wallace gets to the line more, is a much better defender and rebounder, is a slightly better shot blocker, is slightly better at getting steals, and shoots a higher percentage. jack scores more, gets more assists and has a better assist/turnover ratio. when they’re both healthy, i’ll take wallace. factor in wallace’s nasty injury habits and maybe you could argue for jack, but he’s certainly not MILES better, because when wallace is healthy, he’s the better player.

he is MILES better than wallace

Haha. As JAE would say, this is false. Had you just said “Jackson is better than Wallace” it would have been false, by almost any metric you choose to consider. Just to pick one: by Dave Berri’s winshares and WS per 48 metrics, Wallace was the best SF in the NBA not named by LeBron, and by a wide margin. Jackson, not surprisingly, doesn’t even crack the Top 15. That you felt compelled to add the word “MILES” to your comparison (in all caps) seriously calls into your question your critical thinking skills, or at least your objectivity. I’m a little disappointed in you, tafkasam. :,-(

Tell you what. Find me a successful team in the NBA whose success is not predicated upon a player they themselves drafted. Probably in the first round, at that.

Also, you do not understand the trade market at all. If we’re going to move those salaries, we’re going to have to take back salaries. The only way to get rid of them without taking on salary is to also send along the #7 pick. This makes no sense since this team isn’t a playoff team on the cusp of the tax trying like the Suns were, the Warriors need to draft players with these first rounders and turn them into productive players.

jack is overpaid and extended beyond when he’ll be a particularly productive player. saying that stephen jackson’s extension helped this team would be an incredibly difficult argument to make. it was senseless and happened well before it should have. if jack was playing well after next year, then you talk about resigning him at a discounted rate. standing pat and paying boatloads of money to guys who can’t bring you a championship instead trying to bring in better players is a great way to keep your mediocre core together and keep bringing in the mediocre win totals.

Lebron James and Dwight Howard to Blake Griffin and Ricky Rubio?
I’ll let you make that case.

I didn’t compare them as players, I only compared philosophies. You said we should lay off Jackson because of what he brought us last year. I said that while he is a good player, without him we would not only have one less bad contract that will be very difficult to move, but we may also be in position to add a major franchise-outlook-changing type of rookie. I think both Griffin and Rubio will be excellent NBA players. I don’t think either will come close to being as good as LeBron or Howard, but that doesn’t change the fact that Jack’s contributions didn’t do us much good last year at all.

as far as teams keeping their core and improving with trades ill go with last years championship contenders in LA Lakers(pau gasol) and Boston Celtics(KG and Ray Allen)

Congratulations you proved that a couple contending teams have added key pieces via trade. I’m not really sure what your point is. Every team has at least one key contributor they’ve acquired via trade. I mentioned that we shouldn’t be handing out big contracts to veterans. Are you comparing Jackson and Maggette to KG, Allen and Gasol? You’re at least coming as close to doing that as I was to comparing LeBron to Rubio. Both the Celtics and the Lakers had veterans who were legitimate franchise players before they went out and traded for those other guys. If we had a Paul Pierce or Kobe Bryant I’d have no problem with us committing a little bit too much money for a couple too many years for a legitimate title run. We are nowhere close, nor were we when Maggette was signed or Jack was extended.

For the post question on what we should do with jackson is simple we keep him because is one of our best players and excels as the 2 or 3 man on offense.

Well we probably have no other choice but to keep him or trade him for an even worse contract, so technically I agree with you. But you fail to realize that the team isn’t very good. Brad Miller was one of the best players on the Kings up until the deadline last year. But he was old and overpriced and didn’t fit with their youth movement and the team stunk. Should they have been determined to not deal him simply because he was one of their best players and he could be a good 2nd or 3rd option? Similarly, most who didn’t have some crazy delusional view of the team after Baron left saw a roster that probably wasn’t going to be very good even if Monta had been healthy? So should we have committed a bunch of long term money to a couple injury prone wings about to turn 30 because they could be nice 2nd or 3rd options this year?

We need to try and move maggs, crawford with some young potential to improve our team.

Great, yea we do need to try that. Realistically, its never ever ever ever ever gonna happen like that.

Everyone else should be on the market.

Correction: Everyone else should be on the market.