They got Hedo and Mercer in a trade for nothing AFTER Jackson and his agent refused to deal with the Spurs.
Jackson's departure from San Antonio is all on him.
He signed with Atlanta because the Spurs never offered him squat. They passed it off as his bad at ude or his disruptive nature that made them weary of resigning him. It was really about the money. The Spurs thought they could win without him even though he was instrumental down the stretch and in the post season en route to the championship.
Small market teams need to cut corners wherever they can. It was piss-poor move by the organization and they did it again years later with Scola.
wierd.. the way i heard it was sjax wanted more money and spurs couldn't offer more and it was sjax that held out too long.. making the spurs fill their void with mercer and turkoglu.. sjax then took a lower offer with atl
Revisionist history. See the SI article from 2003.
Your SI article doesn't tell the whole story. I still remember Jackson coming back to the Spurs to accept their initial offer, which the article doesn't mention. And the article has a bias against Jackson by solely mentioning his turnovers, while discounting the huge clutch shots he made throughout Game 6 of almost every round of that playoffs. Yeah, he screwed up in that he trusted a high powered agent. But in the end the agent was right, Jack was being undervalued. His big contract after Atlanta shows that he was worth more money in the end.
If he came back to the Spurs, it was after the trade for Hedo and Mercer and after his agent failed to secure a deal from any other team in the NBA. They should have presented a counteroffer to the initial offer from the Spurs. They played hardball and they lost.
In the end, the agent was wrong. Jackson would have played with a contender for many years (over the years he has been frequently quoted as wanting exactly that) and he would have done as well or better financially over the remainder of his NBA career.
who gives a about stephen jackson. that was like 8 years ago.
Just mythbusting..
great.. i feel old now lol
I agree the agent lost. But it's unclear what Pop's intentions were at that time. To me we'll never really know what happens behind closed doors, just in the same way we don't know what happened behind the scenes with Scola.
No, the agent was not wrong from his perspective. A year later his client was signing a large contract, larger then what he probably ini ally thought possible when playing hardball with the Spurs.
I don't know why you think you're "mythbusting". If anything you're supplying a limited interpretation and assuming it's the full story, when in fact the story is more complex then you suggest.
True that we'll never all the details, but the notion that some (not you) perpetuate that "the Spurs let Jackson walk" is just a myth.
He was wrong if we are to believe the rest of the Jackson myth:
1. The Spurs would have won more les with Jackson than they did otherwise.
2. Jackson's long history of bad behavior since leaving the Spurs would never have happened if he had stayed with the Spurs.
If those two things are to be believed, then Jackson would have been much better off accepting a 3 year deal from the Spurs in 2003 than a 6 year deal from the Pacers in 2004.
See above. The Spurs didn't "let Jackson walk". Jackson walked and the Spurs moved on.
I won't claim to know the extent of the "Jackson Myth" that is spread around. I doubt most people could even agree on what it entails.
My only issue was with how he departed. Again, I think it was complicated in that Jackson's side wanted more money and the Spurs had little interest in offering more than their initial offer. High profile agents typically want too much and the Spurs typically low ball. I think most people could agree with that assessment.
They both played hardball in my opinion and they both lost in the short term. In the longterm they both succeeded in that the Spurs won two more les and Jackson got his big contract.
(And, I do appreciate his efforts in helping defeat the Mavs in 2007. That definitely was a help in the Spurs having an easier path to the Finals.)
This supposed Danny Green thread has really gone sideways.
We'll have to agree to disagree. We're looking at the same events and coming to different conclusions. That's fine.
In any event, I wasn't referring to anything you said as a myth. I responded to your post to present the correct timeline regarding the Hedo trade.
Yep, to the extent that it is front page worthy right before the playoffs.
I find your name ironic.Shortly after he hit three key fourth-quarter three-pointers in a decisive Game 6 of the Finals, he received a three-year, $9 million free-agent contract offer from San Antonio.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...#ixzz1JcwDAujm
We knew Green had potential.
I thought it was pretty apparent that Spurs were being cheap.
Last year you could see some! I did not know he would start out like this though in his first few games since Manu out. That kid can jump as well, that last block (Foul one) was just sick. Danny I hope can keep this up or even near it.
He has shown a lot of improvement since college which is amazing because I didn't think he had the ability to get better. I give him a lot of credit at working hard to improve his game.
Kid must have done some work. I still am not sure if he will be able to guard the bigger SF's ala Durant/Anthony, but I would say he earned the chance to try.
My favorite thing about watching Green perform like he is, is that he is contributing to both ends of the court. That was something the Spurs have sorely missed. He isn't just a defensive specialist, or offensive specialist and makes it easier to get him some more playing time. Props to Pop for recognizing and letting Green prove himself. Kid is impressing.
Green is looking very comfortable out there. He's shooting well, attacking the basket, and making an impact on defense. At the moment he's not a liability in any way, and that's huge.
I like green and admittedly I haven't seen a whole bunch of him with the spurs (missed the Denver game) but I have seen alot of him at UNC and it seems his ball handling is a major weakness. I think he is a good player and one we should hang on to (Raja Bell is a nice comparison) but he is by no means our savior. Keep manu. If he continues to play this well I would talk about moving anderson or neal but never manu
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
