Stephen Jackson

[Chris]

I already know everyone will say this is not enough to get him, but Avery Johnson suggested it last night, and I figured it was worth throwing out there, since he would be the perfect fit for this team.

The C's trade Scal, Tony Allen, Leon Powe, Giddens or Walker if they want one of them, and a 2011 first round pick (with the option to roll it over a couple times) for Steven Jackson.

If any team would have interest in Powe, I think it would be his hometown team, that play a type of basketball he would thrive in.  And the 2011 pick, may interest them, since in theory, that could be a good pick by then, or the next couple years if they are patient.  

I don't think I need to explain how good Jackson could be on this team.  He is basically a younger, more talented version of James Posey.

[Chief]

Can you imagine Danny offering Scals to anyone with a straight face?

[teddykgb]

why is everyone creating pu pu platter trades to get good players off of bad teams? Bad teams aren't looking to acquire 5 bench players and a draft pick, they've already got enough bench players.  If anything they're trying to trade the pu pu platter for other people's cast offs, not vice versa.

[Chris]

Can you imagine Danny offering Scals to anyone with a straight face?

If you send $3 million along with him, he is basically just an expiring contract.  

[Who]

As perfect as Stephen Jackson is for the Celtics .... he's an even better fit for the Spurs. I still can't get over the Spurs letting him leave.

Anyway, I think it's a very good trade for GSW because that contract is a killer blow when put alongside their other deals. Dumping Jackson has a lot of merit for their future. Whether they could get more for Jackson I am not sure, they likely could.

That said, GSW have no interest in walking down that avenue, not at this point in time. They'll come to the realization sometime in the future but I'm guessing it'll be in about two years time that they realize their mistakes. That organization is a mess. I don't think this trade, or any perceived dump or low ball offer for Jacks, has any hope of happening. It's clearly not what their franchise is trying to do.

[KungPoweChicken]

There is absolutely no incentive for Golden State to make this trade. Jackson is the heart, soul, and captain of their team. This is trade is about as fair as trading Paul Pierce for Stephon Marbury. Would you make that deal?

[cordobes]

I'd do it. But if I am the Warriors, my priorities would be shopping Maggette, Crawford and only then Jackson. I'd ask for Jackson a little bit more than the package you're offering and I'm fairly certain I'd get it. But they just signed Maggette, trade for Crawford and extended Jackson, so I'm clearly not the man in charge there.

[Chris]

I'd do it. But if I am the Warriors, my priorities would be shopping Maggette, Crawford and only then Jackson. I'd ask for Jackson a little bit more than the package you're offering and I'm fairly certain I'd get it. But they just signed Maggette, trade for Crawford and extended Jackson, so I'm clearly not the man in charge there.

I'll be honest, a big reason this is anywhere close to viable enough to post a thread on, is how terribly run the Warriors are.  They are a team that constantly overpays for mediocre players who they fall in love with, and fall out of love with good players. 

[Toine43]

I don't think that's enough to get Jackson. Especially because barring some type of huge permanent collapse by the Celtics (which becomes even less likely if they were to land Jackson), that 2011 1st round pick wouldn't be very good, and there's no way of knowing if the Celtics will have a good pick in '12 or '13. So the pick is a wild card, and none of the guys the Celtics are trading are all that attractive to people not wearing green-tinted glasses.

[KungPoweChicken]

I'd do it. But if I am the Warriors, my priorities would be shopping Maggette, Crawford and only then Jackson. I'd ask for Jackson a little bit more than the package you're offering and I'm fairly certain I'd get it. But they just signed Maggette, trade for Crawford and extended Jackson, so I'm clearly not the man in charge there.

I'll be honest, a big reason this is anywhere close to viable enough to post a thread on, is how terribly run the Warriors are.  They are a team that constantly overpays for mediocre players who they fall in love with, and fall out of love with good players. 

True, but I think Golden State will have a good team next year. However, their success will be dependent on how healthy Ellis will be. A healthy Ellis, Crawford, Jackson, and Biedrins is a solid team. You throw in Maggette as your 6th man, and another top draft pick, and I think they will definitely be a playoff team next year.

[Schupac]

why is everyone creating pu pu platter trades to get good players off of bad teams? Bad teams aren't looking to acquire 5 bench players and a draft pick, they've already got enough bench players.  If anything they're trying to trade the pu pu platter for other people's cast offs, not vice versa.

Absolutely correct, Teddy.  Great name BTW.

As perfect as Stephen Jackson is for the Celtics .... he's an even better fit for the Spurs. I still can't get over the Spurs letting him leave.

You may recall it was a financial deal.  Stephen Jackson wanted a big contract, turned down SA's moderate offer and then ended up signing for less than SA's offer in Atlanta.  That is just how SA works, and since I believe they won 1-2 championships after (I can't remember which year this was in...), I will not criticize them.

[Who]

As perfect as Stephen Jackson is for the Celtics .... he's an even better fit for the Spurs. I still can't get over the Spurs letting him leave.

You may recall it was a financial deal.  Stephen Jackson wanted a big contract, turned down SA's moderate offer and then ended up signing for less than SA's offer in Atlanta.  That is just how SA works, and since I believe they won 1-2 championships after (I can't remember which year this was in...), I will not criticize them.

You're right, but how many Championships would they have won had they not let him leave? And how many more could he help them win today and over the next few years?

I think the Spurs could have won a lot more titles with Jacks there. I would have favoured them to beat the Lakers the following year in 2004, and beat Detroit to that title. I also think they would have been better than Dallas and Miami the in 2006. Then last year, I think they beat LA and play Boston is closely contested series which again I'd favour them in if Manu was healthy enough otherwise they'd lose. I also think they'd be the frontrunner in the West right now instead of LA this year, and be in a great position for the next 3-4 years. Now they wouldn't necessarily win all those .... but I think they'd stand a far improved chance in each situation and would pick at least some of those titles off.

Is winning two titles since then instead of 3-5 titles worthy of them being absolved from blame? I don't think so.

The Spurs low balled Jackson that summer because they knew nobody else on the market that year would pay him. It was $10mil over three years if I my memory serves me. Jackson rightly felt he was worth a lot more than that so took a risk by taking a smaller short term contract in order to earn a longer lucrative contract in the near future, which he did with the Indiana Pacers (6 years, $40mil). The Spurs shouldn't have low balled him.

If San Antonio had of just offered him a fair contract instead of low balling him ....

[cordobes]

As perfect as Stephen Jackson is for the Celtics .... he's an even better fit for the Spurs. I still can't get over the Spurs letting him leave.

You may recall it was a financial deal.  Stephen Jackson wanted a big contract, turned down SA's moderate offer and then ended up signing for less than SA's offer in Atlanta.  That is just how SA works, and since I believe they won 1-2 championships after (I can't remember which year this was in...), I will not criticize them.

I think it was a bad decision. It probably has already cost them 1 or 2 championships by now. And they've been wasting the money in his replacements anyway. (p.s. Who beat me to it)

[rondohondo]

I don't see it happening. If Danny didn't give posey a 4 year deal, I don't see him trading half the team for a guy who is the same age as posey, makes more money, and is signed for a year longer(5 year contract , 7 mil per year). I would like him on the team, but I don't see it happening.

[ssspence]

our only hope of achieving this trade is the fact that they gave him that needless, ridiculous extension. what were they thinking?