Marc Stein: Stephen Jackson's slight edge over Boozer explained

[Spursfan 87]

03 Jax was a different player and person, he is not a good fit for the spurs right now. Back in 03 Jax was a player trying to prove that he belong in the nba, he played the game the right way and for the right reasons. Right now he thinks he is an elite player in this league something that he is not.

And I agree with Mel the only way i would want Jack in the spurs is if he comes cheap or if manu gets hurt.

[Trimble87]

My gut reaction to a Jackson trade was "wtf why would we do that?" But I actually took the last hour or so to think about why we would do that and now I am 100% for this trade. Jackson was great for us during the 03 championship run and I think he still has a lot left in the tank. It also provides us with insurance shouild Manu or Jefferson get injured.

If we traded finley/mason/mahinmi and a pick then our lineup could look like:

Parker
Jackson
Jefferson
Dyes
Duncan

Hill
Manu
Hairston/Bogans/Finley (whichever one we keep/makes the rotation)
Blair
Bonner/Ratliff.

My next thought was "well now how do we split the minutes for the SG/SF rotations. Heres my idea given that there are 240 total minutes available per game and that SG/SF take up 96mpg and PF/C take up 96mpg. Obviously it wont always work out this clean but I think its a good starting point.

Parker: 33
Jackson: 30
Jefferson: 30
Mcdyess: 25
Duncan: 29

Hill: 15
Ginobili: 28
Hairston/Bogans/Finley: 10
Blair: 17
Ratliff: 8
Bonner: 15

pg: 48
sg/sf: 98
PF/c: 94


Who here thinks that lineup isnt a GREAT idea?! Manu sJax Jefferson Finley Hairston and Bogans call all play SG or SF. And I think all of our big men are interchangeable at C/PF. We get to limit Duncan and Manus minutes to keep them fresh in the playoffs and we have the deepest team in the league. Thats an 11 man rotation! Drop either Bonner or Ratliff and you open up more minutes for everyone else while still being 10 players deep. I'm excited just thinking about it.


*edit for clarity*

I have no delusions about this. I give this trade a .01% chance of actually happening. This was more for the people saying they wouldnt want it.

[completely deck]

Haha, look at what happens when someone says a team has "shown a level of interest" in a player. He's not coming over

[phxspurfan]

Hairston/Bogans/Finley: 10
Blair: 17
Ratliff: 8
Bonner: 15

No way in that happens. More like


Hairston/Bogans: cut
Finley: 25
Blair: DNP-CD
Ratliff: DNP-CD
Bonner: 25

[Mel_13]

We can agree to disagree on this matter.

I'd be all for bringing in Stephen Jackson or Andres Nocioni at the expense of Finley/Mason/ Mahimni plus 1st rounder ( if it needs to be added).

Quality big men in the NBA are scarce. Which is a reason for teams overpaying for big men with obvious deficiencies 8-10 million a year. ( Dalembert, Rasho's old contract, Beidrins, Dampier, Zach Randolph, Kaman the list goes on). And the best we could probably do in terms of trading for a big man would be Marcus Camby or Jeff Foster. It remains to be seen but all signs are indicating that DeJuan Blair is the real deal Hollyfield and will most likely see anywhere from 15-20 minutes a game. Same with Bonner. And Dice getting 18-25 mpg roughly.


Are Camby and Foster really good enough to where Pop would sit Blair, McDyess, Bonner in favor of them? The answer is no. Maybe Camby could two or 3 years ago no questions asked but that answer isn't a clear cut yes as it used to. Camby's role would be more limited.

Then you can rebuttal that by saying, " Well when we play the Lakers or teams with length that's where Camby or Foster can fit in. Then we would be more versatile on the front-line. "

That's why Ratliff was signed. There was a reason for that.

So my question continues, would Camby or Foster really be that much of a significant upgrade due to the limited floor time they would see anyway?

-Camby slightly, but not really he would share minutes with Dice/ Bonner/Blair therefore his addition wouldn't be as significant.

-Foster or any other middle of the road big man like Collison for instance...No. We have Ratliff for that role.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

My preferred deal is Bonner plus Finley/Mason for Foster and then plug Foster in Bonner's spot in the rotation for 20 minutes a night.

I don't see Foster as playing the same limited role that Ratliff is here for. Ratliff hasn't played more than 600 minutes in any of the past three seasons. Foster has played at least 1500 minutes every year for the past six seasons. Around 1500 minutes each for Foster and Blair, 2000-2300 minutes for Duncan and McDyess, and the rest for Ratliff, Ian/Haislip, and SmallBall. That adds up.

On a pure talent basis, Jackson is a clear upgrade over Mason/Finley/Bogans. I still believe greater questions exist at the PF/C spots than at the SG/SF spots and any trade should address the area of greater need.

That being said, if they were interested in Jackson I'd still wait. Let the situation in GS deteriorate, as it almost certainly will, and watch Golden State's price drop. If things get bad enough out there, maybe they'll have to throw in picks to get a deal done!

[SpurCharger]

I would Welcome SJax Back!

[Mr. Body]

Thank God this has no chance in of happening. He deserves to play with Zach Randolph somewhere where he can rack up stats and lose lots of games. Ya'll a bunch of re s for wanting this.

[kobyz]

if we made this trade: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=yl69qqv
this is how the minutes will share:
PG - Parker(32) Hill(16) Acie Law(injury insure)
SG,SF - Jefferson(32) Manu(24) Jackson(20) Finley(12) Hill(8) Bogans/Hairston(injury insure)
PF,C - Duncan(28) Mcdyess(20) Blair/Haislip(20) Ratliff/Mahinmi(16) Jackson - small ball(12)

[Mel_13]

if we made this trade: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=yl69qqv
this is how the minutes will share:
PG - Parker(32) Hill(16) Acie Law(injury insure)
SG,SF - Jefferson(32) Manu(24) Jackson(20) Finley/Bogans/Hairston(20)
PF,C - Duncan(28) Mcdyess(20) Blair/Haislip(20) Ratliff/Mahinmi(16) Jackson - small ball(12)

Sorry...

Not a good trade on the first page of the thread.

Hasn't improved on the second page.

[MaNu4Tres]

For everyone including Bonner in trade scenarios:

Pop values Bonner a lot more than the average Spurstalker. He won't be including in any trade for an average big man, much less at all.

Reason for that being: They are currently working on an extension with the red head. That speaks for itself.

Me personally I think Bonner for Foster is an upgrade to a degree. But it's not the average fan's or my evaluation of Bonner that matters. It's Pop's and he flat out loves Matty. And values his ability to stretch out the defense, his effort on defense and on the glass more than people assume. That's evident with them working on an extension and how he's scheduled to start again this season. That's why I still included him in the big man rotation if we were to trade for a big man.

I'm not sayin I wouldn't trade Bonner for Foster or for a simliar middle of the road player. I'm saying Pop and R.C wouldn't.

[Agloco]

Thank God this has no chance in of happening. He deserves to play with Zach Randolph somewhere where he can rack up stats and lose lots of games. Ya'll a bunch of re s for wanting this.

Sorry...

Not a good trade on the first page of the thread.

Hasn't improved on the second page.

+1 to both.....

Before RJeff I would have been in favor of another sparkplug like Jackson. Given that we have RJeff now though.......

Haha, look at what happens when someone says a team has "shown a level of interest" in a player. He's not coming over

Lol, yeah really. We also have a "level of interest" in Kobe, DWhistle and LeBron.......