Author Topic: Stephen Jackson  (Read 6822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Stephen Jackson
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2008, 02:10:17 PM »

Offline Bankshot

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7540
  • Tommy Points: 632
Jackson would be a great addition but if we picked him up it might mean saying goodbye to Rondo (which the Celtics would never do). Im not saying a rondo for jackson trade im saying that jacksons salary wouldnt allow the c's to resign jackson. Scal, TA, and BBD would be nice to trade for him but then we would no longe rhave a defensive stopper on the wing. Jacksons a great scorer and would be great with the second unit but I dont think he would improve our team defense much.

The good part about these crazy trade ideas is having the chance to notice the incredible amount of misconceptions about some players. When Jackson puts the effort (and I agree that doesn't happen all the time), he's an outstanding wing defender, except when facing smaller guards who can run him through screens.

Not only that, assuming that we trade Walker and not Giddens, we could bring up Giddens and groom him for the old TAllen role.  He's a strong defender, but longer than Tony.  He can't make any more mental mistakes than Tony does now, right?
"If somebody would have told you when he was playing with the Knicks that Nate Robinson was going to change a big time game and he was going to do it mostly because of his defense, somebody would have got slapped."  Mark Jackson

Re: Stephen Jackson
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2008, 03:00:57 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
This might have made some sense if they hadn't given him that ridiculous contract extension. he's now on the hook for 5 years at 7mil per and growing per year. if we weren't prepared to give posey much less, why would Danny & Co give it to Cap Jack?



Because they realize their mistake in not re-signing Posey?

fair enough. but the guy makes $40mil over the next five years, not $25mil over four -- it's a major financial reach. very difficult for the Cs to pay a bench player that much considering what they're paying the Big 3, plus the dough they're going to have to give to Rajon, as well as some bucks for Leon.

then again, it could be a motivating factor in letting him go for GSW.

You can also argue that he's worth more than Posey.  Jackson is a very good player, so I don't think the C's would have a problem trading him after this season should they want or need to for salary reasons.

Dissing Posey's game compared to Jackson's is pointless after his success here. No one ever felt Posey wasn't a great player for this team. The question was what kind of a player he'd be in two, three years. Again, Jackson will be making like 9 mil in 2012-13, doing his Plax Burress imitation.

Anyway, there's still no trade being discussed here. What is it -- TA and Scal for Jackson? Throw in Billy Walker? TA and Scal are pointless on GS. One's redundant and the other's useless.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Stephen Jackson
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2008, 03:19:47 PM »

Offline Atzar

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9122
  • Tommy Points: 1649
This might have made some sense if they hadn't given him that ridiculous contract extension. he's now on the hook for 5 years at 7mil per and growing per year. if we weren't prepared to give posey much less, why would Danny & Co give it to Cap Jack?



Because they realize their mistake in not re-signing Posey?

fair enough. but the guy makes $40mil over the next five years, not $25mil over four -- it's a major financial reach. very difficult for the Cs to pay a bench player that much considering what they're paying the Big 3, plus the dough they're going to have to give to Rajon, as well as some bucks for Leon.

then again, it could be a motivating factor in letting him go for GSW.

You can also argue that he's worth more than Posey.  Jackson is a very good player, so I don't think the C's would have a problem trading him after this season should they want or need to for salary reasons.

Dissing Posey's game compared to Jackson's is pointless after his success here. No one ever felt Posey wasn't a great player for this team. The question was what kind of a player he'd be in two, three years. Again, Jackson will be making like 9 mil in 2012-13, doing his Plax Burress imitation.

Anyway, there's still no trade being discussed here. What is it -- TA and Scal for Jackson? Throw in Billy Walker? TA and Scal are pointless on GS. One's redundant and the other's useless.

Nobody is dissing Posey's game, but Stephen Jackson is a much better player than James Posey.

Re: Stephen Jackson
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2008, 03:30:23 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
This might have made some sense if they hadn't given him that ridiculous contract extension. he's now on the hook for 5 years at 7mil per and growing per year. if we weren't prepared to give posey much less, why would Danny & Co give it to Cap Jack?



Because they realize their mistake in not re-signing Posey?

fair enough. but the guy makes $40mil over the next five years, not $25mil over four -- it's a major financial reach. very difficult for the Cs to pay a bench player that much considering what they're paying the Big 3, plus the dough they're going to have to give to Rajon, as well as some bucks for Leon.

then again, it could be a motivating factor in letting him go for GSW.

You can also argue that he's worth more than Posey.  Jackson is a very good player, so I don't think the C's would have a problem trading him after this season should they want or need to for salary reasons.

Dissing Posey's game compared to Jackson's is pointless after his success here. No one ever felt Posey wasn't a great player for this team. The question was what kind of a player he'd be in two, three years. Again, Jackson will be making like 9 mil in 2012-13, doing his Plax Burress imitation.

Anyway, there's still no trade being discussed here. What is it -- TA and Scal for Jackson? Throw in Billy Walker? TA and Scal are pointless on GS. One's redundant and the other's useless.

Nobody is dissing Posey's game, but Stephen Jackson is a much better player than James Posey.

think ur missing my point. throwing in a bunch of three's for don nelson makes you want him as a longer term commmitment than Pierce or KG? and how do you plan on getting him?
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Stephen Jackson
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2008, 04:02:08 PM »

Offline Atzar

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9122
  • Tommy Points: 1649
This might have made some sense if they hadn't given him that ridiculous contract extension. he's now on the hook for 5 years at 7mil per and growing per year. if we weren't prepared to give posey much less, why would Danny & Co give it to Cap Jack?



Because they realize their mistake in not re-signing Posey?

fair enough. but the guy makes $40mil over the next five years, not $25mil over four -- it's a major financial reach. very difficult for the Cs to pay a bench player that much considering what they're paying the Big 3, plus the dough they're going to have to give to Rajon, as well as some bucks for Leon.

then again, it could be a motivating factor in letting him go for GSW.

You can also argue that he's worth more than Posey.  Jackson is a very good player, so I don't think the C's would have a problem trading him after this season should they want or need to for salary reasons.

Dissing Posey's game compared to Jackson's is pointless after his success here. No one ever felt Posey wasn't a great player for this team. The question was what kind of a player he'd be in two, three years. Again, Jackson will be making like 9 mil in 2012-13, doing his Plax Burress imitation.

Anyway, there's still no trade being discussed here. What is it -- TA and Scal for Jackson? Throw in Billy Walker? TA and Scal are pointless on GS. One's redundant and the other's useless.

Nobody is dissing Posey's game, but Stephen Jackson is a much better player than James Posey.

think ur missing my point. throwing in a bunch of three's for don nelson makes you want him as a longer term commmitment than Pierce or KG? and how do you plan on getting him?


You're putting words in my mouth.  I never said that I want Stephen Jackson in green longer than PP or KG, nor did I say I had a way to get him.  I just said that he's a better player than James Posey.  Posey is a good 6th man, a 6'8" forward who can play good D at the 3 or 4 and knock down the open shot.  Stephen Jackson is a good starter with roughly the same tools plus much more offensive firepower.

Re: Stephen Jackson
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2008, 04:53:19 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
thanks for the keen insight. i must have mistaken this was a thread about trading for the guy ::)
Mike

(My name is not Mike)