Trading Jack: The Ultimate Price
by onlxn on Oct 11, 2009 3:01 AM PDT
Email
PrintThis thing got ugly quick. I don't think we're yet past the point of no return... Jack's a sane and intelligent guy, and it's not impossible that he'll shape up come Opening Day and things will quiet down a little. But the odds of that aren't looking very good. Jack has created a nasty feedback loop, where trading him becomes both more necessary and more difficult. There's no way we're getting any expiring '10 contracts for him... there's no way we're getting anything of real value here. The guy's looking pretty radioactive right now, and the only way we'd be able to move him would be if we took a horrible contract back. I'm talking HORRIBLE.
We're Warriors fans... we're used to staring horrible in the face. So let's look at the worst case scenario. Let's assume it comes down to the grossest contract in the league. Let's talk about Stephen Jackson for Eddy Curry. (We'd have to throw in one of our expirings to make the trade work... I threw in Speedy, but Law would work too.) If there were no other possibilities, if it came down to trading for Curry or nothing, should we do it?
The argument against is pretty simple. Eddy Curry is a horrible player on a horrible contract, a malcontent, a fat and lazy bum, a blight on the earth. Wherever he goes, locusts and vultures and spiders follow soon after. The very idea of him is almost depressing beyond belief. The sheer negative power of the karmic combination of Eddy Curry and this franchise could create streams-crossing levels of risk to the universe as a whole. It's not hard to argue against this trade.
I'm going to argue *for* this trade. My argument has five pillars:
1) This is a trade we could make tomorrow. The Knicks would love to get out of the Eddy Curry business. They're about the only bad team that can feel somewhat confident that Jack will play hard for them. They could use another decent player to try to attract free agents. Above all, they could use as much '10 cap space as they can find, to try to attract free agents... this would give them $2.8 million more of it. There's an argument that we should wait till the deadline to find a more attractive deal, but that deal may never come... come February, there will be many more appealing guys available than Jack. Pressing the dreaded Eddy Curry button now would end this headache.
2) We actually could use a power forward, and we're not likely to get any decent ones in return for Jack. On the rare occasions when Eddy Curry plays, he plays a position of need for us... he plays that position badly, but he's probably not much worse than Mikki Moore. I'd rather see Curry out there than Moore, for entertainment value, if nothing else.
3) An unhappy Eddy Curry would be much less of a distraction to this franchise than an unhappy Stephen Jackson. An unhappy Jack brings a lot of baggage: "We Believe" memories, captaincies, friendships with other Warriors. There'd be no baggage with Eddy Curry. He's just some goof we'd be adding for non-basketball reasons. No history, no fuss, no problem. If he's feeling down, he doesn't even need to show up. What do we care? He sucks, after all.
4) Curry's contract expires in 2011 (assuming he exercises his player option next summer, which he absolutely will). An $11.3 million-dollar expiring contract always has value as a trade chip, no matter what the economy's doing. There are always going to be some teams that need to shed payroll for one reason or another... come February of 2011, those teams are going to be mighty interested in Eddy Curry all of a sudden.
5) Even more intriguing than the prospect of trading his contract, though, is the prospect of simply letting it expire. This trade would leave us with Monta, Beans, Maggette, Turiaf (assuming he exercises his player option), Randolph and Curry under contract for a total of about $40.7 million dollars, with 'Buike, Morrow and Wright as our relevant free agents... depending on the cap level, we could have $12-15 million to play with before we re-sign any of those guys. This would be a pretty interesting situation.
2011 will be a much weaker free agent market than 2010, of course, but it'll feature a smaller number of bidders, as well. There definitely won't be that many *attractive* bidders -- most of the destination teams will have already shot their wad this summer. 2011 is a year where we might actually win the bidding for somebody. And who might that somebody be?
Andrei Kirilenko will be 30 to start the '11-'12 season. That's not young, and he's not necessarily the type who'll age gracefully... there'd be some risk to signing him. But you can't tell me that a Curry/Monta/Maggette/Kirilenko/Randolph/Biedrins/Turiaf core doesn't sound at least a little interesting. Would a $26 million two-year deal be enough to nab a thirty-year-old Kirilenko? I think it's at least possible.
So, yeah, I'd do it. If it came to it, I'd trade Stephen Jackson for Eddy Curry. Would you? Would you pay... the Ultimate Price?
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
119 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yes, I would
At this point, I’d rather take 21M / 2 years + laziness + torn right calf muscle over 35M / 4 years + technical fouls + ref arguing + “trade me to a winner”.
But what would be funny is if Jack does get traded to the Knicks, thus fulfilling his wishes to play with his buddy Al, then the Knicks don’t resign Al next season. So much for playing with your best bud. I’d make the trade just to see what kind of fireworks that will bring.
Great trade analysis, btw.
by IQofaWarrior on Oct 11, 2009 7:05 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
if they’d take him, it doesn’t matter what he wants. he doesn’t have a no-trade clause and wouldn’t be our problem anymore.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Of course, the Knicks were on Jackson’s list of desirable destinations. He wouldn’t be upset. He’d probably expect that , with all that cap room, the Knicks are going to get some big names to come play with him (and Harrington, his buddy and business partner) next year.
Jackson for E.Curry is probably what Jackson is trying to make happen. Knicks fans might even love him for it.
good post
I understand all of your points, but I can’t bring myself to say yes to Eddy Curry. If that was in addition to some other moves, I would be ok with it. But Jackson, as horrible as he’s been recently, is worth more than that. We are starting to get loaded in our front court in a bad way, many of the players ridin the bench. Moore is barely serviceable, George won’t see much time, and Eddy Curry wouldn’t be able to keep up at all. I would hold out for something a little better.
“Hold out” assume that you have a commodity that someone wants. Taking an Eddy Curry trade even remotely seriously suggests that this is not the case. What Jax has in terms of value is limited. He’s a bad contract. He wasn’t ever nearly as valuable as many said he was. He’s getting older and won’t be getting better. Does another team want that?
It all sounded great until
you mentioned pciking up AK for $13M per. At 30 and his next contract he will be a mid level exception guy and nothing remotely close to $13M per. If we can pick him up for the mid level… cool, if not forget it.
by crab dribble cocktail on Oct 11, 2009 8:09 AM PDT reply actions
i agree...
i def wouldent pay that much for him 2 years from now…i agree with naticus that he is good and will be at that time but i still would not pay that much for him im sure there will be players that have more to offer the dubs esp at 13m per year…
by blacksamurai33 on Oct 12, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Blazers fan here, and since proposed trades are often biased, I wanted to run this one by the GS fans to see if its even in the realm...
…of possibility, because Monta Ellis & Stephan Curry will never be complementary players…
Essentially, it would have to wait a couple of months, but here it is:
…Andre Miller, Rudy Fernandez, Travis Outlaw, 2010 #1 Pick for…
…Captain Jack & Stephan Curry & Devean George
The thought process from the GS view would be to get out of the malcontent of Captain Jack, as well as the ridiculous contract he signed. Salaries match, and Andre Millers 7 million is essentially only for this year and next,, then you’d be off the hook on him…
Secondly, Monta Ellis is only 23, but he’s never gonna be able to consistently play with Curry, and Rudy Fernandez would provide 2 things…
1st: Starting 2 guard next to Ellis for the next 8 years, still on his rookie contract…
2nd: Help make up one of Ellis’s weakness, the long ball, as Rudy is one of the best 3pt shooters in the game…
3rd: Outlaw & the pick are “throw ins,” but Outlaw is definately a better player than George, is best suited to play an undersized backup PF, and only 25, fitting the Monta Ellis, Rudy, Randolphy era…
Golden State wouldn’t look too bad this year, and they’d be more balanced…
Backcourt Rotation: Monta Ellis, Andre Miller, Rudy Fernandez, Anthony Morrow, & CJ Watson
SF Rotation: Azubuike, Maggette, Morrow (doubling up here, as a swingman)
PF Rotation: Randolphy/Outlaw/Moore
C Rotation: Biedrins/Turiaf
by irish3 on Oct 11, 2009 10:01 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
watching summer league and pre-season so far, Curry is by far the best passer on our team. He is really the one guy on the warriors that I am confident will usually make the right decision when he is dribbling the ball around.
Last year we had a HUGE problem with ballhandlers. Jack became the de facto “point guard” and we all saw the results. I think for this reason alone, the warriors can’t even think about trading Curry. He clearly has something the Warriors need, someone with a high basketball IQ that is going to set people up with easy shots.
So, as appealing as it is to get rid of Jack, Curry at this point is untouchable (for the most part) in my opinion.
by randolphforpresident on Oct 11, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for the "insider view," ...I am going to have to hope Rudy somehow really does turn into Ginobli this season...
…simply for young pg trade bait…simply because having one of our best players in Rudy, play the exact same position as Roy…simply is not gonna work…
Also curious, do most GS fans actually think Monta & Curry can complement each other…it seems to me that’ll be a tough gel
Depends how Monta plays
If he can show he can play the point, and a good offer is made, I could see the warriors considering it.
I’d rather get a PF though, we need a real PF without wright.
Also curious, do most GS fans actually think Monta & Curry can complement each other…it seems to me that’ll be a tough gel
my guess is that monta eventually moves to the 6th man (in a year or so), offering instant offense off the bench. a 1,2,3 of curry, morrow, buike looks more appealing by the day and with monta able to fill either guard spot from the bench, well, it’s not a great defensive lineup, but it’d be a hell of a lot of fun.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I say Curry if he can't play with Monta will end up like a Jason Terry
Monta scores to much to have him as a sixth man. You wouldn’t have a young Iverson come off the bench for scoring would you?
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
Hell
no. We won’t pay 66 million for a 6th man. Get real.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
Probably not if the warriors ever got to a legitimate deep playoff level
But they aren’t anywhere close to that. And Right now Curry and Monta are our 2nd and 3rd biggest talents. I can’t justify trading one for temporary fixes. I’d need another young player w/ a high ceiling
It’s not the least likely of trade proposals, but I agree with randolphforpresident: Curry’s not going anywhere. If the front office balked at including him in a Stoudemire trade, Miller+Fernandez aren’t gonna cut it. If Jack really is so toxic as to require Steph Curry being packaged with him in order to get a player of worth back in return, then I think something like this Eddy Curry deal is much more likely.
irish3, since we have you: What about Webster? Are folks still high enough on him, or would a Webster+Outlaw deal be considered?
People are MUCH higher on Rudy than Webster...the consensus with Webster is really a "wait & see" approach...
to him coming back from his injury last year. I’d say most Blazers fans (and the intelligent ones I might add) see Webster as part of our long term plans, much more than Outlaw though…
…if your saying Miller+Outlaw+Rudy+Webster for Capn Jack & Curry & some junk…that would still be in the realm, that’s a lot of depth to give up though…
…ultimately it would be dependent not only on how good Webster looks this year, but how good Curry looks as well, I’m just of the opinion Curry could develop really quickly
…if your saying Miller+Outlaw+Rudy+Webster for Capn Jack & Curry & some junk…that would still be in the realm, that’s a lot of depth to give up though…
No not at all; I was suggesting simply Jackson for Webster+Outlaw. Webster’s on a contract that is equally as long as Jackson’s, and Outlaw is a throwaway. This would only be acceptable for the Blazers if Webster was considered a bust and was probably going to contribute very little. And even then, it’s assuming that Blazers’ brass thinks Jackson can help them win now, which may or may not be accurate.
Gotchya...
…your correct in assuming the only way that would go down is if Martell really turns into a bust this year, then I’d say that’d be in the realm once again…
but overall, I’d say it’s extremely, extremely, unlikely…
1st: With fears of the “Jailblazer Era” haning over PDX, and Miller slightly disgruntled, its tough to see Capn Jack coming over as the primary piece…
2ndly, and likely more importantly: From all reports, Webster has looked very good considering he played 5 minutes total last year, he’s still only 22 which fits our timeline, skillset of decent “D”, top notch longrange shooting, ability to play 2 positions, reasonable contract if he’s healthy… makes him valuable to the Blazers…
…part of the problem in any Warriors/PDX trade is that we both have a glut of wing players, and lack of depth in the “bigs” dept…in any event…good luck this season…it seems you’ll have a rough go of it, but you’ve got A LOT of really good, young talent, that should materialize in the next few years…
…and if I were a big Warriors fan, I’d be hoping to play that youth this year, even if it costs you a few games, the development will make it worth it, as well as the fact that another really high lotter pick could be really helpful to the organizations rebuilding plans, Peace.
This is not a bad offer. However, Curry may become all-star material at some point. I don’t see anyone you are giving us becoming all-star material. Curry, in time, will probably pay off much better than this should we choose to trade him. The #1 trade helps a bit. Still, I don’t think that’ll be a high draft pick at all. Good luck this year. You guys have a good team!
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I'd do it
But I’m in the minority that really doesn’t like Curry that much. He can make a few nice plays, but he’s not an efficient player in any sense of the word, nor has he ever been. I don’t think he’ll ever as good a player as Monta is/can be.
Curry is adequate at creating shots for himself and is a decent passer. However, he turns the ball over too much for his passing to have a positive impact and he doesn’t shoot at a good enough clip to justify his shot attempts.
To me, Curry is the type of guy who would only have value for a team desperate or scoring, like maybe the Bobcats, Rockets, and (possibly now) the Bucks. On a team where we already have a half dozen guys who can score the ball well, I just don’t like it one bit.
Eventually I see us having to choose between Curry and Monta and I think Monta is just a much better player.
by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
He can make a few nice plays, but he’s not an efficient player in any sense of the word
His true shooting percentage his senior year at Davidson was .592. That’s “efficient” in the most basic sense of the word.
Curry is adequate at creating shots for himself
His senior year he averaged 30.6 points per 36 minutes, at the highly efficient rate cited above, despite being the primary distributor on a team full of mediocre players. That’s a whole lot better than “adequate.”
decent passer.
Bobby Knight has called him “the greatest passer he’s ever seen.” Hyperbole aside, most people who have watched him in preseason have been pretty wowed by his passing and court vision — particularly relative to Monta’s. His senior year, the first where he was saddled with “true point” duties, he averaged 6.0 assists per 36 minutes. So far in five preseason games, he’s notched that up to 7.2 assists per 36. Given that a lot of great PGs (Nash, Parker, Billups, e.g.) have taken 2-3-4 years to develop, Curry looks to me to be ahead of the curve. If he can become a consistent elite-level distributor, to put alongside his demonstrated shooting ability, solid rebounding, and strong defensive effort … well, let’s just say his ceiling is pretty high.
Yeah, it’s totally possible he won’t end up as good as Monta, but I think you’re selling him short. His shooting has been off in the preseason, but in every other respect he’s been damn impressive. All the reasonable sample-sized data we have on him (from Davidson) suggests that he’s a special player; you might want to wait till some evidence to the contrary trickles in before writing him off.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 13, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
a) his college stats are inflated due to the shortened 3 pt lines and the fact that he played against a lot of terrible competition. He struggled mightily (admittedly due to a lot of double teams) against the better teams and mainly beat up against the JMU’s and FAU’s of the world. I think his best game against decent competition last year was either vs Duke or OKL. Against Duke he had 7 TO’s and was did all his scoring in the 2nd half against their second unit. Against OKL he shot 12 of 29.
b) Once again, it’s a competition factor. His schedule was jammed pack full of poor college teams.
c) He has definitely made some great passes, but I really don’t think he’s near the ball handler of any of the guys you mentioned.
All that aside, I won’t deny there is some upside to him. Certainly there is a learning curve to the PG position, but for every Chancey Billups there’s a dozen Jay Williams. We’ll really have to see him over the course of the season, but my issue is more that to me it seems like people are praising him so much already, whereas I think the burden of proof is completely on him. So far in the limited sample size and what I saw in college, I just don’t see a special player. Here’s to hoping he proves me wrong
by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions
for every Chancey Billups there’s a dozen Jay Williams
There aren’t that many guys who’ve ruined promising NBA careers by wrecking their pelvi in motorcycle accidents…
And on the “competition thing” I’ve been there. I played against a decent team with 10 terrible other players on my side. Playing 1 on 5 is not easy. It’s not the double teams that get you, it’s that you’ve got one guy pressing you to prevent the shot and 4 other pairs of eyes watching your every move to prevent you from scoring or doing something productive knowing that letting anybody else even take an open 10 footer is better than letting you beat your man. We’ll see. It’s definitely going to be a big change from being far and away the best player on your team and it won’t be an easy adjustment.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 13, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions
btw,
thanks for your points and arguments. That’s exactly what I want to hear. I WANT to be wrong here and I like it when it people bring up good points to help convince me otherwise. I still just don’t think that much of his college #’s given the competition he played against and how he fared against good teams.
by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
think about the skill level of his teammates, too. he wasn’t just a good player on a good team beating up crappy teams; he was the only guy other teams bothered to guard. one team ran a triangle and two against him so he could be doubled even when he didn’t have the ball. it’s easy to say he played against chumps, but playing with them made him the only threat anyone had to worry about. no small task at any level of college ball.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
no small task at any level ofcollegeball.
Fixed it. Unless you’re Shaq against 10 year olds, you are not going to be individually effective if you’re getting double teamed even off the ball because you won’t have the ball very often and when you do you’re going to be triple teamed or worse. And when your teammates can’t win 4 on 3, well, you’ve got to at least try to take matters into your own hands… and you get 12/29.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 13, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions
ha. i actually wrote “college”, deleted it, and rewrote it after deciding there are probably some super talented high schoolers who dominate with constant double teams, but i have no idea whether or not that is true.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
You just said "off ball double teams"
Anybody who’s got the talent to be double teamed when they don’t have the ball will be more than double teamed when they do have the ball.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 14, 2009 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Tyrus Thomas is on the hotseat in Chicago since there 2 rookie forwards are playing well.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yfbbyej : What do you guys think?
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
I’ll take that. The Warriors get rid of Jackson and the Nets weren’t going anywhere anyway. The only question is why Chicago would ever consider this.
My only guess is to clear room for there rookies
Thomas is available and there is no secret about it so we should try something for him.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
Jersey’s not going to take on Jack’s contract. They’re one of the few teams that are genuinely in the LeBron sweepstakes. And I think Tyrus Thomas can bring back more than Josh Boone and Hassell.
How about this?
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yz5g6tt : Here Chicago is getting a lot of cap space for next summer where they may be going after after Wade or Boozer. San Antonio makes some room for Blair to play more and they get Jackson. And we get an athletic big in Thomas.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
Dude, stop … please? Stephen Jackson right now is likely one of the four or five least valuable commodities in the NBA. His value is an extreme negative. If we get a slightly less extreme negative for him, we should be happy. We’re not getting a young athletic big like Ty Thomas for him. You seriously might as well propose Jack and Maggs for LeBron.
Please. Get. Off. The. Trade. Machine.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 11, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
p.s. It’s one thing to confuse elementary school homonyms like “their” and “there” in your posts (you’ve already done so at least twice in this thread) … but do you really have to do the same in your sig line? ;-P
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 11, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
p.p.s. I’m a Red Sox fan, so excuse the crankiness. ;-(
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 11, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m a Red Sox fan, so excuse the crankiness.
How are those boys doing?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 11, 2009 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions
not to good
I'm gametime_gsw, and I approve this message.
by gametime_gsw on Oct 11, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Manny
was their Jrich?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 12, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Haha.
Great analogy, Skep … except:
1. JRich was a good guy generally beloved by his coach, teammates and fans, while Manny was a nutty egomaniac who constantly made scenes, demanded to be traded, and was generally disliked by his manager and teammates (who voted unanimously to get him gone).
2. JRich was a middle of the pack mediocre talent, while Manny is one of the 3-4 greatest right-handed hitters of all-time.
3. At the time of the respective trades, the Warriors were a middle-of-the-pack mediocre team with zero championship hopes, while the Sox were defending world champs.
4. The Warriors are a sad, cluelss organization with one winning season in the past 15, while the Red Sox are one of the savviest and best-run organizations in professional sports.
2003: 95 wins
2004: 98 wins, WS champ
2005: 95 wins
2006: 86 wins
2007: 95 wins, WS champ
2008: 96 wins
2009: 95 wins
But I’m sure you’ll find some cockamamie grounds for comparison, likely involving the word “karma” and ample amounts of BS.
I mean, I love both teams unconditionally, so they must have something in common… ;-P
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 12, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
*Hands you a cookie
Now, put a smile on your face. If you don’t want to look at the trade machine you don’t have to click the link. And as for my sig, the more you complain about the more pleasure I get (* Laughs like the joker)
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
Haha. Actually, the comment you’re replying to was written before the last one you replied to. As I said before, no biggie. If you want to look like a silly person every time you post, it’s totally your prerogative. Indeed, it’s probably a good thing that you’ve decided to save your readers the trouble of reading the actual content your posts: I mean, why waste their time when they can come to the same conclusion simply by reading your sig line?
Anyway, stay golden… ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 12, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Tyrus Thomas would be awesome as a warrior. Would make an excellent backup to Randolph, way better than Wright!
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Oct 11, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I would do the trade
and fast…
Its time to accept the reality that not only will we get little to nothing in return for Jackson, but it might be very difficult for any team willing to touch him, regardless of what they give up for him. NY might be one place that would work for him and the team.
This Jackson debacle is going to harm the young locker room and Jackson is hurting the team on the floor when he plays. E. Curry is some bum that we keep on the end of the bench for 2 years.
Terriable, injury prone player making 12 mil for 2 years > Over the hill swingman that is well on his way to blowing up the locker room at 8 mil for 4 years
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Oct 11, 2009 11:54 AM PDT reply actions
I should feel vindicated for being so adamantly against the Jax extension at the time. Strangely, this vindication is bringing little pleasure.
by jae on Oct 11, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
hooray for hollow victories…
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Oct 11, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
where did you find this? lol
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
you weren't the only one JAE.
Plenty people here didn’t like it just as much as you.
I’ll give you a high 5 though.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
other than their drafts, are there really any moves the Warriors make anyone likes?
by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
are there really any moves the Warriors make anyone likes?
Picking up Rony was a good move, More-O and I’z -a-blue-kitty too.
The problem is management doesn’t want to win, they just want to make us think they want to win, it’s a lot easier for them. If they can dazzle us with “nellieball” they don’t have to put as much effort or money into the team, we need to Jax up and call their hand.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 13, 2009 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
That’s exactly what Jax is doing. (sigh)
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 13, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I’d much rather trade him to NY for Jared Jeffries who I still believe (maybe irrationally) could be a pretty solid player. Even if he’s not a solid player he still gets points just for not being Eddy Curry (and doesn’t that get you a Nobel Peace Prize these days ;) ) I don’t think NY rejects that swap, but maybe I’m guilty of overvaluing Jackson’s trade value.
Thing A
I don't know his situation
Other than the fact that Isiah Thomas fell in love with him. I liked Jeffries on the Wizards as a part time role player, but is there any lingering injury issues? He’s sort of fallen off the NBA radar it seems. Don’t know if it’s just me though.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
Jeffries might be a useful player. Curry isn’t. Jeffries, like Curry, will likely exercise their player options for next year, realizing that no fool will pay them anything close to what they’re making. In NY’s quest to get as much cap room as possible next year. They’ll still have enough to go after a couple of big names either still around, but swapping Jax’s salary for Jeffries makes things worse from their perspective, while downgrading Curry’s salary into Jax’s makes things better. I just don’t see the Knicks doing anything at all that doesn’t result in lower salary on the books come next off season.
Why?
I’d rather have Jax sent home and paid the rest of his contract than get Curry. If Riley even considered that trade he should be fired on the spot!
If no one is interested now, just be patient. Explain to Jackson he’s not going to a contender if he tanks it and it might motivate him to play a little better. Who knows, we have some early success, he may jump back on board. Then we can get equal value instead of taking on a garbage contract like E Curry.
If you pay Jax for the rest of his contract without playing him, he’s still on the books for 4 more years. Curry’s ridiculous deal only lasts 2 more seasons. “Equal value” for Jax isn’t all that much. The market for disgruntled players under contract for several more years that takes them into their mid 30s, a period where almost all players are guaranteed to show a sharp decline in performance, who can’t rebound and aren’t accurate shooters and were never nearly as valuable as many Warriors fans believe for whatever reason, isn’t great. Equal value is either a less productive player with a shorter contract or a more ridiculous contract for a player who might contribute. Curry fits the former.
Lesson to be learned (Jackson):
Trying to buy a player’s loyalty is rarely a good idea. Players who need to have their content behavior bought tend not to remain content. The good will usually ends before the contract expires, leaving the team with no recourse.
Winning cures all. If we can get in a groove and start the season great (which is possible) all of this drama will be forgotten and everyone will be motivated; including Jack. Optimism at it’s finest!
by insanenthemembrane on Oct 11, 2009 4:05 PM PDT reply actions
I agree that Jackson can start playing well again. If we trade him today, he’ll be a HUGE negative. But in a couple of months, the Cavs may come knocking again (assuming the rumor is true).
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
yup
They are banking on situation getting worse and getting jack for peanuts. I think they’ll eventually be wiling to deal Big Z (s its clear he wont be able to play w/ the shaqitus). I don’t blame them for trying to get turiaf as a throw in.
M whole thing is i’d rather work a 3 way to get some younger talent for Big Z, as the cap room won’t help us for summer (we have no chance at any marquee real agent in 2010)
when it's come to this BEFORE the season ...
is anyone else half expecting someone to hang RR in effigy inside the Oracle at the home opener?
Or wondering whether we should begin thinking about when to start the annual TANK campaign? Since it’d be unbecoming to start it before the opener, perhaps Thanksgiving?
Some one remind us why we are dubs fans? dis’ol’ cuss is losing the faith …
One of the reasons we can trade Jackson is because we’re deep. We can easily afford to lose him now. We won’t miss his passing between Monta and Curry, either. He’s really the only negative spot on the team right now. For the record, I am not so desperate to trade him. Let’s make him either warm the bench a while or shape up and play well. Then we trade him.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
+1
Lets learn from our mistake last year with Crawford 4 Al. By trade deadline some playoff team will be desperate enough for jack. you never know what will happen with injuries etc.
What’s the lesson with Crawford for Al? The lesson I saw was that if you’ve got a disgruntled often overhyped player who wasn’t really all that productive to begin with, you don’t trade for another overhyped not terribly productive player with a longer contract. The situation is different as we’re the ones with the guy with the long contract this time. The lesson from Crawford suggests that we get rid of Jax if we can get a shorter contract.
lessons
Al’s contract was better, he matched our needs better, etc. so, as you say, we should try to better than we did with moving Al (regardless of our differing opinions about his effectiveness, who was at fault between he and Nelson, etc) … the other lesson we should have learned was that we shouldn’t wait until we’re behind the 8ball (we now knew that the FO had a long lead up when Al had asked to be moved) and we both knew at the time that RR’s extension was simply inexcusable …
wondering whether we should begin thinking about when to start the annual TANK campaign?
We coulda started it after the first Laker game but the old dog found new life and staggered up to win the next two so now the girls think he’s well and cry if we talk of putting him down.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 11, 2009 9:32 PM PDT reply actions
the thing that sucks
is if we dump jack and get a steaming pile of crap in return, he would then be happy to be on a new team and would behave himself, leaving us with the steaming pile, and leaving the other team with a very good player
leaving us with the steaming pile, and leaving the other team with a very good player
sorta like the Toronto trade?
so we’d have a bigger pile??
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 11, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions
are you kidding
he was in the group with like only lebron, chris paul, and a couple others who averaged idk something like 20 pts, 6 rounds 6 assists or something like that. and he has been our best player for atleast a year or 2
he was in the group with like only lebron, chris paul, and a couple others who averaged idk something like 20 pts, 6 rounds 6 assists or something like that.
Which (excusing that you’re gifting him almost a whole rebound) is yet another example of why simply siting those three categories on a ‘per game’ basis isn’t one of the better ways to rate players. Given the number of minutes he played, the number of turnovers those assists went along with and the number of shots it took to get the 20 points, his performance starts looking a whole lot more like the sort of performance that goes along with a 29 win team.
he was in the group with like only lebron, chris paul, and a couple others who averaged idk something like 20 pts, 6 rounds 6 assists or something like that. and he has been our best player for atleast a year or 2
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winnah! Well done, man. Now if we can only close ranks and get everyone in the Bay Area to keep repeating this, we might be actually be able to unload this overrated albatross for a useful player.
I mean … oops!
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 14, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions
i have no problem
with jax wanting to be traded you really can’t blame the guy, but for him to go public with it right away and screw this team from getting anything of value for him really infuriates me. what a selfish selfish move for a “team” player and “captain”. I say we give him the ochocinco treatment and then when he shapes up, trade him for a big complement to randolph
I think we should just trade Jack for some sort of team mascot. Even a really terrible one like something on the level of that retarded bright green bird for the Phillies.
by Rob Kurz blocks Yao Ming on Oct 11, 2009 11:33 PM PDT reply actions
If he continues his downward spiral...
And continues getting technicals in preseason (What, he’s practicing his “technical” game so he knows exactly how far he has to go? Shouldn’t he have enough practice with that already?), and not actually caring, at some point Nellie has to bench him and take away his captaincy, right? Why not treat him like you would anybody else who threw a tantrum because they couldn’t have their cookies? Give him a time out. And threaten him with a 4 year time out.
If he doesn’t improve, I would implore Nellie and the FO to “Starbury” him (i.e. make him sit in the stands), and try to buy him out. With a guy like Jax, who’s still capable of playing, he can get some team’s mid-level. Buying him out for 60% if he can go get another 60% shouldn’t be too tough, right? If his alternative is 4 years of sitting and watching, you have to assume Jax wants to play, right?
Basically, if he’s willing to be this unprofessional about the thing, he should be treated as he’s behaving (like a petulant child). What do you do with petulant children, now that spanking is illegal? Give them a time out. Jax needs a time out to think about what he’s done.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 12, 2009 12:05 PM PDT reply actions
I certainly would like to see this as well, but I’m sure the front office is wary of taking such a hard line at the moment, as it might cause his value to dip even lower than it is. I’m not so sure that his value hasn’t already hit rock bottom, but if I were management I probably wouldn’t Starbury him until the regular season starts, just in case.
SNAFU.
If it hasn't hit rock bottom
It’s pretty darn close. It’s the difference between NYC saying yes or no to the Eddy Curry trade. Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough:
I think the Warriors can buy out Jax with enough of a discount that it’s better than trading him for another waste of space with a bigger, shorter contract. Maybe I just don’t value the expiring Eddy Curry contract enough, but I’d be happier with a buy out.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 12, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Honestly I don’t think Jack will accept a buyout. It seems like he’s taken the route of extreme belligerence — I just don’t see any concessions coming from his direction, especially monetarily. Perhaps this changes if Cohan suddenly sells and Rowell is canned, a storybook ending if ever there was one.
Given that he's made decisions in the past based on money
I’d expect that to continue. Hypothetically, he should be able to get a $15M/3 year deal from somebody. Take $8M off what we owe him (the last year), and buy him out for the rest. If he makes $7M on the exchange (plus getting his $30M now instead of spread out over 4 years), AND he gets to go play in Texas or for a contender, I don’t see him not accepting the deal. It’s advantageous financially for him AND he gets free choice of who to play for (he can even sacrifice money for a ring if he wants).
A win-win.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 12, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Were I any other team, I’d be real reluctant to give him a 3 year deal. His history indicates that he’s never lasted a full 3 years anywhere without being disgruntled, causing strife with management and wanting out before then. I do not think it’s an accident that the most successful team he’s play for did not bother to bring him back for a 3rd year.
plus getting his $30M now instead of spread out over 4 years
My understanding of buyouts would mean that it would be spread out over 4 years. As bad as Jack is, thats tough having 7 or so million against the salary cap for the next 4 years for a player that is not on the roster.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Oct 12, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
How the buyout is paid and how it counts against the cap are two different things. How much and when it’s paid are negotiable. The team and player can decide on a lump sum or payments over time. However, no matter how it gets paid out, the salary cap hit counts over the original life of the contract with each year computed as: (buyout/original_remaining_salary)*(orig_year’s_salary/original_remaining_salary).
If Jack takes the low road
I say we Marcus Allen his ass and let him sit with no buyout offer.
The Starbury situation ended up working in his favor, not the team’s, which is the wrong way to go.
We need to send a message before the Warriors become even more of a joke.
We want to attract talent, not guys who think they can scam a big payday for little effort.
by warriorsvictim on Oct 12, 2009 4:10 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
You can not think about this as us winning OR him winning.
The Warriors have to do as well as they can for him. If we send him to a contender, giving him EXACTLY what he wants, while we only get cap relief, that’s a win for us.
Fixed.
The Warriors have to do as well as they can for him themselves. If we send him to a contender, giving him EXACTLY what he wants, while we only get cap relief, that’s a win for us, so what if he gets what he wants too.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 12, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions
If we do that, it ought to be making Jack sit and rot until the trade deadline.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Nobody wants rotten jack
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 15, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
That looks like cheddar?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 15, 2009 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
There is no reason that Jackson should be playing anymore. He clearly has his own goals that vary quite differently from the rest of the team. It is dissapointing to see him turn against Nelson. Not only is it better for the youngsters with him away, it might be better for the team record as well.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Oct 14, 2009 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I still don't see how trading for Curry is a good idea
Just send Jackson home with pay. Maybe we can trade him at the deadline to a contender this year. If not, we can try again next year.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
Guys don’t tend to become more prized when they’re sitting on their couches… sending Jack home would only delay the inevitable dump for a bad contract. I don’t get the sense that the Knicks and Pacers have really profited much from their situations with Marbury and Tinsley.
This is not a team that needs ugliness hanging over it indefinitely. Let’s grab an ’11 expiring and move on.
by onlxn on Oct 14, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I now think trading him for Curry is the right move.
It would send a good signal to the rest of the team and the league as a whole. Screw it.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
Jackson is providing nothing for us,
and we have to pay him for the next 4 years. Plus he is a distraction and a possiable cancer. Lets just grab Curry and pay him to do nothing for only the next 2 years. Plus Curry wont be a distraction, just a 6’11" bum at the end of the bench for 2 years.
I really would like to talk about how exciting our youngsters look and talk about how we put these pieces toghether over the next 2 years and be a legitiment force in the west, instead of our disgruntled former captain.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Oct 14, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I really would like to talk about how exciting our youngsters look and talk about how we put these pieces toghether over the next 2 years and be a legitiment force in the west
This sounds familiar for some reason. I’m getting a little deja vu.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 14, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
That's kinda ironic
The pacific war was about keeping the oil out of Japanese hands and iraq is about putting it in Chinese hands? Oh well, oil well, if we piggyback on the big whales we’ll all make tons of money :>)
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 14, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
i like what you did there dfib,,,,,
keep up the good work
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Oct 15, 2009 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm excited too
But… it’s the “I’ve seen this movie before and the Warrior always dies in the end” kind of excited. Note: I didn’t add any hope to my type of excitement for a reason. Sigh…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 15, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
perhaps we have to settle for Curry, perhaps not
the alternatives are few and far between, but there are two teams to at least make a call to:
- team I’d call is Chicago. They may be looking to unload Heinrich at 3y.9.5m – admittedly a big price tag but a character guy who could play a role for us; they also have James on the bench who while not as useful has a shorter and less expensive contract; and finally Thomas seems to be on the outs with them though contracts don’t match up
#2-3-4 in no particular order I’d at least call Char. and see if there’s any interest – if so, Diaw is a possibility. Minn. may want to unload Jaric, and Utah is one of the few clubs that would appreciate Jax’s defense enough to not hang up right away (though even I don’t believe Sloan would entertain it) …
it’s really bleak, we’re really screwed. Crawford is looking like a steal compared to Jax right now.
Minn. may want to unload Jaric
they did. it was part of the mayo/love trade that i was foolishly critical of when it first happened. that deal looks more brilliant by the day for the wolves.
you’re right though. the situation is pretty bleak. at this point we can all agree that any trade that nets us someone with a shorter deal and doesn’t require us to give up any of the youth movement is a victory, right? bad times.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
