Stephen Jackson should still be in a Spurs uniform. Last year, the Spurs tried to replace him with Hedo Turkoglu. That was a huge failure. This year, the Spurs tried to replace him with Brent Barry. That has so far proven to be a huge failure.
Whether it was caving in after the championship and giving him the 5-year, $24M he wanted or acquiring this past summer for 6-year, $38M, the Spurs should have made it happen. People now know him as the crazy guy with cornrows who attacked people in Detroit, but we as Spurs fans know that wouldn't have happened in San Antonio. He's a good guy who gets caught up in the thug life at ude and him fighting was more out of him trying to prove to his new teammates that he'd "ride" for them.
We're two-thirds into the Spurs season and anyone who doesn't think that Brent Barry has been a disappointment is lying. He hasn't been overly bad but he really hasn't done anything. He comes into games, misses a few shots, makes a bad pass and leaves. That's been his status quo for most of the season. He's hit a big shot here, made a nice pass there ... but overall he hasn't done anything to earn the 4-year, $22M contract the Spurs gave him. The playoffs will be the true test but if the regular season is any indication, I'm not holding my breath for any miracles out of him.
What this team lacks is what SJax brings. This team isn't as tough as the two championship Spurs teams. SJax brings a toughness. This team doesn't have any real leaders. Pop has admitted recently that SJax was a team leader and was the player who would get on other players if they weren't doing their job. The Spurs don't have that. SJax is a clutch shooter. Do the Spurs have that? It's not 100% clear, but it doesn't look overly likely.
Stephen Jackson should have been a Spur for life. He's that X-Factor player the Spurs need to lively up their squad and make it playoff and battle ready. His teammates know that he'll stand up for them and that he has their back. Can you honestly say that about any player on the team right now?
I know what you are going to say so let me clear it up now.
-I know the Spurs have the best record in the league. But finishing with the best record really doesn't mean anything in the playoffs. The best regular season Spurs team of all-time didn't win a championship.
-Someone is going to say that Stephen Jackson turns the ball over too much. For the season, he's averaging 2.8 turnovers per 48 minutes. "High-IQ" Brent Barry averaging 1.8 turnovers per 48 minutes. I don't think that one turnover is a reason to not have a guy on your team.
-It is going to be said that Stephen Jackson makes too much. If you add two more years to Brent Barry's contract, you have a six-year, $34M contract. The difference is only $4M over the life of the contract.
-It doesn't really matter if Manu or SJax starts. Manu can only play 30 MPG anyways and Jack could find more than enough minutes if he took the left over time from Manu and Bowen.
no doubt timvp, but i still see barry as a need considering we needed a replacement for kerr's 3pt shooting as well, and beno was no guarantee coming into the year.....
would you have brought bruce off the bench or manu in the case of a resigned jax?
eitherway, hindsight is hindsight...i hope dev steps it up again soon!!!
I have to disagree. The Spurs just cannot make it happen financially. For the Spurs, this is why we couldn't sign him. Look at Malik.
I remember one game when Jackson won the game with a last second basket, or maybe it was to tie the game and go into overtime.
What I remember more are a series of constant turnovers and being in Pop's dog house. The same things people say about Barry, and they are probably true, I remember about Jackson. He's a good NBA player. Trouble is there are a lot of very good and excellent NBA players as well.
Either SJax or Manu. Either way, doesn't really matter. Manu could conserve his 30 minutes and play them in more important moments if he came off the bench. Plus the Spurs have proven they could win a championship that way. SJax off the bench would make more of an impact than Barry does, no doubt.
Yeah it's too bad he took far less to play somewhere else, which wasn't our fault...
And he wasn't playing that damn well in San Antonio, 43% and 32% while averaging 12 points....
Uh ... read the post. It's four more million over six seasons than a Brent Barry contract that was extended two years. Not exactly breaking the bank.
You don't remember Stephen Jackson's 3's turning the tide in the game where the Spurs won the le in 2003.I remember one game when Jackson won the game with a last second basket, or maybe it was to tie the game and go into overtime.
Stephen Jackson made some crucial, crucial shots for the Spurs. He's fearless ... I hope that someone on this season's Spurs team has the fearless, relentless at ude in the playoffs and can knock down shots from the perimeter.
In hindsight, we can say that he would have [insert $ amount] value to the Spurs...I wouldn't argue with your logic there. I still feel that the team offered him fair market value, and he turned it down. The Spurs didn't lowball him, they made a fair offer at the time. You're right, hindsight is 20/20, and when you combine our needs to the way he flourished under the discipline Pop provided, he might be worth his asking price...to the Spurs specifically. He wanted a lot more than he was worth on the open market. I can just as easily put the blame on him for passing up the Spurs offer. He's reaffirmed his rep as a headcase, and he has less opportunity for individual and team success in his current situation. He's hurt himself as much as the Spurs hurt themselves. In hindsight, he might reconsider refusing the Spurs original offer.
to the salary experts:
Hypothetically, had we paid SJ what he wanted, how might that have affected our ability to resign Manu and Tony, as well as our ability to bring in Scola? There are, of course, a million variables...but any guesses as to how it might have affected what the FO could have offered Manu and TP?
The only person to blamed for Jackson not been a SPURS is Jackson.I give credit to the SPURS front office for not give it.If he really wanted to be a SPURS he would have signed this past summer.
Is Brent Barry a very good or excellent NBA player in the Spurs' system?
Doesn't look like it.
1) He took less money because the Spurs didn't give him the contract he wanted. At the time he was asking for 5-years, $24M. That looks like a bargain now.
2) Those stats are better than Barry's stats. Plus he was a young player who was getting better. That was his first full season in the NBA.
I find it ironic that you are willing to take a few big shots that Jackson hit and turn him into the missing link on this team, yet take only the negative aspects of Barry's performance so far this year, much of it caused by sporatic playing time. I have watched him miss many big shots for Indiana this year when that team had a chance down the stretch, when he should have made one more pass. And, I don't buy the argument that he is a good guy when surrounded by good guys. Are his beliefs so shallow that he patterns his life's behavior after those he happens to be with at a certain point in time? BS, let him thrive in Indiana.
If we signed Jax after our championship year, we wouldn't be able to afford Rasho.
I don't care about Stephen Jackson's percentages. He had that confident, step-on-their-throats mentality that the Spurs may be missing now. I'm not ready to right off Devin and Brent as guys who can fill that role. We'll see come playoff time.
Parker was signed with his Bird rights and Scola will be signed with the MLE. The Spurs would have those exceptions no matter what.
Regarding Manu, the Spurs could have pulled it off and given him the same contract. In fact, if the Spurs would have signed SJax after the championship, they'd have MORE money under the cap because they wouldn't have had to get Barry. Even the 6-year $38M contract could have been done AND re-sign Manu.
The horrah.
But yes the Spurs could have signed both SJax and Rasho. SJax would have cost less in the first year of his contract than what Horry was given.
But by doing that, we would be close to the Luxury tax.
I miss SJAX and only recently have gotten over losing him. We definitely lost out on the effective Jackson for Turkoglu trade.
But I'll be patient with Barry. I've thought for a while that his value will come in more next year. This just seems like an off-year for him, and starting afresh as a veteran in the system, he might be excellent next year. But I'm sad, now, to keep expecting him to blow up some game and nail 4-5 threes. Of course, the Spurs would be invincible if that happened.
There seems to be a trade-off. Barry has to exert so much more energy and effort on the defensive end, there can be no doubt it has impacted his performance behind the 3-point line.
Umm... it would be no different than having Barry here. Stephen Jackson doesn't make much more than Barry per season. Barry will make almost $6M per year in his last year of his contract.But by doing that, we would be close to the Luxury tax.
What positive aspects am I missing from Barry? He hit a couple big shots versus PHX. What else?
Yes. I never said he was the brightest bulb in the closet.Are his beliefs so shallow that he patterns his life's behavior after those he happens to be with at a certain point in time?
Anyways, it's only basketball. It doesn't take many brain cells to bounce a ball.
Stephen Jackson is not a Spur today because Stephen Jackson chose not to be a Spur in the Summer of 2003. Part of the revisionist problem here is that had the Spurs caved in on Stephen Jackson, they would have faced all kinds of problems getting Manu and Parker done and wrapped up. I still think that management took a long look and determined that Manu and Tony were far more crucial to the team's long-term success than Stephen Jackson. I can't say that I disagree with that conclusion.
Just as an example, I can't see how the Spurs would have been able to keep Manu last summer if they had kept Stephen Jackson in 2003. You say it wouldn't matter who started, and in a basketball sense, that's probably true. But in dealing with Manu this summer, I think the decisional calculus would have been much different if Manu knew that he wasn't assured a starting role. Had the Spurs been unable to tell Manu that he would definitely start after Year 2, I think Manu would have walked. Given the choice between the two players, I definitely take Manu over SJ.
To me, this is a lot like the lamentations over the Antonio Daniels deal a couple of years ago. Sure, in the abstract, having that talent around would be a nice luxury. But decisions come with consequences, and in this case, it seems pretty clear to me that a consequence of bringing Stephen Jackson back is one of two things: losing Manu or leaving Parker to test free agency this summer. On the whole, I'd have done what the Spurs did.
At the time it would have been risky, Jackson had ONE good year. They have flashbacks with Malik and the other Jackson.
Hard for Barry to nail 4 or 5 threes when he has averaged 3.3 attempts per game this year.
Bottom line was that the Spurs were saving cap space for Jason Kidd.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
