1. The Jamison offer was just that ... an offer. Several months ago too, I might add. I will stand by the source. Golden State listened to Houston (amoung other teams) on an AJ involved trade. GSW needs were somewhat different than they are now. So are ours. 2. If you are attempting to say the trade talks back then were ludicrous, and your reasoning is ... just look what Jamison is doing lately, that proves my point .... then you obviously missed the point. (a) that is why a lot of teams wanted him in the first place, (b) that is why GS did not accept the trade offers that came there way. I suppose if he had poor numbers and a lousy first two months you would be arguing: that it was not a legitimate trade offer because CD/RT could see he was going to be a bust and would never have entered such trade discussions for him. Make up your mind. I don't mind taking it on the chin for posting something like trade offers or discussions that do not produce a trade. (The Jamison discussion in question was just that ... a trade offer, not a solid in the bank "Jamison is a Rocket" thing, which some have seemed to want it remembered as.) But if you are reasoning that: " ... ah ha I told you so, look he's doing a great job this season, so that means that those trade talks never took place .....". Not only is that an inaccurate assumption but it does not make much sense. But then, I don't have very high expectations from some posters. ------------------
Heck, I could have told you that ... in fact, come to think of it, I believe I did. Your earlier analysis was outdated by the time you posted it, because by then Jamison had already put up a couple of 30-point games at SF with Fortson at PF. His complaints (which came after the second game) were more a symptom of Cowens/the entire team being slow to get their act together regarding the halfcourt offense. A few reasons why Fortson and Jamison fit well together: (1) Fortson doesn't need many plays run for him. He gets most of his touches by grabbing the ball off the glass. If the Warriors give him the ball 3 or 4 times a game in the low post (which was the case before he got hurt), that's 3 or 4 more times than he got it in Boston or Denver. And between those post-ups, a couple of midrange jumpers as a fallback option on other plays, and the putbacks/FTs he gets from rebounding, he'll get his 12-18 ppg consistently. (2) Jamison does get better offensive looks at PF because of his quickness both inside & outside, but he also takes more of a beating. I've noticed him liking the jump shot more and more (to the point where he sometimes doesn't even think about driving), and I can't help but think that's related to him getting the Larry Hughes treatment -- diving into the paint and getting knocked to the ground, with no call -- a few too many times. (3) Fortson helps Jamison score on the fast break (where he's excelled from the start) by taking over the primary responsibility for defensive rebounding. Because Jamison's rebounding is based more on quick leaping than muscle and positioning, Antawn is better on the offensive glass; on the defensive end, he doesn't box out well and sometimes (often?) gets caught trying to leak out early. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Swopa (edited December 11, 2000).]
I think the question that needs to be asked now is what happens to Danny Fortson when he comes back from injury? Jamison has played his heart out since Fortson's foot injury. The problem with that though is he is doing this while at the PF spot. He cannot do the same from the SF spot where Golden State coaches like to play him. I guess it comes down to who is more valuable: Fortson or Jamison? It doesn't really matter to me who stays and who goes, because the Rockets could use either one! ------------------
Your are right that is the quandry facing the Warriors staff. 1. AJ likes the PF spot. 2. Fortson cannot play the SF so must play the 4 spot. 3. They need a consistent SF. 4. AJ has proven he can play the SF or the PF consistently. 5. Fortson has given them an inside presence that compliment's AJ's SF. The real challenge will be to design a game plan where both get lots of touches AND take full advantage of having both of these guys on the floor at the same time. I honestly do not see them solving this by trading one or the other. I think earlier in the season (was that only a couple of weeks ago???) I saw no other option, because Jamison was getting verbal about his plight. Fortson was playing like he was possessed and wanted even more focus. But now, a trade might be a last option only. Don't get me wrong, I think Golden State has a number of difficulties on their roster, and a trade of one of these guys may help them with that, but I hope they use some coaching skills and changes in their game plan to approach a solution first. ------------------
Hey, I totally agree Swopa. The key here, as you pointed out, is that they compliment one another very, very well. The problem is that AJ wants his old PF spot back. and Danny wants and has earnmed PT at the PF. As an added note: The defined roles of players who play specific positions has changed drastically over the last couple of years. One, the relative size of guys who play the positions, especially at forecourt, has gone up from big to big, strong, and tall. Two, the speed at some historical positions, like the PF and center has increased ten fold in the last five years to be fast, agile ( and probably causing the standard vertical leap to be extended at least another 8-12 inches). The result is a less defined position. This discussion about AJ and DF would be much less critical and more academic if coaches started using players to their best ability instead of pigeon-holding them to specific position types. Once the mind set of omni-postions or multi-positions (or whatever) is accomplished with the players, there will be only forecourt and backcourts. Then hopefully everyone will be focused on a player's defensive abilities and offensive strength, more than what position slot he occupies. Appreciated your post. ------------------
Some quotes from a local paper's article on this subject: Fortson: "What I do, I don't get in the way too much. I don't take too many shots and I don't need the ball." Jamison: "It was never a problem with us playing together or Danny getting opportunities and I wasn't. . . . First of all it was early in the season, and as long as I've been here I've started slowly. Now all that has changed as far as me being comfortable with shooting the ball and as far as me maturing as a player. . . . It was just finding a way to get me involved instead of just standing out there." The article also notes that Jamison averaged 21.2 points per game with Fortson starting at PF. Oh, how he must have struggled! For a "problem" that lasted all of two games, this subject has gotten way too much attention. ------------------
