it's not enough time to judge a guy, but three wins in a row (albeit, playing on a dang good team, he had very little playing time this season due to GSW incompetence), time versus the top 2 centers/power forwards in a couple of game. Good for him. Hope Cato's ankles get better in the off season, or I'm going to have to really start hating Golden State. Imagine if GSW hadn't matched and we could have cut Collier... versus San Antonio 21 minutes 4-6 5 boards 1 steal 2 TO 5 PF versus Charlotte 22 minutes 1-8 12 boards 2 steals 1 block 1 TO 1 PF versus LAL, played signficant minutes against shaq, shaq had an average shaq game with 27 points, 8 rebounds 26 minutes 5-9 4 boards 2 turnovers 4 PF 12 points
also, Minnesota was doing ok versus San Antonio or the Los Angeles Lakers without Marc Jackson earlier this season. 1-1 versus SA 1-1 versus LAL with blowout losses to both teams. Now if Minnesota can do this to Dallas and Sacramento, maybe they have a chance at the title.
Meanwhile, here are his numbers for March: 8 games, 16.5 minutes/game, 4.9 ppg (on 37.1 FG%), 4.25 rebs./gm, 0.25 blocks/game, 0.25 assists/game, 1.25 TOs/game (assist/TO ratio of 1:5 ). He had the same pattern in the games he played for Golden State when Dampier was hurt: good first few games, then s--t thereafter. It's mind-boggling why the Warriors didn't play him more to boost his trade value. If they had played him more, *no one* would have taken his contract . . .
An update of Marc Jackson's numbers for March: 13 games, 17.3 minutes/game, 4.1 ppg (on 34.0 FG%), 3.7 rebs./gm, 0.15 blocks/game, 0.23 assists/game, 0.85 TOs/game. In 21 minutes against his old team tonight, 4 points on 1-3 shooting from the field, and 4 rebounds ... a total f--king nonfactor. Meanwhile, Erick Dampier came off the Warriors' bench to score 15 points on 7-8 shooting. If he's like this next year, people will start reclassifying that trade as a steal for the Warriors ("You dumped that guy's 6-year contract for nothing? Amazing!").
yup - its amazing how many trades, which at first look like a steal for team A, and end up being completely the opposite.
Wait...weren't you the one who argued that the only reason G.State matched the contract in the first place was so that they could get something in return. Now you have to bring up his relatively poor play since his trade to feel somewhat vindicated about signing him in the first place. It is a wierd world indeed.
Marc Jackson sucks, we should all be happy we didn't get stuck with him. Cato time baby...Believe it.
He's getting just over 16 minutes a game, what do you want him to do, average 20 and 10 like he did when he was getting 35 a game in GS? Let's be realistic. Jackson has proven he can produce when given minutes.
I agree, but I have to wonder why he's not getting many minutes. Maybe, we can get him for the Toronto #1 pick that's owed to us, after the one year restriction period. Assuming of course, we don't get Toronto's pick this year.
Well I was one of the more vocal Anti-Jackson posters and I must say the guy hasn't proven much during his NBA career. He had like 1-2 good months, and then he got injured and was never heard from again...
He wants the ball though. I'd rather just have Cato and perhaps another scrub C playing who don't command the ball. Then the shots will stay on the perimeter where they belong for this team.
OT: That trade has wash written all over it. No trade is a bad trade for Dallas because they don't give a **** about money issues and Denver will hopefully be able to get some relief dumping Juwan's contract.
I guess I should be clear about this. Getting something in return was the primary reason they matched the offer (a lesser reason was to provide injury insurance for Dampier/Foyle/Fortson), and obviously GS failed in that goal. So Jackson's poor play doesn't "vindicate" them in that sense. But it does answer the questions, posed occasionally on this BBS, about "Why did GS match the offer if they weren't going to play him," "Why don't they play him to boost his trade value," "Why is the Warriors' best center sitting on the bench," etc. He didn't play more because it wouldn't have helped him or the team, period. Also, look at it this way: The only way things could have turned out worse for the Warriors would have been if, on top of everything else, they got stuck with a nonproductive player with a 6-year contract. Trading a player with a long-term deal for an expiring contract is NOT easy to do in this luxury-tax era. If Jackson plays the rest of the season the way he has so far in March, I think it's a lock that Minnesota won't be able to unload him that easily in the summer.
Well, Kevin Garnett, Gary Trent and Joe Smith seem like pretty good reasons. There is a lot of depth in the trenches there.
