Or, with the emergence of Griffin & the renewed attitude of Cato, do we still want him? It seems that, as would be expected, GS isn't getting the kinds of offers they were hoping for from the 3 teams that Jackson has approved of & might just wait until they can negotiate with every team. With him not getting any PT to speak of, he's definitely going to have a lot of rust to work off. Would you want him & what would you be willing to give up for him? http://www.contracostatimes.com/sports/stories_front/warriorsnotes_20020124.htm St. Jean still mum on Jackson trade front But the Warriors GM has several possible scenarios available NOTEBOOK OAKLAND -- Maybe by the time you read this, Warriors forward Marc Jackson will be on his way to Memphis, Orlando or Indiana. While those options remain viable, there also is a possibility Jackson could remain a Warrior for the rest of the season and into October. Warriors general manager Garry St. Jean refused to comment about Jackson's situation, but he made it clear recently what he makes clear regarding all trade talk: He's not going to make a bad deal, and he's not going to make a deal for the sake of making a deal. Jackson signed a six-year, $24.375 million offer sheet with the Houston Rockets last October. The Warriors matched that offer, thereby retaining his services. But Jackson has made it clear he doesn't want to play for the Warriors. And the Warriors have said they are trying to accommodate him. Under the rules of the collective bargaining agreement, Jackson has the right to veto any trade until the one-year anniversary of his contract signing -- Oct. 19. Jackson has told St. Jean he would be willing to play for the aforementioned three teams. But if St. Jean thinks he'll be able to find a better deal for the Warriors come October -- when he'd have every other team in the league to potentially deal with -- he might just want to hold onto Jackson until then. While St. Jean didn't intimate he was leaning in that direction, he did acknowledge it as a possible scenario. Heading into Wednesday's game against the Grizzlies, Jackson hadn't played in the past five games. But St. Jean said he didn't believe Jackson's not playing was hurting his trade value.
The Warriors can't trade Jackson to the Rockets until October, 2002, one year from his signing date, per NBA rules. So no, there's no chance of him coming.
Well, would you want him in October 2002? I don't think I'd want him then. It's one thing to spend cap space to get him; it's quite another to give up talent in trade in addition to giving up cap space. The guy has only played less than a season in the league. He's too much of a gamble to spend too much on. No wonder GS in having trouble finding good offers.
You didn't read the whole post did you? The article states that, they might wait until October to trade him, so they can negotiate with everyone, including the Rockets.
JuanValdez, One thing that I keep reading in various articles is that GS wants a #1 draft pick in the deal. I would also assume that they are trying to piggyback a bad contract in the deal, but that's just an assumption. If they were willing, would you give them the Toronto #1 pick, along with KT/Collier or some other comparable package of players, or would he be worth that? By the way, when's the trade checker going to be back up at RealGM? I'm lost without it.
Looks like St Jean is calling M Jax's bluff by telling him that he may not trade him. He probably wants Jackson to be more open as far as the list of teams he would accept a trade to. There is no way that St Jean is stashing Jackson on the end of the bench if he is going to keep him. Didnt he say the other day that Jackson isnt playing because "im going to play the guys who are going to be here" Im not sure what they want for him but I'd swap some of the crappy contracts that we have for his contract in a NY Minute
I don't think Jackson is worth Kenny Thomas. We know that Jackson could score and that he was ok on the boards, but he wasn't exactly being praised for the rest of his game. Plus, there's a possibility that Jackson's rookie season was a one-hit wonder (a la Adrian Griffin) -- a performance not to be repeated once the league knows they will have to bother defending him. Add to that Jackson's 6-year contract which can make him an albatross if he doesn't pan out. Kenny Thomas is a known commodity and a solid rotation player and in a friendly cap situation. So, I'd rather the Rockets didn't take that risk.
The way you put it in your commentary was that it would be something the team would look at now. And yet, would the Rockets even want him? I bet many other teams could put together better packages for Jackson than the Rocks...something other than the endless drivel that we see here all too often.
Jackson is paid over 3 mil a year to sit on his a@@. He also has a trade veto clause. I do not seeing GS having leverage with him (they can't stop his checks) or any other non-completely desperate team this year. They certainly are not going to get a #1--unless it is like the Toronto one that is a very, very, late #1 (perhaps less valuable than say a 2nd rounder from the Bulls would be). The only way they get a better pick than that is if it is compensation for them taking a completely trashy player/contract situation (Shandon/Rice type situation). I don't know about Kenny for MJ, unless it was a 3 way (GS has Jamison, Forston, and Murphy for 2 forward spots and JR can also play SF). Besides if Kenny doesn't stay with us long term he should go to the East where he could be a fairly effective starter. If GS could get a real PG out of it then it might make more sense.
Sorry, about not being clearer. I agree with you on the point of someone else being able to make a better offer, but JuanValdez made a good point in his post just before your's. Just like most teams were reluctant to make him an offer during the off season (partially because GS could match it & partially because he might be a one year wonder), they might not be willing to give up a high #1, take on trade fodder, or give up a solid starter either. If that's the case, then we could still be in the running, assuming we still want him.
