Reply With Quote
A few questions though
1.Does Manu become breakout star in 2005 if Jack stayed around?
2.Was he enough of a difference for 2004 and 2006 lost seasons?
What-if games are usually fraught with unrealistic, best-case scenarios. But what would the history books look like if Stephen Jackson had stayed put? Sure, maybe he doesn't knock down threes to the tune of 75% in the playoffs for nine years running, but in the 2003 offseason he was a known quan y. He had shown himself on a championship team. The two-time reigning MVP sung his praises. The city loved his gumption, his fire, his willingness to take the big shot. And, confound it all, he left it all behind. For Atlanta. In a particularly dreadful year, even by Hawks standards. And he did it for less than 1/3 the salary the Spurs had offered him to return.
http://www.poundingtherock.com/2012/...ck-interrupted
Last edited by ViceCity86; 06-11-2012 at 11:10 PM. Reason: copying and pasting part of article
A few questions though
1.Does Manu become breakout star in 2005 if Jack stayed around?
2.Was he enough of a difference for 2004 and 2006 lost seasons?
Yes. 1. He wouldn't the bed like Turkoglu. 2. He would have been a nice matchup on Dirk.
If Jack stayed and sign the 4 year contract with Spurs.I say 4 out of 5 winning 2006.
Im not convinced they beat the Pistons in 04.They had Rasho starting and no backup PG.
Well then Golden State probably never beats Dallas in 07, and Jack is benched by Pop for shooting two contested 3's, while the Mavs go on to win the series and beat the Cavs on there way to there first le. In the offseason he is traded to New Jersey for Richard Jefferson, and we get beat by Dallas 3 straight years.
Couple years of some tough perimeter defense with Bowen still here and Jack with the 3's its a wrap. Timmy have more rings than Horry lol.
What're you smoking bra?
The thoughts of our 5 peat that was guaranteed if we kept Jack
I always felt the biggest blunder of Duncan-popovich era was the 2003 off season.The Spurs would go on to win 2 more championships,but the potential for more was in their hands.They should of gave Jack 4 year 20-25 mill deal,which would of been a bargain.
2003 Spurs won the championship even when the front office thought they were a year away.They were planning that off season with cap space to land a big(Jason Kidd)fish and that would be their ticket to push them over the top.
2003 off season
1.Letting go of Jackson mainly because of his agent.
2. ty year to have cap space for max player.I don't think Kidd and Parker could of co-existed.Bad fit.
Well. unfortunately we'll never know. As a Jackson fan, I always wondered the same thing since he left San Antonio. I'm glad to have him back now where he can finish out his career on the team he belongs on and hopefully finish it with one more ring alongside Timmy. But we shall wait and see, all in all, great to have Jack back and to make up for lost time, hopefully San Antonio doesn't let him go again.
Signing Jack back then might have made it harder (or impossible) to get Robert Horry to sign as a free agent, from a cap standpoint. I don't honestly remember all of the specifics, but I feel pretty confident that the Spurs don't win the le in 2005 with Jackson and without Horry.
I thought Horry was basically let go by LA and no one wanted him and we signed him to a low contract, like $1 million/year?
Basketball reference says $4.5 million in 2003-04. I found another resource saying that was the MLE in 2003. My point may be completely invalid.
Spurs would have lost to the Pistons in 2004, then threepeated in 2005, 2006, 2007.
I was only partially right. After shooting something like 2/38 in the playoffs the Lakers made no effort to retain Big Shot, and he came to the Spurs.
My memory was wrong. You are right. He got paid around $5 million is first year, but then the Spurs declined the second year and then signed him for the minimum for 2 years. I conflated his minimum contract with the Lakers having no interest in him. Also, he only wanted to come to Texas to be near his daughter so the Spurs got him with little compe ion, which made me think there was no interest in him overall.
This is what I found on real GM. Granted, not a great site, but ...
08/05/04: Robert Horry (SAS) signed a 2 year minimum salary contract with a player option for the 2nd year.
06/15/04: Robert Horry (SAS) had his team option refused by the Spurs. He will now be a free agent this summer.
07/24/03: The Spurs signed Robert Horry to a two-year, $10.5 million contract. The second season is a team option.
Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/src_pla...#ixzz1xcYfa0sl
#1: Bingo.
Manu's growth would have absolutely been stunted.
We also have no guarantee that Jackson wouldn't have still gone through his "crazy, locker room cancer" phase if he stuck around.
We are also talking about a lot of money that he wanted. What would we have been able to do in other moves if we kept him?
Suggesting a five-peat if we kept a hybrid 2/3 when we had guys at those positions whose jerseys will be hanging from the rafters (one already is)? Don't agree at all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
