Reply With Quote
Well, it sounds more like no teams are interested in SJax and his ugly contract. Warriors will have hard time to find a taker for him.
+1
Sounds like GS is reeling him in a little.
Well, it sounds more like no teams are interested in SJax and his ugly contract. Warriors will have hard time to find a taker for him.
I dont see what is the problem with Jax's contract. Duncan is going to take less money (about 4M) next year, with that money the spurs can resign manu. Assuming that they trade Mason and Bonner, the spurs still have Theo, finley and M.Williams coming off the books next year, with that money they can bring Tiago next year, and resign hill and Ian.
Trading for SJax is a no brainer.
If all it takes is a combo of Bonner, Mason, and Finley then you send the limo for those three and get the mariachis read for Jax on the other plane.
I love all the Spurs as a team and the organization. I would get sad if some of the role players (Mason, Fin, and Bonner in this case) get traded for SJax. But I still want to do it if it improves the team.
I think the Lakers and Mavs [the (only) two teams that always give us match up problem in the playoffs] will not be happy if it ends up that way.
we need to trade Mason and Bonner for him, it's a great opportunity. even with his long contract it will be worth this, Holt decide that he pay for a championship so it will be smart to pay a little more and to get this piece. even though we improve alot this summer there is feeling that we need another piece to improve our chances for the le because others teams that was contenders last year have improve alot and also there is the thing with Manu injury.
i also think that Jax contract it's not alot overpaid, he could give good value for his contract in the next 3-4 years. i think after next year we could keep Manu for alot less money and our salary will not increase by much even with Jax.
in our wing position we have weak players like Finley, Mason and some youngsters behind the starters Manu and RJ, add to it the problem with Manu injury and you get a need for another good wing player - need for Jax, and also Jax can be great 4 for small ball.
if we want a championship it's important to get Jax!!!
Didn't see this, apologies if I missed it.
Jack was never coming back
By Buck Harvey
Stephen Jackson says he has requested a trade. "I want to be in a situation where I can continually be in the playoffs and get another ring," he said.
Years ago, in San Antonio, he was in that situation.
Jackson instead chose to pursue money, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's his business.
The years passed. The Spurs won two more rings without Jackson, and this spring they began to look at ways to win another.
Why not trade for Jackson?
The same issue got in the way.
There were other issues. For one, there were no signs the Warriors were looking to trade Jackson. It's also unlikely the Warriors would have wanted the package of players who Milwaukee took in exchange for Richard Jefferson.
Another issue is Jack. Last week, when Gregg Popovich talked with the media, he said Jefferson was like Jackson "without the drama."
Popovich laughed and said he loved the guy. Still, Popovich knows well the moody risk-reward package.
The risk was underlined even when Jackson talked about wanting to leave Golden State. Then he said he would prefer to play for any of the Texas teams, as well as Cleveland, and that makes sense. Mike Brown was his mentor with the Spurs.
But then Jackson also listed the Knicks as an option. This move is to win a le, right?
Still, the reward part of the package was clearly there in 2003, when Jackson seemingly ended every playoff series with a clutch 3-pointer. He often raises his game for the big moment, and Jefferson doesn't have the same reputation. Jackson can also play defense, and he always got along with Tim Duncan. At 31, he averaged a career high 20.7 points a game last season.
But earlier in the summer, when the Spurs were throwing around ideas, no one on staff saw Jackson as a serious option. A primary reason was money.
The same Jackson who now wants to leave Golden State to play for a winner wanted another contract with the Warriors not long ago. Again, this is part of the Jackson personality. The Warriors obliged, signing Jackson to a three-year extension just last November.
Money isn't the problem next season. Jackson will earn about half as much as Jefferson will.
Instead, it's the length of the contract. His deal doesn't expire until 2013, and no Spur -- not Duncan, not Tony Parker -- is on the books that long.
it really seems to be hard to understand for many members:
there is no indication Spurs could trade for Sjax. absolutely not.
that's not without a reason: Spurs just don't need him.
he would not make this team better!
this team needs some role players for defined roles (like what Bruce played)
just looking at Sjax numbers (for Nelson) doesn't help. he won't get the shots and touches and role he has with the Warriors. period.
if people look at his numbers, they should look at the right numbers:
for example scoring efficiency or better (and easier to read) points per shot!
what we learn there: Sjax just isn't an efficient scorer. better: Sjax is a pretty inefficient scorer. in his best season, he scored 1.23 PPS.
(for comparison: in his "worst" season Manu scored 1.25PPS. usually Manu scored between 1.40 and 1.50PPS)
RJ always was an efficient scorer. not as great as Manu, but decent. (worst season 1.25PPS, best season 1.51PPS). I'm sure this was a big reason for the Spurs to get him.
if Sjax would join this team, he would get the role Fin got 2005 and he would also very likely provide as much as help as Finley in his first season with the Spurs. with the one little difference: Finley delivered for 2.5 million per and Sjax costs 7.7 million.
there is a good chance that also in 3 years Sjax will provide as much help as Fin did last year. with the big difference: Fin still did it for 2.5 million but Sjax then would cost 10.
so, it's not a no brainer to get Sjax if it was possible.
it's a no brainer to pass on him.
I would be shocked to learn that Spurs have called GS about Jackson.
The only way I could see Spurs being interested in SJax is if Manu or RJ has a very serious injury.
I hate Buck Harvey. The reason why Jackson named the Knicks as a trade possibility is because he standing next to his buddy Al Harrington at the time. He doesn't really want to go to the Knicks.
I don't think we need Jax to win a championship, I like what we've got on the books already, and after thinking about that contract and the effect it will have on our cap for years to come, it looks like a real millstone. If he was 28, fine, but he's 31, and sure to lose a step in a year or two.
I say go with what we've got, and because of that contract he's likely to be there at the deadline if we need a swingman.
and we know how injury prone manu is
Bruno, I don't understand the "if" part of your statement. I'd say "when" is more like it.
In one year the Knicks might have James under contract and everybody will want to go there. The 2009 Knicks might not be very attractive, but it's important to look at what lies ahead.
You can argue all you want that Jack's contract is too long and too much, but saying that subtracting Mason and adding Jack does not make us better is simply foolishness.
It's not foolish. It's debateable. Maybe Jackson would be a chemistry killer. Maybe he wouldn't. We don't know one way or the other.
Honestly I say go for it, after Duncan has gone we will be in rebuilding mode for quite a while anyway so if we can upgrade at any spot of the roster and we have the expendable players to acquire these upgrades then you must do it.
There's nothing wrong with waiting until the deadline..who knows how our team will look by then, and who knows what kind of need we'll have to fill..
Chemistry? He has played in the system and with all of our Big 3.
I tried to give some reasons why. if they were just foolish, so be it, I can't do any better.
I never claimed that Sjax isn't a better player than either Mason, Bonner, Finley or maybe even all three together.
but still none on this board could answer me the very simplest question: what role would Sjax play with this Spurs core? (means alongside Tim, Tony, Manu and RJ)
define the role, describe what spot in the rotation he would take, guess how many shots he can take etc. then we can aregue. I tried to go tru this and at the end I realised that the addition of Sjax in the current situation won't make this team better. sorry.
Buck Harvey is always wrong so....
He would play a very big one. We will go ahead and make the assumption that because of his previous experience with the team and the system, he knows what is and is not expected of him.
The biggest thing that Jack can bring is that he can play both SG and SF...which gives us a lot of versatility with our lineups. If you start him at the 2 guard beside RJ we have another shooter/scorer to go with RJ and TP on the perimeter. As a matter of fact, it gives players at every single position that are a threat offensively. It would also give us two good defenders with size on the perimeter to throw at the other team's perimeter scorer. Once we bring Manu in off the bench, Jack can slide to SF and we lose very little defensively or offensively. He also gives us the ability to play small ball effectively if the situation calls for it...as he or RJ can slide to the 4 and Duncan can slide to the 5 with Parker and Manu at the guards. This would work out well against a team like the Mavs that are more likely to go small.
So IMHO...there is really only one decision to be made...and that is whether or not the FO feels like it is worth the kind of money they would have to pay to get him.
you got me totally wrong. I know what position he plays. and that he could play 2 or 3.
the question was, what role does he play?
how many minutes will he play?
how many shots does he take?
how will he be used, considering he isn't a efficient scorer?
if you would go into the details of the game, you would see, there just isn't room for Sjax.
or he is turned into a pure stopper, who takes 5-6 shots per game. (good look with explaining this to him).
there just are not enough possessions. and you don't give the less efficient scorer more shots than the more efficient one, just to keep him happy. the Spurs won't go over 85.
I guess we all agree that Tony needs to be the #1 option and also that Tim still is the #2.
(means 17-18 FG for Tony and 14-15 for Tim). Manu NEEDS to be the #3 option, he is the Spurs by far most efficient scorer. (12-13 FG). that#s about 45 for the big 3. any lower number will hurt the teams overall success. next is JR. he will play 35 minutes. and it would be absurd not to use him intensively on offense (12-14).
you can do the math? we are at 57-60
we still have Hill (who Pop said should play a bigger role next season) and Dice (who we will also need as an offensive option, especially to create room for Tim) and some more players.
THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SHOTS LEFT FOR SJAX, who isn't efficient enough to take away shots from Tim, Tony, Manu and JR. give him the shots and the Spurs will lose more games.
integrating Sjax into this rotation does not make the Spurs significantly better, but more expensive and I really doubt that it doesn't hurt the chemistry, when you try to turn a well known headache into a defensive role player in the Bowen mold.
of course the Spurs could very well use an upgrade at the #3 spot in the wing rotation. but therefore you need the RIGHT player and not just a good player. SJAX is good, but at this time for this role not the right man. it's so simple.
the right man for this mix would (for example) be James Jones. or James Posey. or DeShawn Stevenson (if healthy again). or Battier (to mention the role model for the job)
there's no way he's coming back
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
