I still am but to a lesser extent. Spurs really needed another perimeter player able to play both sides of the floor ( most specifically the defensive side) outside of Jefferson and Manu. If you go back that was my main point I was trying to get across. I knew Bogans was a defensive player but I didn't know he was able to guard players 1-3 and able to stay infront of them due to his superior foot speed. (Something that made Bowen as great as he was.)I can dig this take.
Question. Weren't you all for SJax a little while ago?
Bogans has been a pleasant surprise. If he can be consistent on the defensive end, bringing it night in and night out and take his high percentage spot up shots, Spurs best move would be to include Mason in a package would be for a big man. IMO
I thought you were pushing for SJax pretty hard a while ago, so Bogans has completely changed your opinion? The question is though would you be willing to pass up on SJax when we could end up with no trades for a bigman?
I guess bigmen are a pretty big commodity and it's less likely you will get a decent one for the expiring contracts we have.
Im for a SJAX trade for the simple fact that he would make us a tremendous matchup with the Lakers in the playoffs...
Parker
Jackson
Jefferson
Mdyess
Duncan
We would have the size to battle the Lakers with Jackson in the lineup. Without him, we would be too short (IMO) to beat LA in 7 games.
LMFAO!!!! Oh man that was good!
Of course, the contract is the critical factor. If he never signed that extension and was in the last year of his contract, there would be a line of contending teams bidding for his services. He did sign the extension and now that contract, combined with his past and current behavior, makes him difficult to move for anything approaching equal value.
He complains about Nelson and the decisions to let Baron, Pietrus, and Barnes leave, but he knew all that when he signed the deal. He said publicly that he looked forward to leading the young players on the team. Every time he opens his mouth these days, he's sure to say that he's all about winning. I don't buy it from him anymore than I do from 98% of pro athletes. If he was really all about winning, he could be on the team of his choice in the next 2 weeks. Give up enough of that extension and GS would buy him out. Then he could choose a team.
Jackson still has a lot of fans here who want him back. Before the RJ trade, I thought he was the best target for the Bowen/Oberto contracts. Now he just costs too much and not only in dollars.
That's actually funny that you bring up Nazr..my brother and I were watching the game vs. Orlando, and Nazr was looking great, and we joked about that..the announcers were talking about how Nazr felt like he hadn't been given a good chance to contribute the last few years..
I wouldn't give up Bonner for him, but if he's the most realistic option, I'd give up Mason/Finley for him, same with Mason/Ian/Haislip(when he's eligible to be moved)..
I agree Harlem. Word is he worked his butt off this off-season. I would take Nazr over Foster.
Camby, Nazr, Haywood, Turiaf, Foster are five options that I think could possibly be realistic to a degree.
With Camby being the hardest to pull off.
I think Haywood would be the toughest..he's probably the #1 role player I would like to see next to Duncan, only Kendrick Perkins has the same level of interest from me..Washington likes him though, and he's expiring, so it would probably take Hill or Blair IMO..
Mason And Bonner For SJAX works and sounds great to me!!
Why not keep Bonner? There is no point in giving up a rotation big man if you don't have to.
Mason Jr., Finley and Mahinimi would be a much better trade. Why would you keep Finley? There would be no minutes for him, Bonner on the other hand would still have some minutes available.
Actually I wonder if the Warriors would be interested in a someone like Haislip instead of Mahinimi? He might fit into their run and gun system better. How sweet would that be? Then you can trade Bonner and Mahinimi for another big if you can match salaries.
I wouldn't include Bonner unless you get another big man back. For example you can add Bonner to those three try and get Turiaff back as well.
Why not keep Bonner? There is no point in giving up a rotation big man if you don't have to.
Mason Jr., Finley and Mahinimi would be a much better trade. Why would you keep Finley? There would be no minutes for him, Bonner on the other hand would still have some minutes available.
Actually I wonder if the Warriors would be interested in a someone like Haislip instead of Mahinimi? He might fit into their run and gun system better. How sweet would that be? Then you can trade Bonner and Mahinimi for another big if you can match salaries
I wouldn't include Bonner unless you get another big man back. For example you can add Bonner to those three try and get Turiaff back as well.
That sounds great.... until you see SJackson's price tag. No thanks.
Don't forget, Manu is going to be a FA after this year along with possibly bringing Splitter over. Even with Mason, Finley, Bonner, Haislip, and Ian leaving next year, there isn't enough cap space for SJackson and his baggage.
I'm with you on that. He is cheap for the next two seasons after that is where he gets expensive. Seriously wouldn't he provide more than all those three players combined?
Do you have any idea if the Spurs are looking at him at all? And yes I would rather do the trade now that wait around until later. He would also help a lot more with injuries. Look at Finley and Mason Jr. right now. What exactly are they providing us the last two games? Pretty much nothing.
The Spurs could always find a better option than Jackson. Someon like Salmons would fit the Spurs plans. I don't know why we need S-Jax so much.
Why would the Bulls give us Salmons??????
If Jackson had a shorter contract then he would probably already be traded to another contender. We only have a chance at SJax right now because he has a contract that no one wants a part of.
Salmons on the other hand is even cheaper. No way the Bulls give him to us for what we might get SJax for.
That is a bad post.
I don't think Pop wants to deal with Sjax again...
He had the least drama with the Spurs because he was a nobody then and still striving for a big contract. He may want to be on a contender, but who doesn't? This doesn't meana player should act like a fool and think that everyone is just going to appease his silly actions (i.e. Brandon Marshall before the season started).
It's not so much of it being a terrible contract then wondering what the Spurs could get for that same amount of money after the season. We all know the Spurs are good at picking up cheap vets to cover their needs in the offseason. Again, Manu (if he stays healthy) and Splitter (if he comes over) are likely going to be first priority at the end of the season. Having Jackson only complicates what the Spurs can do at the end of the year.
I agree that he could do more than what Finley and Mason Jr. talentwise, but I am sure if the FO doesn't act, then they don't want to have to deal with SJackson's at ude/issues. There was a reason why they didn't re-sign him in the first place when we had a chance.
Besides, the Spurs MO has been to wait and see how the team gels together before making any additional moves. And with all the moves made in the offseason, I would have to think that they may not make any signficant moves unless the Spurs are really looking like they need another player. We will see what happens.
I don't see why you have a such problem, that someone mentions a player "like Salmons" as a better target for the Spurs. when I read "like Salmons" I think about a player, who is on a MLE type contract and has just 2 more years on this contract. and who has more role player potential than Sjax.
(unbelievable how some see Sjax take the role of the 5th option on this team, when he already struggled to accept a 3rd option role).
however, it's right that Salmons is not on the market and if he was, the Spurs likely don't have what the Bulls seek.
nonetheless the Spurs tried to get Salmons at last deadline.
so they felt that a player like Slamons would be the right addition.
when thinking about possible moves of the Spurs, there is more logic to look what players are like Salmons (or on contracts like him), than claiming that Sjax would be the best move.
btw. there is a good chance that the Bulls will put Salmons on the market at deadline.
why? Slamons has a ETO for next year. there is a very good chance that he will opt out, at 30 he will look for his last long term contract and he will get at least MLE offers.
Bulls will be a big player in the 2010 free agency and all experts see realistic chances that they get one of the 3 prices. but they need to take care that they get enough room for a max offer. they might be forced to drop Salmons rights, because the cap hold of his rights in case he opts out is high enough to sabotage a max offer. the Bulls might decide to trade Salmons at deadline and get back a decent return and that way avoid a problematic situation for free agency.
Mason + Bonner or Mason + Mahinmi for SJax, I would do in a heart beat.
Salmons isn't the player SJax is, imo. I don't like the trajectory of Salmons' shot for one. It's way too flat.
Stephen Jackson can guard multiple positions, including difficult covers like Dirk Nowinski.
For a wing, he is really great at assists and makes his whole team better. I think he has shown good leadership qualities.
He is a clutch 3 point shooter and plays with poise under pressure.
He is just a flat-out baller.
I would love to have him back on our team.
I wouldn't give up McDyess, Hill, Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Blair, for him.
Mason, Finely, Bonner, Mahinmi are expendable.
As an earlier poster pointed out, Pop does love to go small and SJax would be a huge asset in such a situation.
I really like our team now. But SJax would improve our chances. I would take his 3 ball over Bonner's in a pressure situation, any time.
With Artest and Kobe, that is hard on our wings to deal with.
Bogans is too small for Artest. Artest, normally, unless he is just lucky, is not a good 3 point shooter. But posting up, he's a beast because he is just so damn big and strong.
We can deal with this by putting Jefferson on Artest, but then who guards Kobe ? Who is our starting 2 guard ? Mason ? Finely ? Do we put Blair on Artest and Jefferson on Kobe ? But then who guards Pau and who guards Bynum ? Do we go big and have McDyess, Duncan, Blair, Jefferson and Parker ?
OTOH, with SJax, we could go Parker, Jefferson, SJax, McDyess and Duncan.
And for small ball for shorter time periods (limiting Manu's minutes) -
we could go :
Parker, Ginobili, Jefferson, SJax, Duncan.
Jefferson is a strong rebounder, SJax has the size, strength and athletic ability to be a good rebounder, Duncan is a great defensive rebounder, and Ginobili can rebound relatively well on occasion.
SJax is a good defender as well.
If SJax were a little bit younger, then I would even consider trading Manu for him (out of fear that Manu might possibly have enough injury issues to limit his future productivity and marginalize him).
SJax stats seem to indicate that he appears (to the viewer) to be a better player than he really is. I hate players who shoot in the low 40's. SJax appears to have a career field goal shooting percentage of 41.8% . His career average rebounding is 3.8 per game. His career assist average is only 3.2 assists per game.
So, the numbers aren't in his favor.
Nevertheless, I would still make either of the two trades above.
I love him.
Absolutely love his heart and his game. Bring him back PLEASE.
I am sure nellie and pop are talking about this..........may come sooner than later.
Matt Bonner would fit within Nellie's scheme in a way- a big that spreads the floor, shoots 3s at a high percentage. He and Mason are not yet in their 30's. And if Jackson doesn't want to be there... It's not that likely I guess, but if he can be had for Mason + Bonner, you have to do it.
Last edited by Mavs<Spurs; 11-13-2009 at 05:48 AM.
Please put this BULL in the political forum. Some of us come here to get away from this crap. If you can't respect the format of the forum please go somewhere else.Matt Bonner would fit within Nellie's scheme in a way- a big that spreads the floor, shoots 3s at a high percentage. He and Mason are not yet in their 30's. And if Jackson doesn't want to be there... It's not that likely I guess, but if he can be had for Mason + Bonner, you have to do it.
Apparently, those FACTS bothered you.
Posting a positive picture of what one supports or political leaders one supports in one's signature is not controversial . Why not simply put a pic of Palin or Huckabee or Romney in one's signature if one is a conservative ? Why post a negative image of a political leader others here support for the purpose of attacking him in the Spurs basketball forum ? It's looking for trouble.
Posting negative images of the President in one's signature is inviting this type of response. Even among white, male Southerners, there are some here who are Democrats who support the President.
Statements under one's name like "What an Obamanation !" or negative pictures which appear in the Spurs forum begin the problem. The post with those images was a direct response to the hostile post of the previous poster in this Spurs basketball forum. That person could have posted positive images of their political leaders whom they support. He didn't have to post a negative image of a political leader he opposed. And he did so, again, in the Spurs basketball forum. I made my point. So, I removed those images.
I wouldn't have a problem if someone wanted to post a positive picture of McCain or Palin or whomever. Nor would I respond to that. I don't post images attacking other people's political leaders here in my sig because it is unnecessarily rude and divisive. And I expect others to do the same.
Last edited by Mavs<Spurs; 11-13-2009 at 05:56 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
