Reply With Quote
You'd get hung up on pretty quickly.
Warriors willing to trade Jackson:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4504553
I'd call up Don Nelson and their FO and offer up Mason/ Finley/ Mahimni and a future 1st.
You'd get hung up on pretty quickly.
If that was the case I'd consider offering up Splitter as well.
If you can look through your crystal ball again and predict that they'd hang up emphatically, then I'd look to see what it would take to get Nocioni.
Then you might as well start looking to see what it would take to get Nocioni.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns
As I've said since day one, nobody wants Jackson and his crappy contract.While a source said the Warriors are open to dealing Jackson, his contract – with four years and $35 million remaining – makes moving him difficult.
Even if Spurs only offered only Mason + Finley for Jackson, Warriors would gladly accept.
I agree to an extent. Even though his contract is crappy length wise, 7.65 million next year at a 10 percent increase per year is a bargain for a 20/5/5 player .( Even though he's an inefficient 20 5 and 5 player.)
That's the case the Warriors would use to squeeze everything out of their trading partner.
Even though he would never have the ball enough to ever put up those numbers on the Spurs. Warriors would use that as ammunition to get everything they can.
If Mason/ Finley was all it took to get SJax I don't think the Spurs could turn that down. As long as Pop talked to him before the trade went down and he agreed to focus primarily on being a force defensively and spot up shooting/ and only creating whenever the opposition closed out hard to him at the 3 pt line.
In other words no step back/ ill advised mid range contested jumpers that he became accustomed to in GS.
Not true. The Warriors have specifically stated they're not interested in a salary dump or (as Don Nelson put it today) "giving away" Jackson. They just signed him to his extension 10 months ago, he's a team captain and they love him (despite his recent comments). If they're going to trade him they want equal value in return, not expiring contracts.
If I'm the Warriors I'm calling Phx and flirting with the idea of SJAX/ Randolph+ filler and pick for Amare.
Well, Nelson won't say "we are looking to give away Jackson". He is trying to get the best return for Jackson.
Jackson has publicly asked to be traded one month ago. He hasn't been traded. When he was linked to a team (Cavs or Mavs), there were reports saying that these teams weren't interested in him. Reports are now saying that he isn't easily tradable because of his contract.
In all likelihood, teams don't want Jackson and his contract. It's hard to come to another conclusion given what has happened this last month. If teams were really interested in him, one would have heard serious rumors or he would have been traded.
To me, it makes no doubt that Spurs aren't even slightly interested in Jackson. It makes no sense at all for them to add that kind of player with that kind of contract.
I'm not debating any of that. I'm debating the statement that the Warriors would "gladly accept" Mason and Finley for Jackson, which simply isn't true. Ultimately the Warriors want to keep Jackson. They're not actively shopping him, nor are they attempting to rid themselves of his contract which they just gave him last November. If they're going to consider trading Jackson they're going to have to be offered something of substantive value in return that they can't pass up - not expiring contracts. They've made that perfectly clear.
Last edited by Steve-O-Matic; 09-25-2009 at 07:45 PM.
Warriors are a young team. It makes no sense for them to keep an aging, malcontent and with a big contract Jackson.
Now, they are the Warriors. They signed Maggette for $50M and gave Jackson an extension. They did damn stupid things and they could very well continue to do so.
He doesn't have a big contract, he has a somewhat long contract. $7M for a 20/5/6 guy who is a plus defender is a bargain. But that's irrelevant because the point is that they are NOT looking to trade him for expiring contacts, period. So you can forget the "gladly accept" Mason+Finley thing.
Well, that's YOUR opinion that is based on NOTHING.
Which is exactly my point - they would want VALUE in return, not expiring contracts as you inferred with the "gladly accept" Mason+Finley declaration.
Umm, it's not an opinion, it's based on direct quotes from both Don Nelson and the Warriors owner. You might want to do a little reading up on this topic, pal.
If you can't understand why a coach or an owner will never say "we are looking to give away this player", I can't help you, pal.
You can cover your ears, scream "la la la la la la" and ignore the facts all you want but the truth remains that the Warriors are NOT looking to salary dump Jackson. You're the one who needs help, not me. First you said they'd "gladly accept" Mason and Finley (i.e. expiring contracts) and now you're saying they're trying to maximize their return. In other words, you've completley lost track of your own argument.
A GM or coach with the IQ of a 1st grader would know to never come out in public and say " We are willing to give away Stephen Jackson for expiring contracts". They will say and do anything to get the best offers of course. But fact is Yahoo has stated as Bruno mentioned earlier that a lot of teams have said NO thanks because of his contract.
Me, ignoring the facts ?
Am I the one who ignores the lack of any kind of serious rumors about Jackson being traded ?
Am I the one who ignores reports saying that teams aren't interested in him?
Am I the one who ignores reports saying that Jackson is hard to move because of his contract ?
It's sure that Warriors are TRYING to maximise their return. It doesn't mean that they will succeed at that and get a good return for Jackson. Heck, it's far from sure that they will be able to get a as good return as Mason+Finley for Jackson.
I guess we can agree that we disagree. If Jackson is traded, we will then see what Warriors receive for him.
Dude, taking expirings for Jackson's awful contract would be nothing short of maximizing their return, however it's pretty clear few, if any, teams are in for him, not surprisingly. The Spurs are not in for him as well, at least that bit should be plain obvious.
No way. Amar'e's eye issue plus baggage and one year rental makes this a no go. Warriors management and fans literally have a hard on for Anthony Randolph as well. This is a no go on the Warriors side. On the other hand, if the Suns could cut costs, they would take the deal. Besides, they tried this on draft day and the Warriors backed out on it.
Any trade with Anthony Randolph in it is not even worth considering for the Warriors unless a superstar or Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant or Greg Oden comes with the deal.
Why would someone think that Nellie would't take Mason and Finley for Jack? Mason was one of the best 3pt shooters in the league last year. Is anything else required to play for GS?
I just hope if we don't get SJax that the Lakers don't get him either. I don't get the feeling though that Pop wants him. Pop described RJ as "Stephen Jackson without the drama" in one of his press videos. We'll see how it plays out.
Steve-O:
You are reading too much into what Nellie says. He has too say what he did in order to sound like a business man. Just in case he can fool someone into thinking they have to give up talent in order to get Jackson.
Deep down he knows that won't happen though and the most likely thing is that he is dumped for expiring contracts. But he cannot come out and say: "We are in a terrible position with Jack coming out and demanding to be traded along with his terrible contract, we would be lucky to get any takers..."
He has to put the front office spin on it and I would not read so much into it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
