What would you think of a trade like that? They make almost the same money. We need a guard and he wants to be traded. They have a need for defense and we need offense. The trade works straight up and he wants to come to Texas. We have a starting Sf in Ariza already and he could fill Battiers role. He could keep us in the playoff running while Battier adds depth to the other team and the kind of veteran replacement they might like. It is the perfect trade off. We need toughness and he brings it. They need leadership and Battier has it. We already have Scola a good leader and Tmac. We could have potentialy Tmac, Jackson, Yao, Scola, and Brooks all starting when everyone is healthy. So tell me why isnt this the perfect move for a guy coming off of two back to back 20 point seasons who could immediately carry us until Tmac comes back and then hel p us be immediate contenders when Yao comes back next year?
Yeah even still. Wouldnt Stephen Jackson imediately improve us over Battier? Not only that but give us a go to guy? The trade works straight up Battier for Jackson.
No matter what people think of him we just had Ron Artest in here and here are his numbers.Stephen Jackson #1 SF» 2008-09 STATS PPG RPG APG 20.7 5.1 6.5 Better than Tmac and Artests last year here.
It's not the idea that is that bad, but it has been BEATEN to death. Come back when you have an original idea. We have had this discussion several times already.
I think the Rockets would feel too bad, sending Battier to GS... And Stephen Jackson developed those stats on a scrub, non-contending team. He also played a lot of minutes I believe. Battier creates balance and leadership for us ~~ Two qualities that are hard to come by nowadays. Winning basketball games isn't all about having numbers. This trade would be not one, but 2-3 steps backwards. No thanks.
I'm all for swapping a proven loser like Battier for a proven winner like Jackson, but how about we stick to discussing trades the other team might consider.
S. Jackson could be useful on a contending team,not for us. He showed real leadership against the Mavs despite being a volume scorer when GS knocked them out.
You know its one thing to have opinions and another to constantly berate our players because you don't like them.
Stephen Jackson could be useful for us when Yao comes back and Tmac resigns. Then you have Yao, Scola, Tmac, Jackson, Brooks, Ariza, Landry, Lowry, Pops, and Mc Cants. How anybody can tell me we woudnt be a contender for the title. i would like them to explain. The only argument would be injuries again. If Yao and Tmac were limited and they could be with all of that depth the chances of them getting injured on a team so much deeper with a guy like Andersen even potentially panning out just went down significantly. We could literally ride our depth to the playoffs before we start to play Yao and Tmac alot of minutes. There is no reasoning in anyones mind that could say we would be worse off with Jackson when we just went farther than ever with Artest on the team. if we wanted we could throw in Taylor or Budinger in the trade to make it work if they wanted more and they surely would do it.
I think they would rather have Landry... Landry+Cook etc. But again, this has been discussed NUMEROUS times...
I apologize. I should have been more clear. When I say "proven winner", I mean "somebody who's actually won something". When I say "proven loser", I mean "somebody who's never won anything". Again, sorry for the confusion.
