He would be an upgrade, warts and all. You CAN'T downplay him helping get the Bobcats into the playoffs. His contract is fair value considering his production, though it still might turn a few teams off since he's prone to get himself into trouble. Jackson's a leader type (They don't call him Captain Jack for nothing) though I dont think he should be THE leader of a team. He'd actually be better WITH Shane Battier around him. I'd be intrigued enough at the trade deadline about his availability.
Stephen Jackson is off his rocker and really one of the craziest people in the NBA...with that said, i'd soo be down!! huuuuuuge fan of the Captain. the man does it all. shoot, defend, rebound, hustle, an under rated play maker and passer and above all, plays with heart. sure, from time to time he gets booted from a game and what not, but that's what I love about Stephen.
lol fail. stephen jackson is the ultimate hustle guy. the only reason he might not play defense is if he's pissed off at a ref or something for a no call on the other end.
I would like Sjax to start along brooks and let Kmart be the 6th man. We need more defense and swapping battier for sjax wont improve anything defensivelly.
Offensively, he blows Battier out of the water, which will allow them to space the floor and spread the wealth. Battier's completely ineffective off the dribble, and he hasn't shown much confidence in the spot-up 3, which used to be his staple. Steve Jack would ease the burden on Martin, and he would force teams to play him honest because he's so versatile and a legitimate 20+ ppg threat. This would hopefully prevent us from chucking (Brooks, Martin) or pushing the issue, which facilitates the break on the other end. Ultimately, it wouldn't be a drastic change on the defensive end, but that issue needs to be resolved in other areas. This seems like a well-rounded, competitive lineup that could do damage in the West: Kyle Lowry Kevin Martin Stephen Jackson Luis Scola Jordan Hill
I love jack especially when he was playing for gs. He would be a good addition to the team..Plus he's a hometown guy..port arthur isnt but 90 mins away
Charlotte made the playoffs and was nowhere close until the trade. I didn't say I would trade for him, but the fact is he's a leader in his own way that produces and get teammates to follow him. GSW? Playoffs, defeated the 1 seed. Indy? Where have they been since trading him? Charlotte? They won 43 games which seems like a long shot before they trade.
Brooks is the one that needs to go. And I'll bet 50 cents in the tip jar that he's not a Rocket-- and that this team is significantly better because of it-- by the trade deadline... As far as Stephen Jackson is concerned, I have very mixed feelings. As he is currently 32 years old it's reasonable to assume that his performance will only decrease with each successive year. Plus, I believe that he's as talented as he is a head-case. He's like... a histrionic Tracy McGrady. And with that being said, I wonder how his presence on the squad would effect team chemistry.
where do we get the idea that sjax is a legit 20 point scorer? In this system, he'll be lucky to get 15. he's a career 42% shooter who doesn't get to the line all that frequently and is a mediocre 3p shooter. he's just someone who jacks up a lot of shots with low efficiency. his passing skills are mediocre, and his assist-to ratio is terrible. for a sf, his rebounding is also rather pedestrian. defensively he's pretty good, but giving up Battier+ for him is just pointless.
Jackson would be better for the Spurs than the Rockets. If your team legitimately has a shot at the title and is already over the cap then he is worth a shot. For a team without a legitimate superstar who is a borderline playoff team like the Rockets, I'm not sure if Jackson is worth it at his contract. The Rockets may have to blow it all up and Jackson would be dead weight.
Had a conversation with a friend about Stephen Jackson last week. He is a knucklehead, but he brings a mix of talents that we desperately need. We currently don't have someone who lives to take big shots, and we don't have anyone (outside of Miller?) who is considered an alpha dog around the league. For people citing his low shooting % and overall inefficiency as reasons to pass on him, you're not considering the impact that a "no BS" player can have on a team. For any reasonable package, I say pull the trigger.
Hate to burst the bubble, but the Rockets werent interested in him last time he was available and won't be this time either. Theres a reason Shane plays 40+ minutes a game, whether you guys choose to see it or not.
