2009 Golden State Warriors Off-Season Thread

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Matt Bonner for Stephen Jackson, straight up.

That sounds good to me.

Contracts don't match.

It would have to be Roger Mason, Matt Bonner, Michael Finley for Stephen Jackson.

Give us Tiago Splitter and you have a deal

This is exactly why it's bad that he spoke publicly about his desire to be traded. Who would want him at that price?

His contract is atrocious. I don't think many teams want to be paying a 35 year old Jackson $10 million in 2012/2013. So his value is already low to other teams.

Now he's demanding a trade.

So, to be clear . . . he's a disgruntled, thuggish has-been, who's on the wrong side of 30, and he's making way too much money until 2013 . . . now his public trade demand has further weakened GS's leverage in dealing him . . . what do you expect to get in return?

Are you insinuating that Roger Mason, Matt Bonner, Michael Finley, and Tiago Splitter are valuable? Because they're really not worth much at all.

Sorry, but Mason/Bonner/Finley/Splitter is a garbage package that won't get you any good players in the NBA. And the reality is, the real Warriors front office would never accept that measly offer.

Personally, I would. But my priority is simply getting rid of Jackson. Wheras the real Warriors front office would probably try to attain value for him.

There are at least 5 teams in the NBA who would take on Stephen Jackson for an expiring contract without even blinking.

Cleveland would trip over themselves to trade Zydrunas for Jackson and filler. Another 20 point scorer who can play defense would make them that much better.

PG Mo Williams
SG Stephen Jackson
SF Lebron James
PF Anderson Varejao
C Shaq

Bench: Anthony Parker/Jamario Moon/Delonte West/JJ Hickson/Leon Powe/Danny Green

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Matt Bonner for Stephen Jackson, straight up.

That sounds good to me.

Contracts don't match.

It would have to be Roger Mason, Matt Bonner, Michael Finley for Stephen Jackson.

Give us Tiago Splitter and you have a deal

This is exactly why it's bad that he spoke publicly about his desire to be traded. Who would want him at that price?

His contract is atrocious. I don't think many teams want to be paying a 35 year old Jackson $10 million in 2012/2013. So his value is already low to other teams.

Now he's demanding a trade.

So, to be clear . . . he's a disgruntled, thuggish has-been, who's on the wrong side of 30, and he's making way too much money until 2013 . . . now his public trade demand has further weakened GS's leverage in dealing him . . . what do you expect to get in return?

Are you insinuating that Roger Mason, Matt Bonner, Michael Finley, and Tiago Splitter are valuable? Because they're really not worth much at all.

Sorry, but Mason/Bonner/Finley/Splitter is a garbage package that won't get you any good players in the NBA. And the reality is, the real Warriors front office would never accept that measly offer.

Personally, I would. But my priority is simply getting rid of Jackson. Wheras the real Warriors front office would probably try to attain value for him.

No way any team in their right mind would give up a Mason/Bonner/Finley/Splitter package for Stephen Jackson. Because he's garbage.

And you call yourself a Spurs fan. GTFO.

Why don't you go rewatch the 2003 playoffs.

The Spurs don't win s**t that year without Jackson.

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Matt Bonner for Stephen Jackson, straight up.

That sounds good to me.

Contracts don't match.

It would have to be Roger Mason, Matt Bonner, Michael Finley for Stephen Jackson.

Give us Tiago Splitter and you have a deal

This is exactly why it's bad that he spoke publicly about his desire to be traded. Who would want him at that price?

His contract is atrocious. I don't think many teams want to be paying a 35 year old Jackson $10 million in 2012/2013. So his value is already low to other teams.

Now he's demanding a trade.

So, to be clear . . . he's a disgruntled, thuggish has-been, who's on the wrong side of 30, and he's making way too much money until 2013 . . . now his public trade demand has further weakened GS's leverage in dealing him . . . what do you expect to get in return?

Are you insinuating that Roger Mason, Matt Bonner, Michael Finley, and Tiago Splitter are valuable? Because they're really not worth much at all.

Sorry, but Mason/Bonner/Finley/Splitter is a garbage package that won't get you any good players in the NBA. And the reality is, the real Warriors front office would never accept that measly offer.

Personally, I would. But my priority is simply getting rid of Jackson. Wheras the real Warriors front office would probably try to attain value for him.

No way any team in their right mind would give up a Mason/Bonner/Finley/Splitter package for Stephen Jackson. Because he's garbage.

And you call yourself a Spurs fan.

Why don't you go rewatch the 2003 playoffs.

The Spurs don't win s**t that year without Jackson.

2003 . . . key word.

Right. And he's better now than he was in 2003.

Honestly, when's the last time you even watched him play?

Jackson on the Spurs would be the team's FIFTH option offensively behind Manu/Parker/RJ/Duncan. He would be a monster on that team coming off the bench. A monster.

He would be what Roger Mason was for the Spurs last year X ONE MILLION.

On the Warriors, he was their first scoring option and he was expected to create offense for the whole team, and so naturally he shot a poor percentage while turning over the ball too often (he's not a point guard).

The Spurs would easily win the championship next year with Stephen Jackson coming off the bench.

Originally posted by dobophile:
You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that Jackson will be less-than-garbage the final two seasons of his contract . . . and he'll be making $10 million per season.

Who wants that? GS better be prepared to accept crap in exchange.

Mason/Bonner/Finley (all expiring contracts) > Stephen Jackson

If Splitter's rights are added to that deal, GS would absolutely own that trade.

First of all....You're a team contending for the championship and you're worrying about cap room. Are you serious?

It's not like you'll be able to use the cap room from Mason/Bonner/Finley to sign a big free agent. The Spurs with all that capspace would still have virtually NO caproom next year at $53.5 million.

Second of all, it's not like you need the caproom to sign any promising young players. The only promising young player on the Spurs is George Hill and he won't cost much.

Third, you're paying Richard Jefferson $15 million this year and next year, and you're complaining about Stephen Jackson's contract?

Stephen Jackson should have never left San Antonio. He was a great fit there.

go to 2:00 min to watch Jackson's clutchness

Mavs interested in Jack and Monta?

Originally posted by NorCaL9er:
Mavs interested in Jack and Monta?

link?

W's sign Mikki Moore to a 1 year, 1.3 mil deal...


great move imo

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4433788

also

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=13708

mav's interested in monta jax but rumored deal is...

JAX / CLAXTON FOR J. HOWARD SHAWNE WILLIAMS

DO ITTTTTTTTT

SMH..

From that same article

Quote:
Steven Jackson And The Warriors: The Golden State Warriors deny it, they deny it regularly, but more and more people close to the situation say the Golden State Warriors are going to be sold and that owner Chris Cohan's taste for the financial losses has come to an end.

Please God make this happen....

That Mikki Moore signing might be the best move of our off-season.

We reached on draft day picking Stephen Curry, refused to trade him for Amare Stoudemire, got rid of Marco Belinelli for nothing, traded for Devean George, refused to trade CJ Watson for a first round pick.....am I missing anything?

Originally posted by crzy:
That Mikki Moore signing might be the best move of our off-season.

We reached on draft day picking Stephen Curry, refused to trade him for Amare Stoudemire, got rid of Marco Belinelli for nothing, traded for Devean George, refused to trade CJ Watson for a first round pick.....am I missing anything?

I forgot the Jamal Crawful trade. That was our best move by far.

Jackson cited his age (31) and a desire to compete for another NBA championships (he was with the Spurs during their 2003 NBA championship run). Jackson mentioned the Cavaliers and any of the Texas teams as suitable destinations in his mind and that he did not expect to be back with the Warriors.

The Cavaliers were quick to distance themselves from Jackson, citing his remaining four contract years and some $35.25 million remaining on his deal. His $8.4 million 2010 salary makes him one of the most unattractive options for teams looking at 2010 cap space – the Cavaliers are one of them, as are the Rockets.

I know this is older news but damn....Look..I like Stak Jack but WTF!? These freakin athletes are pissing me off man. They sign contracts.. BIG TIME money any of us would die for and they act like little b***h*s. Hey if this is your career THINK ABOUT YOUR MOVE before you commit. C'mon can any of us go to work and be like..Hey I am making millions but I am unhappy..I want to go to a better city and work because I want kudos (championship in his case). It has been going on forever but DAMN!! Same situation with Crabtree..young rookie coming in demanding all kinds of cash that he HASN'T showed he is worth and would disrupt the whole scheme of the NFL signing process. These fools have it made and act like little b***h*s...man I am done. Do you all feel me??

Shouldn't this be in the Warriors thread?