Jasikevicius to Houston?

by pree on Jun 2, 2007 4:18 AM PDT Comment 18 comments

There's a rumor floating around that the Rockets want to trade Bobby Sura's expiring contract to the Warriors for Sarunas. I'm not sure what or how this benefits the Warriors financially, but a buyout for Jack is more likely (and he can then go play for a European team who will pay for his buyout).

Comments

heck no

i hate bobby sura.
i dont want him baack on the warriors

by gizardwizzlizard on Jun 2, 2007 7:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

haha

but Bob Sura is a potential triple-double every game he plays!

and pree, there might be a typo, the Warriors wouldn't want to buy out Jack would they? maybe Jas?

Ronald Reagan was a jerk.

by Nooob on Jun 2, 2007 8:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

YEA

Bob Sura is good. Hes automatic energy! I love the guy for his character on and off the court. But, Id prefer trading Sarunas for a 2nd round pick!

by ballin on Jun 2, 2007 8:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Bob Sura has been hurt for a while...

I dont think he is playing again, its just a trade fro his contract to clear up space

by dallaswarrior on Jun 2, 2007 9:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

well

from what I read, we would just take on Sura's contract, and it would save us about 3 million. Plus, it's not like Nellie really uses Roony anyway.

Nellie's Schmoes

by tadams1080 on Jun 2, 2007 9:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

a buyout for Jack is more likely ?

don't think Jack is going anywhere(other than possibly jail) especially don't think he'd go over well in europe. Who the hell comes up with these rumors?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 2, 2007 9:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

haha not Jackson!

Sarunas Jask. (aka roony) not Stephen Jackson... look at the post more carefully

by dallaswarrior on Jun 2, 2007 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unlikely

Sounds bogus, something tossed out by a reporter looking for another sentence to write, not really clear on the cap and, without anything else, no real need to actually check facts.

Jassy's contract expires in a year. That's if he doesn't opt out this year which remains a possibility. We can't trade him for a contract that expires any sooner than he'd become a free agent because contracts that expire sooner than that have already expired. Trading for Sura does work with the cap, but it saves us about $150K this year, nothing more unless HE has a buyout clause that I don't know of. The $3million doesn't seem realistic. More likely they'd be part of bigger packages.

by jae on Jun 2, 2007 10:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

yep

i thought the same thing when i read this....Cabbages IS an expiring contract. We don't need to trade him for one. This one is complete BS.

Let's Go Oakland! Gas, Brake, Dip.

by OaktownFunk on Jun 2, 2007 11:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What I've gathered ..

So Frank Hughes of the Tacoma News Tribune threw it out there (why do beat reporters for one team pretend to be experts on another?) as well. Some sources told me that the Warriors could save a lot of money (like half of his contract) if they apply for an injured player's exception for Sura, but the league is pretty strict about granting that. I can't remember completely, but I think they totally denied this for Alvin Williams in the past and Grant Hill, too. If the Warriors can get something like this, then maybe this deal is worth looking into (saves tax money).

by pree on Jun 2, 2007 11:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No cap ramifications.

It saves $150k. That won't get them under the cap. It probably won't have any effect on the lux tax either. In NBA terms, that's essentially nothing.

by jae on Jun 2, 2007 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well..

When you don't like paying the luxury tax, it means a lot. I hate that it is dollar for dollar, because that $150K is more like $300K. Sure, that's chump change to these guys, but at the same time some folks just see it as a waste of money.

In any case, this move does little to help on the court, so it isn't that big of a deal.

by pree on Jun 2, 2007 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

cash

If the $150 gets them under the threshold, it's more like $10million, since being under means profit sharing from tax revenue. But it still seems unlikely that they'd make a trade like this just for that savings. I suspect the rumor is either incomplete or JPMUBSBASWNAESTFOTC*

(*just plain made up B.S. by a sportswho needs an extra sentence to fill out the column.)

by jae on Jun 3, 2007 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Free up cap space

If any move frees up cap space for our team, then let management go with it. If this trade actually goes down, then we will simply let Bob Sura retire on his own.

by Phil T28 on Jun 2, 2007 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like it won't happen, but I like this trade

Sura may have the ugliest jumpshot in the NBA, but he is tough, can run, and plays good defense for a guy with limited lateral quickness.
I don't know about his health, but as far as I'm concerned he'll get more playing time here than Sarunas.

by Byron Houston We Have A Problem on Jun 2, 2007 12:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

UPDATE

I spoke to some people and they said this move is contingent upon whether Houston can land Mike James for Juwan Howard. If that happens, they'll let this one go completely.

by pree on Jun 2, 2007 2:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

juan howard is done

hes hella old.

by stevenro59 on Jun 2, 2007 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Saving Cap

If they make this trade they will have to sign someone else to fill that roster spot anyways so its not like the savings will be monda huge. If the savings ends up at only $150K that will not do anything positive in the long run because a rookie minimum contract is more then that for 1 year(just saying if they sign an undrafted rookie to take that roster spot).

by jpgarfunkle on Jun 4, 2007 7:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs