And NY knowing you have a PO'd, purposely benched 4Mx6Y player will give you...? Camby? No. Spreewell? HaHa. That would be funny. Houston? Too much - Keep looking. Charlie Ward? Maybe. Maybe no. Maybe if you want to throw in a couple of lotto picks...hmmm.
The Knicks could trade a 2nd round pick and it would still be better than what the Warriors would have received if they didn't match the offer. I see MJ getting traded to some other team and not vetoing the deal. He has to worry about himself first, he can't afford to b**** and moan for a year and hope that the Rockets work a deal for him a year from now. If the Rockets managed to pull off a trade that brings over a big man like a Jahidi White, then we'd all be saying "Sorry Marc, it's a business, there's no more room for you." I highly doubt MJ will hold out an entire year just to become a Rocket when he could take the Hakeem route and run off to an Eastern conference team.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Denver step into the trade picture. They need depth in the front court & have some expiring contracts to send over for GS. A deal like Jackson/Foyle for Lenard/Cheaney/Cook works according to RealGM. Denver picks up front court depth & GS gets two expiring contracts in Lenard & Cheaney & a cheap, young PG with potential. They also move Foyle's contract, which runs for 3 more years. Throw in draft picks where appropriate. Jackson would probably accept that trade. Cheaney's injury shouldn't hold up the trade, because GS doesn't need him, just his expiring contract. NugzFan & Swopa, Would you consider that trade? By the way, I hate GS for breaking my heart. With the way the young guys have been playing, I was really looking forward to seeing Jackson on this team. Oh well, life goes on.
I wouldn't want to trade Jackson and Foyle for expiring contracts. It's true, IMO, that Dampier/Fortson/Murphy are probably the long-term C/PF trio the Warriors are envisioning (unless a trade for an All-Star-caliber PF like McDyess pops up, which you can't really plan on). But given the injury history of the first two and the inexperience of the third, I'd want to keep someone around as insurance. But either one of those guys for Cheaney or Lenard, I wouldn't have a problem with. Obviously not an especially helpful trade talent-wise, but it would serve the purpose of keeping Jackson for the first half of the season as insurance (while Dampier/Fortson prove they can stay healthy, and Murphy gets used to the NBA), then ending the logjam without lasting cap damage.
Actually no they can't. They are both over the cap. NY must offer someone in the range of Marc's new salary. If NY and GSW wanted to do a deal, I think it would have better to do it before he signed the offer sheet with Houston. GSW don't hold any cards in the future trade. Time will tell, but this reaks to me of another GSW folly. He can afford...a new 6 year guaranteed contract gives him that luxury. Whine and moan for a year, say no to any trade, sit the bench until GSW cuts him. He can go anywhere he wants and not lose a dime. I'm not saying that's right or what he will do, but it is an option. Personally, I can't see the Rockets and MJ ever coming together again. I don't think he'd hold out for the Rockets, but he may hold out to repay the GSW. Just depends on how POd he is now and how GSW reacts to him and his attitude.
DAMN! I am PISSED! But I thought that Jackson can't be traded for 90 days to any team. and he can't be traded to the Rockets for up to a year. And how STUPID is Golden State, I mean what makes them think he is gonna give them his all out when he says he doesn't want to be there. If a player doesnt want to be somewhere it totally disrupts the chemistry (aka Poopen!) So, what the hell were they thinking! STUPID STUPID STUPID!
If I was GSW I would have signed MJ too, he is a decent big man when committed (though now this is a question) at a very good price. But I would NOT have done it the way they did. That part was TERRIBLE business and BUSH league, and Shanna, Warriors folks, I am suprised you don't see it this way. 1) In similar situations, compare how we handled Mobley to GWS in this situation. We could have gone the same route but instead put together a reasonable package to START with. We got our man for about the same cost, and didn't have spread ill will toward the player. Going this route also gives you GREATER trade flexibility even if you decide you want to move the player anyway. 2) Once they didn't do #1 (went with the RFA route) they compounded the problem by waiting until the end of the period to match the contract. They now have to wait to trade MJ two extra weeks, and kept him in limbo (also not practicing with anyone for 2 weeks) will further increasing his already ill will toward the organization. What is the result? Now you have a disgruntled 6 year 25 million player who has a veto on trades. Teams might still trade for him, but now they know you have less flexibility than before and may try to undercut market value. Sure you might pick up Charlie Ward or Eisely, but not only would they have a minimal impact on the GSW effectiveness (have a stable of younger and arguably better guards) but you have added their poor contracts to your payroll. Further, until you can work out a trade for him that HE agree's to (up to 1 year) you have a player, while in the GWS uniform, is going to play for his own stats whether they coincide with team goals or not. That is likely to be infectious. Put it all together, GSW look like a Bush league organization. Even though I think it was dumb to play the RFA game in the first place because it reduces your trade flexibility and just basically isn't a strait route to deal with players, that part you can understand. Waiting two weeks to match, that was STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. I can see GSW players are not going to trust the organization, and play for individual goals. You weep what you sow. Now from a Rocket's fan perspective (before I was looking at it from a more objective point of view), I can say two more things. 1) I hope it is proven MJ was signed only after the GSW illegally negotiated with other teams during this period so they void GSW contract and take away future draft picks, 2) MJ is a cancer while on your team if #1 doesn't happen. I say this because you could have spared us and yourself the 2 extra weeks of limbo bull****, that did not help your players, your trade situation and screwed us. Call it a zero sum game in reverse, were are all LOSERS with how it turned out. Had you be strait with us and not gone through RFA you might have been able to work out a sign and trade with us, maybe getting Walt and a #1, more than you will ever get for MJ because other teams hold the cards in negotiation (knowing the player has to go, and has a trade veto). Again, just STUPID.
Hmmm... my roomate is from San Jose, and is a big Warriors fan. So last night I told him Marc Jackson was staying, and he couldn't believe it. He honestly didn't believe me at first. He said he couldn't think of a single reason to justify that move considering everything they've been saying and the current status of the team. He felt real bad for us, and is just as mad at the Warriors as we are... So it's not just us...
<B>But I would NOT have done it the way they did. That part was TERRIBLE business and BUSH league, and Shanna, Warriors folks, I am suprised you don't see it this way.</B> I agree that they handled it improperly. I just disagree that it was a bad decision for Golden State. I also disagree that it will hurt GS in future negotiations. This is exactly why the whole restricted free agency process was implemented in the first place -- so teams could resign free agents at market value instead of having to negotiate not knowing what other teams would pay. MJ is *easily* tradable at any time. He makes ~$3.5M per year. For reference, the cap is $40M for 12 players, or $3.3M per year average -- that's not even considering that most teams are over the cap and spending more than that. Average salary for a potential starting center is NOT an expensive contract. And having him locked up for 6 years makes him that much more attractive. If he whines and b****es and pouts and slacks off for the next year, then he's not a player we should want anyway. If he's professional about it, he'll play his hardest and either get traded or make amends with Golden State. Either way, Golden State is better off in the long-run. They can even trade him for a pick and an expiring scrub contract and be better off than they were. All they have to do is wait for a contending team have a big man go down to injury, and they are trading from a position of strength. Why should Golden State have given him away? Besides, if he's not worth anything to any other team, why the hell do people here care so much that we didn't get him? <B>You weep what you sow. </B> You also reap what you sow.
Holding on to an 'asset' makes sense, but is this an asset for GSW or a write-off? We all know that there are 2 options to GSW: 1. Trade in 90 days; 2. Play him. Do they have a viable trade that Jackson will accept? Will he ruin team chemistry if he plays? He has no problems with the other players, but he could certainly b**** and moan about coaches and management, and get the other players thinking negatively. If numbers 1 and 2 are both likely to turn out poorly for GSW, they potentially thew away their season. Was it worth that? In effect, they could have already 'lost' this asset when they alienated him. Again, a similar concept to 'sunk costs'. Many companies have gone under because they refused to acknowledge that a project they were pursuing had already crashed and burned: 'We cannot trash this project, we have too much money tied up in it'. Ooops. Was Jackson truly an asset to them, or a write-off? Time will tell.
Originally posted by shanna ...If he whines and b****es and pouts and slacks off for the next year, then he's not a player we should want anyway. Not really. You cannot deny that some managements suck. I do not know the specifics here, but if mistreated enough, I could see why a player would be less than excited to stay. He may still have some good games, but his heart wouldn't be in it and he'll b**** about mgmt in the lockerroom. Besides, if he's not worth anything to any other team, why the hell do people here care so much that we didn't get him? It's not ANY other team, its any other team that had cap room or needed a young center and could make a trade that GSW liked. That narrows it quite a bit. Finally, do we really care how other teams value talent? How many passed on Mobley?
<B>Not really. You cannot deny that some managements suck. I do not know the specifics here, but if mistreated enough, I could see why a player would be less than excited to stay. He may still have some good games, but his heart wouldn't be in it and he'll b**** about mgmt in the lockerroom. </B> Except Jackson likes his teammates and coach, just not management. If he's going to screw his teammates over just because of personal issues with the higher-ups, then he's the posterchild for whiny b****es. For a comparison, look at Jordan. Jordan and company absolutely hated Chicago management, but they still played their hearts out because they were playing for themselves, their fans, and their coach, not ownership. I would hope Jackson looks at it that way. <B>It's not ANY other team, its any other team that had cap room or needed a young center and could make a trade that GSW liked. That narrows it quite a bit. </B> That's the thing, though -- every team in the league could use a young, good center. It's an extremely valuable asset in a league full of bad, bad, horrible centers. And now that he's cheap and signed long-term, plenty of teams in the league will want him <I>if he proves himself</I>. If he sucks, then it works out great for us anyway, but we're going on the presumption that he's likely to do decently well (otherwise the Rockets wouldn't have been interested). In that case, he'll be a tradable commodity. The only untradable players in the NBA are mediocre players with massive contracts, and even they can be traded if you try hard enough (Juwan Howard).
Can another team trade for Jackson, then turn around and move him to us? Problem is, that would be 90 days out, and we need someone now... Gatling.
That's why I hear all the disrespecting from the franchise and it's fans about him not being able to play D. You ain't innocent you know.....
And that's why we don't give a rat's ass. I'm not questioning St. Jean's mental capacity, or...or the management's competency...or anything like that, but lemme just say one, important, thing which is really the core of the whole debate: FREE AGENT: v an athlete eligible to play a professional sport who is free to sign a contract with any team --Webster's New World Dictionary Umm, I think the ****ing NBA should let a ****ing free agent be ****ing free. IMHO.
<B>Umm, I think the ****ing NBA should let a ****ing free agent be ****ing free. </B> Marc Jackson was not a free agent. He was a restricted free agent. Since you enjoy definitions, look up the definition of the "restricted" part and it will all make sense. The players AND owners agreed to this system, and with very good reason (to weaken the ability of players like Kevin Garnett to take advantage of a franchise and force them to sign a player for above market value).
Well, shanna, "restricted free-agent" is a bunch of ****. According to my trusty dictionary, "restricted" and "free" are oxymorons. Why do they call them free anymore, then? I'm a ****ing teenage NBA fan. I'm not some rules-cap-restrictions expert guru. So please, someone explain to me why a free-agent (like Jax), restricted or not, is unable to sign with a team that he wants to sign with? And I'm not talking about Kevin Garnett. I'm talking about Marc Jackson.
That right there is a huge pile of crap. Free Agency is a misnomer when it comes to restricted free agency---because the agent is never free. Houston signed him with full knowledge of what might happen...it's too late to cry about it now.
Still don't know what more we could have done beyond paying starks his full salary while he sat at home and watched Jerry Springer. Why don't you tell me? And AD seems pretty mad he didn't get to sign in Chicago, and E-Rob seems pretty content.
