You guys dont even evaulate the guys game before you come to your ridiculous judgment. Jamison a loser? Um, so was Chris Webber before he played in Adelman's system. We dont need him? That's ridiculous. He's better than Battier and would actually give us flexability when he slides over to PF. I'd take him on the Rockets because of his skillset, not because of who he played for previously.
Not saying I want Jamison on the team, but saying "he hasn't won anything" is ridiculous when the team only has 3 players that have won "anything of consequence", Battier, Ariza, and Scola.
LOL ...NO WAY ON EARTH WHO THE ROCKETS WANT JAMISON at 34, Scola is younger, better on offense and defense. and we have Patrick Patterson and chuck hayes as back ups.
even the trade machine tells you the trade benefits the cavs and not the rockets i think you are at the wrong forum /fail
dude this is the worst thread ever, so much so that i don't even care to read up to this point..but i'm sure it goes a little something like: - we already have scola/hill/jeffries etc. - jamison sucked after he left washington - you fail
<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/noooooooooooooooooooo" target="_blank"><img src="http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk275/shaybonham/noooooooooooooooooooo.jpg" border="0" alt="Father Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>
Jamison or someone else with a contract expiring in 2012 will be an option at the trade deadline if nothing else materializes. With the lockout in 11-12 looming, we won't be paying a good chunk of that deal, and if part of the 11-12 season is salvaged, that contract is a nice, fat expiring deal to use in a trade. Keep in mind, a contract that expires in 2011-2012 could become desired if we cannot make any other trades by the deadline. And we could do a lot worse than Jamison. After all, we would be giving up Jeffries and Battier. And if we could dump Andersen in this deal as well, we actually save a couple mill lux tax. Bailout trade only if nothing else materializes.
No. Well, let me think about it a second. No. There are certain players that you can say "Gee, good teams seem to follow that player around." Joe Morgan for example. Players like that simply make the teams they play for successful. Now look at Jamison's career. GSW, WAS, CLE (now). He is an albatross. No. No no no no no. No.
He is too old and too injury prone. Yes he gives us another threat on offense but i dont think he is worth the risk of getting an older player past his prime . I would rather have a younger guy that is more explosive. Jamison is getting slower year after year and has proved to have much less impact on a good team (the cavs). I would chase after a player like Gerald Wallace. He is a great defender who brings a ton of athleticism to the floor. Plus we would add another high fyler to a list that consists of just Ariza/Budinger. So the answer to the question is NO, we shouldnt try for Antwan Jamison.
