Reply With Quote
I think you're overrating the impact that Jackson would have had in Cleveland.
I think Ferry is rolling the dice on getting a better player available later on. It sure is a risky strategy though.And Hollinger is spot-on:
"John Hollinger | ESPN.com
What a humiliating about-face. Less than a year after the Warriors' dysfunctional management proudly signed team captain Stephen Jackson to a cap-crippling three-year, $28 million extension negotiated behind then-general manager Chris Mullin's back, they gave away the disgruntled veteran for cap relief on Monday by dealing him and Acie Law to Charlotte for Raja Bell and Vladimir Radmanovic. Radmanovic's own contract is bad enough that the Lakers gave him away at the trade deadline a year earlier, speaking volumes about the Warriors' gaffe with Jackson.
What makes this even worse is that it appears Golden State took the second-best offer on the table. Multiple league sources told me the Cavaliers were ready to move ahead with a deal featuring a signed-and-traded Wally Szczerbiak, Delonte West and perhaps some ancillary flotsam in return for Jackson, a deal that would have been visibly superior to the Charlotte deal from both a cap-management and talent perspective.
Let's run through the math. Bell is a productive player -- but at a much lower level than Jackson -- and is on the final year of his contract, making the primary benefit of the deal for Golden State the fact it clears $9.2 million in cap space in 2011. The Warriors are now a potential player in that year's free-agent market, depending on future moves.
But they could have cleared even more cap space with Cleveland's offer. Such a deal would have given the Warriors full, immediate relief from Jackson's deal after the season once they waived West (whose contract isn't guaranteed for next year) and Szczerbiak (whose contract wouldn't be guaranteed beyond this year in a sign-and-trade)."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...ime-091116live
Z, Wally, West - who was sent matters little, it's getting Jax that was important. And Ferry screwed it. The East must be rejoicing!
I think you're overrating the impact that Jackson would have had in Cleveland.
Jackson is a bit too inefficient as a scorer and especially as a jump-shooter to put the Cavs over the top (his ball-handling skills would be redundant). I'm not sure if a better player than him will become available though.
the Cavs don't need Jackson, and not getting him makes no difference to the 2010 situation with Lebron. If anything, it helps not getting him because they won't owe a 31 year old Jackson (who plays the same position as Lebron) 3 years and 20 something million. The Cavs need to get younger, not older. Trading for Jackson may help the situation right now, but it doesn't help at all for the future.
If the Warriors took the deal on the Cavs terms (West and Wally) that is one thing, but don't trade Z. Z is a valuable asset to the Cavs- even though a bunch of people who don't even follow the Cavs don't think so- and they need him, and his 20,000,000 coming off the books. The Cavs made the offer that best suited them (West and Wally) and Charlotte made a better one. That is how it works, but saying Lebron is leaving because they didn't get Stephen Jackson is crazy. Look at Stephen Jackson, he gets 18 ppg by shooting like 40%, if Delonte West took the number of shots SJAX did he would average 18 a game and Delonte is what 4 years younger than SJAX.
And while I'm on it. The Cavs are 4-0 with Hickson in the lineup. They won 2 very tough games on the road on a back to back. They look very good right now, so all you saying that Shaq sucks and they need more are ridiculous. They may need a little here and there, but they don't need major changes, and they surely don't need to trade away depth for a gamble. They are fine. The offense looks good, and the defense will be there.
the deal the Cavs were offering was West and Wally.....Z is untradeable at this point. Laugh all you want, but 7 foot guys are hard to find. He is slow, but most 7'1 guys are. He is valuable to the team as long as there are 70 something more games to play
Z, Wally, West - who was sent matters little, it's getting Jax that was important. And Ferry screwed it. The East must be rejoicing!
Exactly and I like Parker in the starting line-up with Mo, LJ and Shaq. He has his niche and plays it well. I doubt Jackson would want to come off the bench.
Dan is right in saying the Cavs need an athletic big-man to match up with Dwight, Bynum etc.
The Orlando game showed what they could do with a bit of practice time.
the thing is, Dwight Howard is such a beast because there isn't anyone in the league who can match up with that. That is why Lebron is so good, there are only maybe 2 or 3 guys in the whole league who can slow him down. Same goes for Dwight, and I can't even think of one (maybe Perkins but that may be team defense). What I'm saying is, the Cavs aren't going to find a center who can match up with Howard. That is what makes Howard so valuable. That said, I think Shaq can be effective vs Howard. I think he can slow him down just enough whether it's just fouling him, or just keeping a big body on him.
The Cavs could get one of the best young centers in the league, say Brook Lopez, and he wouldn't be able to stop Dwight. So Cleveland isn't alone. That is just how it goes.
I truly believe that the Cavs wanted Jackson more for his defense and length than they did for his scoring. His scoring is high, but it's because he was the Warriors only option in a system that was all scoring. When Jackson played for SA and Indy he was one of the better defenders in the league. His offense isn't that great. He scores like 18ppg by jacking up 20 shots a night, someone who can shoot 40% in the NBA isn't that hard. Put him in a system where he isn't the focus, and he is scoring 8 points a game with 10-12 shots, basically Delonte West.
Shaq is great in that they don't need to double him and if Cleveland can convert in their half court sets it limits Dwight's chance at getting great position.
im so glad we dont have ferry as the gm. such an easy deal to make. z is the problem he isnt a pf so get rid of him. the cavs are stupid
Actually I don't agree.
Captain Jack would fit in very well here.
I kinda hope Charlotte wants to move him. I'd have given up Z for him. Love ya Z, hope you retire as a Cavalier, we'll put #11 in the rafters when you do and have a night for you and , but you know how it goes.
so what would the Cavs do if Shaq got hurt? (which he is right now). Or what would they do when they are in the playoffs against a dominate center who Shaq will likely be in foul trouble against?
It was me who said it, but I was thinking more of a mobile, perimeter-oriented, athletic big man, not exactly a post defender.
Jackson would be the ideal fit, but he'd still help the Cavs enormously.
Z is just too expensive to be a 4th big - what you're missing by not trading him could help you more than what he offers (especially considering he doesn't play well off the bench). If your starting center goes down, of course you're going to have problems - of course they're going to be bigger if you trade one of your bigs. But the point is if Ferry is comfortable with his chances of winning the le this season with the current roster.
Ilgauskas has done a lot for the Cavs franchise and it was very likely that the Cavs wanted the Warriors to buy Big Z out but the Warriors did not want to do so, making the deal a no go.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
