Jim Jackson a Rocket? OOooo hell ya!!!!!! I have always been a fan of Jim Jacksons game. He is strong and provides another capable post player and he plays a very good overall game. Wahoooooooooo!
Toyota doesn't really have any ties to Houston. Toyota is not going to be pouring any money back into Houston in any significant way. Toyota does, however, have designs on becoming the largest auto seller in China. Now let look at a few other team arenas: American Airlines - largest hub is in Dallas United Center - largest hub in Chicago Delta Center - has a major hub in Salt Lake Fleet Center - Boston based bank Conseco Fieldhouse - based in Carmel, Indiana Target Center - Minnesota based SBC Center - San Antonio based Hell, even Toronto has Air Canada. In fact Toronto appropriately has the only non-US company sponsor - other than the Rockets.
Sorry, I'm kind of confused now, for how long did we sign Jim Jackson? Just one year? At that price, I would like a two-year deal .
i like this trade. i really think jackson can help us. and we pay less. it is a good deal. a first round pick wil not be that valuable if we make the play offs. But i feel sorry for Nachbar. i like it if Jackson wil be our starting 3. and i hope we do not trade mobley foor some scrub. i hope we keep him. (ok maybe if we can get JO i want the trade but i do not see that happen)
As it stands now I don't like it, but I'll hold judgement to see what we do with the trade exception. Jim Jackson is a nice player but he has a history of not being popular in the room. Hopefully his age/experience has improved that.
Dude, who the hell cares? You really absolutely must have a sponsor that "pours money back into Houston"? What the hell? The fact that Toyota is pouring money into the Rockets coffer doesn't help Houston? And what, are you under the impression that Les gave Toyota a discount because they're Asian? In what strange economic world would that make sense? Is Les secretly hoping that Toyota will advertise for the Rockets...? I think it's pretty safe to say that Toyota offered the most money, period. And as long as that's the case.. well, hell, why does the rest of it matter?
Interesting posts in the Kings forum. Here's the link for those that are interested: Jim Jackson to the Rockets??? http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12685
Van Gundy said he thinks there are players who are winners, and players who are not in the leauge. I bet he considers Jackson one of the winners. I like Jackson on the team better than Rice. Lets assume even if Les has an alterior motive ($$), still the team improved. It does not bother me that we are under the cap.....some people seem to think that any team under the cap has an owner who is a cheap-skate. Probably not true. Does Les have any history as to making deals soley for money saving?
What a waist of a segment. Keep the ball in Francis hands and don't reactivate Ewing. Hmmm. Verry insightfull.
I honestly don't get the argument that, short of another move, this is anything but a terrible move for the Rockets. Rice's contract had value...for the first time. Even if we weren't going to use it, other teams would give up value to free up space for the upcoming offseason. There was no need to rush this, as many of these kinds of moves aren't made till during the season. There was no need to rush moving Rice and getting poor value back, let alone adding a longer ( albeit smaller) bad contract...unless A) We needed the space to make another move ( better than Jackson) or B) We just wanted to save cash, and damn the basketball side of things. A first round pick has significant value. What is more, unless it's a perpetual Rockets' option, Jerry West will tell you that trading a first round pick can come back to haunt you...and we did this for what, exactly? Again, unless there was an immediate and significant need for the space ( ie another move) then this was imeasurably bad value. And that doesn't account for the " future considerations"... Taking on Ameche is a negative, not a positive. Bad deals are an odd thing in the NBA: they hurt you every year up till their expiration, and then they have cap value. So we took all the gristle out of Rice, and gave Utah the beef...and got back more gristle, with less eventual beef. Getting Jackson does not justify these moves. If you want to argue that Jackson>Rice, I agree. I think it can be argued that, for this team, Rice's prime asset ( outside shooting) is a more valued commodity than Jackson's game if both are looked at as role players, but as starters I would rather have Jackson, although neither makes my mouth water. Add in Rice's cap value, and it's at best even. Add in the 1st round pick, and the fact that we now have Ameche taking up a roster spot/cap space, and this move stinks. I think we'll all forgive that if this is made for the sake of allowing another move....if we use the one thing we got out of this, short term cap space. If we don't, this move really $uck$ with a capital $. ( Sorry for the repeat, but the two threads are sort of overlapping)
For those of you thinking this was a good trade ... Jimmy Jackson was NOT part of the trade. And ... Okay, this trade REALLY bites. We give up a lotto protected 2004 1st rounder, drew obligation from Chitown, AND the 2nd rounder we recieve is from the Kings. http://www.nba.com/jazz/news/amaechi_093003.html Amaechi Salt Lake City – Utah Jazz Sr. Vice President of Basketball Operations, Kevin O’Connor announced today that the Utah Jazz traded center John Amaechi and a second round draft pick (received from Sacramento in the Keon Clark trade) to the Houston Rockets for small forward Glen Rice and Houston’s first round draft pick in 2004. The pick is protected to within lottery range. Additionally, Houston gives the Jazz a conditional first round pick in 2004, acquired by the Rockets from Chicago in 2000. If Chicago retains the pick then the Jazz will receive two second round picks from Chicago, one in 2005 and 2006. Utah also receives additional consideration from Houston. __________________
I disagree that Rice's outside shooting is a more valued commodity than Jackson's well rounded game. That might be true if Jackson had no outside game at all, but he is capable of hitting the long ball. It's all speculation but I believe that Jackson will also be available for more games than Rice. Jackson can play hardnosed defense and isn't the liability that Rice is on that end of the floor. I wasn't that hot on Rice's outside shooting anyway. He was streaky in the past couple of season. I don't like playing him each night and hoping that it was going to be a good one for him. With Jackson at least he's not a liability if his shooting touch is off a particular night because he can help in other ways. I do agree that our team was never better than when Rice or someone was hitting on all cylinders from beyond the arc. The spacing, ball movement, and over all offense was much more fluid on those nights, so I do agree that is something that we need. But it's not the only thing we need. We also need better perimeter defense, someone besides Francis who is willing to put the effort into the games and leave it all out on the floor night after night. But with a redesigned offense, and someone who will be more consistent at their game, even if it isn't a pure shooter's skills set, we will be better off. I think with Jackson we get that. If we end up with something more or that there are more deals in the works that could be great too, but I believe that already we are a better team than we were last year because of these deals. The free-agent market and what draft pick we ended up with had we held our pick and lost Rice's contract are a risk. It's too uncertain. I'm glad that we went with the certainty of making the team better now.
AHHHHHHH! Not one but two firts rounders or 1 firts rounder plus 2 second rounders!!!! WTF! The second rounder that we get in return is a Sac 2nd rounder! What the hell is CD thinking!!!! There had damn sure be something big around the corner.
