?
......PASS
Like I've said before, I'd an enormous brick if Cleveland actually engineered a deal for him. James and Jackson on the court together is just plain frightening.
Spurs don't really need him though. I'd say make a play to get an upgrade over Finley/Mason only if his at ude was right, but he's not the same SJax from 2003 unfortunately.
Meh, I don't think it would be a big deal..
Cleveland's frontcourt is horrible, so is their offensive coaching, and that will always keep them out of the Finals when you're going against 2 dominant teams like Boston and Orlando..
this past weekend ESPN Classic showed the 07 game 6 against the Mavs.
Once again in a clinching moment, Jackson was clutch all over that game raining threes and playing solidly otherwise.
He's like the anti-Bonner.
Jackson is the kind of player who will get bought out the last season of his contract no matter who he plays for. If the Spurs could get him without giving up Manu or Blair then it's hard to argue against it other than money issues.
i throw in a few draft picks and european rights we hold...for jax...
his worth the gamble
I'd love to have the 2003 version of SJAx but he doesn't exist as stated by estactic. Anyway he brings a 36 million price tag which I think Holt will pass on. If we trade for him who is leaving? Manu? Bonner/Finley/??who?? How does the FO balance the trade in terms of money? I don't see this ever happening.
I sometimes think back to the '04 season when he turned down a 10mil 3 year deal thinking he was worth much more only to sign with Atlanta for a mil for 1 year (even though that turned into a huge deal with Indiana the following year). If he had signed then no Hedo and we probably repeat or at tleast make the Finals against a very good Piston team.
you are right, he is pretty skilled and versatile and will be able to deliver on offense in some years. but IMO he will lose significantly on defense. I thought it could be a bit like it was with Finley.
Yeah, his defense will take a much bigger hit than his offense. But his size should at least give him the potential to transition to a different, but still useful defender in certain match-up's; I don't think I ever truly appreciated the size/length of Jack until he was no longer a Spur.
Have they also shown the following series with the Jazz?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote