10/12-JACKSON GETTING HOSED?- ESPN's David Aldridge suggests the Warriors may indeed match the offer sheet to Marc Jackson, despite Jackson's repeated pleas for the team to simply let him "be happy" and ink a deal with the Houston Rockets and good friend Cuttino Mobley. The talk around Golden State has been that the team was not looking at moving anyone, meaning they could not reasonably match Jackson and stay under the Luxury tax, and keep everyone in the rotation happy. There has been a constant rumor that the Warriors would rather lose Adonal Foyle than lose Jackson, and have been trying to move Foyle to the Knicks and the Nuggets to make room for Jackson in the rotation, but neither deal seems to make the room cap wise. The Warriors have 4 more days to make a decision, and as reported, they plan to use every one of them.
The Knicks didn't get the exception. What will Denver give the Warriors? I really REALLY don't think the Warriors will match the offer. how good is an unhappy player to team chemistry? You think that if jackson doesn't WANT to play there, that he'd give 100% on the floor? When his team didn't need him, and could've very easily made him a happy man? New York aren't gonna trade Ward. Denver don't have anything the Warriors want that matches any of their big mens' salaries. Jackson is ours. Plain and simple. I'd be shocked out of my head if we lost him.
If this is true, somebody is smoking crack at the GSW offices. Why would you want to trade Foyle, a guy who fits in with the team and likes being there and keep someone who doesn't want to be there under a long term contract? Especially the way they have been jerking him around all summer, and painting him as someone with a bad attitude and ripping on his defensive skills?
If I were GSW, I'd have matched the offer already and kept him. If the offer was matched, Jackson would know the only way out would be through a trade. Given that there is some uncertainty as to whether last season's performance was a fluke, he'll have to play at least $3.25 million worth for another team to make the investment of a matching salary player AND his cap-hit for 6 years. So, he'll have to play hard. If he sits out, other teams will see him as a discontent and he'll be stuck in GS forever. And, if it turns out the Jackson and GS are stuck with each other -- 6 years is a long time to be angry. He'd have to learn to cope and be happy where he was to avoid choking his coach.
Actually, choking his coach turned out to be a great career move for Spree. Jackson might think about doing the same thing, if necessary.
They may look at him as a malcontent, but Golden State would be stuck with him the same way we're stuck with Cato. If Golden State matches the offer he's stuck there anyway. He couldn't be traded for 3 months. If he isn't happy, and playing hard doesn't get him out of there, what stops him from pulling a Kelvin Cato and just collecting his money? I'm not saying he would do that, but it wouldn't make any sense for the Warriors to take a chance on that with so many long-term guaranteed contracts on their roster. Trust me 6 years is a long time to be angry when you know that management screwed around with you and talked about you behind your back, forced you to stay when you wanted to play somewhere else, and the team is losing.
I think the most significant problems for GS keeping Jackson is team chemistry and cap room they apparently need to keep Hughes. I don't think trading him six months down the line is that much of a problem. Shoot, if we hadn't tendered an offer, I bet the Rockets would be up for that (before everyone jumps in, yes, I know Jackson can't be traded to the Rockets for a year). There may be issues getting what they want for him, but if Cato is tradeable (and I bet he is even if not for much), you know Jackson is. Ultimately, though, can GS afford to keep Jackson when neither he nor any of his teammates will be happy about it? Without a good idea what they're going to do with him, I wouldn't bank on it. I'm with the people that aren't putting much stock in Aldredge. However, the assertion is kind of consistent with GS's reluctance to part with Jackson. I can't believe it's something as silly as just making sure no one gets injured in the remaining days left.
I can't see GS matching unless one of their big men goes down with an injury in the next few days. Here's a few reason's I don't buy the "trade Foyle" idea. - As CP/HP has pointed out in other threads, if GS matches Jackson's offer, then they will be raising their payroll by at least $3.2M. Even if they turn around and trade Foyle, they'll still have to take back around $3M in salary for Foyle. So, it's not just a matter of replacing Foyle with Jackson. It's really a matter of replacing Foyle with Jackson and somebody you receive in a trade and increasing the payroll by at least $3.2M. -Foyle is a partial BYC player, so even though Foyle makes $4.4M, his trade value to the Warriors is $3.3M. That means that the team that he gets traded to would have to have cap space or an exception. - Too many things can go wrong in a scenario where GS matches and then gets Jackson to agree to a trade in 90 days. Jackson could get hurt or play badly and kill his trade value or he could be unhappy and kill team chemistry.
Relativist, If your team had as many injuries the last two seasons as the Warriors, it wouldn't seem so silly. The injury problems the Rockets have had this training camp? Imagine that going on nonstop for two years. Then tell me you wouldn't be a little paranoid about someone getting hurt going into the next training camp. aelliott, Your last two points are solid, but on the first one I'd point out that the Warriors aren't in luxury-tax danger until 2002-03 ... so if they could trade Foyle (or a similarly priced player) for someone like Voshon Lenard or Walt Williams, whose contract expires next summer, GS could match Jackson's offer sheet and still have a great deal of flexibility in re-signing Larry Hughes or any other FA.
Swopa, you, as a Warriors fan, do you WANT Marc Jackson back? With Dampier, Foyle (at least for now), Fortson, Jamison, and Troy Murphy already there? Do you really think Jamison will be ok with a whole season at the 3 when his breakout season was at the 4? He's gonna want time there. He deserves it. Troy Murphy looks impressive, do you think playing less than 10 minutes a game on a non-playoff team (personal opinion) would do much for him? It seems to me, the best thing for the Warriors to do is let jackson go, AND trade Foyle (and maybe some throw-ins) for maybe Kevin Willis and Voshon Lenard? I think both their contracts are expiring, and Wills won't demand much time, and Lenard brings experience and good shooting to the team. You know the Warriors better than I do, but it seems like you'd be better off without M-Jax, the unhappy Warrior.
Swopa, My point wasn't solely based on luxury tax. It's more an observation that it isn't as simple as keeping Jackson for less money than Foyle. If you keep Jackson, then you've got to also take on extra salary that will come in return for Foyle. Since, Foyle is a partial BYC player, you're looking at getting a player in the $3.3M range. Most likely your not going to get too much value there. If a team has a valuable player making $3M, then they probably won't be willing to give up a bargain like that for Foyle. More likely you'd get a guy that's over paid. My guess is that GS is will stick with Foyle and their current payroll instead of Jackson, a $3.3M player and an increased payroll.
