Trade Proposal: Stephen Jackson to the Kings

by HireMeAsGM on Oct 13, 2009 1:39 PM PDT Comment 32 comments

I know this is another Stephen Jackson trade proposal but I think it might actually work.... Due to the recent injury to Francisco Garcia the Kings are in need of another SG/SF to complement Kevin Martin

I propose that we trade Stephen Jackson to the Kings for Andres Nocioni.

Their salaries match up. $7,650,000 for Stephen Jackson vs $7,500,000 for Andres Nocioni.

So why should either team do it?

The kings lost Francisco Garcia for 4 months due to his recent injury. Stephen Jackson would be a good productive player who can fill the role. He would be an upgrade over Nocioni in terms of offensive production which the Kings sorely lack.

The Warriors can rid themselves of the cancer that is Stephen Jackson. Nocioni is a hard nosed, energetic player who can come off the bench and teach our youngster hard work and dedication. He is pretty good on the defensive side of the ball as well.

And to top it all off, we can teach Stephen Jackson a lesson! He's been whining about how he wants to play for a winner..... so why not trade him to the worst team in the league! I think it would be well justified.

*no offense Kings fans.

What do you think?

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!

1 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't see why not

For us at least. The Kings may start to go with the youth movement but then again, they are the Kings….

Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"

by dubzfan on Oct 13, 2009 1:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Possible Sac Line-Up

PG – Evans
SG – Martin
SF – SJax
PF – Thompson
C – Hawes

I think that might be pretty tempting for the Kings…

by HireMeAsGM on Oct 13, 2009 1:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

In. a. heartbeat.

Can’t really see what would compel the Kings to take on an angry cancer like Jack, but this is one of the least nutty Jackson proposals I’ve seen on this site: similar contracts, similar ages, similar production (Nocioni’s a slightly better player, imo, but Jack’s been much more durable).

Heck, I might even throw in CJ Watson or a protected first-rounder to make this happen.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 13, 2009 2:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Give them George

I feel CJ should be kept longer to see if we can trade him later to a contender who needs a backup pg/sg.

But I doubt Sjax would like that move and would cause more trouble.

by mosdl on Oct 13, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Give them George

Well, I was looking for a player who might actually entice them to make the trade. Devean George, being one of the four or five worst players in the NBA, is not that. If somehow what little positive value CK has entices them, you pull the trigger and ask questions later. The last thing you worry about is “keeping him longer to see if we can trade him to a contender.”

But I doubt Sjax would like that move and would cause more trouble.

Quite possible, but if this deal went through that wouldn’t be our problem. As the diarist points out, forcing Jack to play for an crappier team than us would be a delicious side benefit of the deal.

But yeah…. if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 13, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

*CK = CJ

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 13, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes Devean George is one sorry player.

But looking at their roster, it looks like they have 4 PG’s on it right now and only 1 SF… might make sense with George as part of the deal.

But yeah, I’d be willing to throw in Law, CJ, Claxton, or George

by HireMeAsGM on Oct 13, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

George also has some salary insurance stuff I believe making him cheap

by mosdl on Oct 13, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nailed it on the head

Who cares where we trade him? If he’s mad where he ends up, it’s no longer our problem.

Also, when people talk about how we’re not an appealing place for players, this doesn’t come into account. I’m sure the majority of the players in the league don’t approve of what SJax is doing, especially Kobe!

by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Oct 13, 2009 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d definitely give those up for that trade. Getting something value that isn’t terribly expensive? Yes, please.

Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.

by Naticus2 on Oct 13, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Thing A

by sam23 on Oct 13, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

thats Shawne Williams, the Mav’s swingman. Not Sean Williams the athletic Nets bigman who came out of Boston College a couple years ago. …..So the trade doesn’t give us another 4, and I don’t see why the Mavs would be at all interested in a Howard for Jackson swap anyway.

Thing A

by sam23 on Oct 13, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doesnt Jackson wanna go to a winning team though?

by thecity23 on Oct 13, 2009 3:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

who cares what jackson wants

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 13, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

+100...I think there is a wink-wink deal between Jack and management...

basically stating, ‘you agree to play hard and look good, it makes it easier for us to trade you’. Of course his contract complicates things a bit, but the bottom line is that if he’s not playing, no one’s gonna bite on a trade deal.

by SmittytheCutman on Oct 13, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but...

hes not promising that what happened against the lakers wont happen again…so would he actually be worth playing?

by blacksamurai33 on Oct 14, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jackson just asked the management to not be a Captain.

Screw Jackson. We don’t want him as captain.

And I don’t really care what he wants or prefers.

by HireMeAsGM on Oct 13, 2009 3:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Stephen Jackson would be a good productive player who can fill the role. He would be an upgrade over Nocioni in terms of offensive production which the Kings sorely lack.

Not by much, and perhaps not at all. Don’t confuse jacking up a bunch of shots with “production.” Jax is a less efficient scorer than Nocioni in large part because Jax isn’t a very good shooter. Nocioni has been above average in scoring efficiency with a reasonable shot volume for his entire career save his rookie season. Jax maxed out at almost average. Jax might score more, but it comes at the expense of other guys getting shots, guys who could well be better equipped to actually make shots. I doubt very much that Jax’s assists, which come at the cost of many more turnovers, negates this.

Is Jax a better individual defender? Maybe, but he’s a significantly inferior rebounder.

In.a.heartbeat.

by jae on Oct 13, 2009 3:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

by WYK on Oct 13, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would do this.

Don’t think the Kings would. Under normal circumstances I wouldn’t want to do this deal. But Jack’s value is so low.

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)

by kenntoe on Oct 13, 2009 4:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No reason the Kings would

He’d be even more pissed there and raise the same stink.

I really don’t see any legit contender that would want him either. The closest thing I could think of would be to Utah w/ some pieces for Kirilenko’s hefty contract, but even that is unlikely given Utah’s resistance towards bad attitude guys

by NeifiChicken on Oct 13, 2009 4:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That sucks that the Spurs traded for Jefferson

because if they hadn’t, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were trying to get Jackson right now.

by duballers23 on Oct 13, 2009 5:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup

We could use another 4, especially with Brandan Wright injured and out for pretty much the rest of the season.

What about trading Jackson and Claxton to the Mavs for Josh Howard and Sean Williams? Both are expiring contracts, and the Mavs are pretty interested in getting out of the Sean Williams business.

by fuller over bryant on Oct 13, 2009 7:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thing A

by sam23 on Oct 13, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, i know which williams i was talking about

i just misspelled the name. similar to how some folks still spell brandon wright, instead of brandan wright. the 4 i was referring to is nocioni, which is why it’s in the preceding sentence and not in the one where i propose going after a howard, williams, for jackson, claxton trade.

getting away from knit-picking—right sam23—i remember the mavs being pretty fed up with both howard’s and williams’s attitude to the tune that they were/are actively taking trade inquiries. it could be that another player has to be added (either an expiring contract, draft prospect, or cash considerations on our end, or a player with a longer contract on theirs), but it’s a starting point.

as matt steinmetz and others have noted, no team that isn’t in the playoff hunt will want to trade for jackson. his contract is an albatross for any team that is in rebuilding mode. think about it, if he were on another team and was pulling his act elsewhere would the warriors, who are in obvious rebuilding mode, want to trade for him. sure he may get you one or two more wins, but that would be at the expense of developing your young talent. no, i don’t see that happening. however, if you’re a team that is on the cusp and you need a piece like jackson to get you deeper in the playoffs then his contract doesn’t seem like such an obstacle. in this scenario, the soonest jackson would be “tradeable” would be around the trade deadline when teams become more aware of what they need to contend for a ring.

by fuller over bryant on Oct 14, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry if it seemed like I was “knit-picking” it was just pretty unclear to me that you were talking about the Kings trade at all. I’m sure you can see ho following up your own point about how we could use another big via trade with a trade idea that does not actually bring us a big man but has the name of a big man often mentioned in trade rumors involved in it, could be a little confusing.

As far as the Mavs trade goes Howard is younger, cheaper, signed for less years, and better than Jackson. Even if they were as fed up with Howard as we are with Jackson (and they certainly don’t seem to be) thats a trade that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for them. You’re right that no team that isn’t in the playoff hunt will want any part of Jackson but why would a team in the hunt like the Mavs want to give up a better player to get Jackson? I think its reasonable to think the Mavs could have some interest in Jackson but in order to entice them to downgrade (in many ways) from Howard to Jackson we’d have to offer them a pretty substantial benefit. Another expiring contract doesn’t give them anything as they could simply keep Howard and have him come off the books. We can’t really move a draft pick anytime soon because we still owe one to the Nets. In would be out of character Cuban to be persuaded for some cash considerations thrown in when he’s shipping out a better talent with a better contract. I think it would take at least one of Turiaf, Morrow, or Azubuike thrown into the deal to even get the Mavs thinking about swapping Howard for Jackson, I’d rather see if they’d be willing to take Jackson for a couple end of the bench guys. (like Carroll)

Thing A

by sam23 on Oct 14, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

We can’t really move a draft pick anytime soon because we still owe one to the Nets.

I’ve been working too much lately and haven’t kept up, but I think that the Warriors and Nets came to some sort of agreement to change some of the protection provisions such that we could move another pick without that interfering quite as much. It still means we don’t have a pick to deal, but I think there’s now a way to trade another future pick sometime before the Williams-swap pick gets conveyed. Don’t quote me on that though.

by jae on Oct 14, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd

That is a very nice response. And I remember the deal with the Nets being amended as jae mentions.

by fuller over bryant on Oct 15, 2009 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hahahahah, nice.

I would love to see him traded to a bottom dweller, primed and ready to ruin that team even further.

by HOLDEMUPGoldenStateOfOppression on Oct 14, 2009 10:39 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

No thank you

Noc is $21 million guaranteed over the next three years, with a 4th year option of $7.5 million. Jax is $35 million.

Jax will be no happier in Sacramento than he is in Golden State, and at age 31 he really doesn’t figure into the Kings’ future. Noc, meanwhile, will play hard until he can be dealt to a contender for expiring contract.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Oct 14, 2009 4:07 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

I don’t care what Jack wants at this point etiher, but no team that isn’t a contender would ever consider taking Jack. They’d know he’d just put them through what he is putting us through now.

by sjsnider on Oct 14, 2009 9:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He can try..

but on a team like boston or the cavs they would just say SUCK IT!! we dont need you and bench that bitch! but no way is new york taking him now…they just got rid of a player just like him so sorry new york no cap jack for you…trust me tho you wouldent want him…

by blacksamurai33 on Oct 15, 2009 5:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs