PDA

View Full Version : Pacers should not pay Jackson 40 mil over 6 yrs



Unclebuck
07-10-2004, 12:05 PM
That is what it will take to get Jackson and I think that is too much for too many years for him. He simply is not that good. Heck that is Croshere type money.

Ok I am joking about Croshere type money.

But do we really want Jackson to be the second highest paid player on the team for at least the next 4 years.

Roaming Gnome
07-10-2004, 12:14 PM
I'd agree...I'm just curious if we will be caught up in the frenzy of overpaying that is going on right now, or just shake the trees until the right guy comes out at the right price when all the craziness ends. Or, we could just end up doing a trade like mentioned at the start of the off season.


By the way, what happened to the instant reply that was at the bottom of the threads?

Hicks
07-10-2004, 12:17 PM
BRIAN CARDINAL is getting paid this much. It's not overspending to me. Especially if he's our starting 2. Using the MLE is not breaking the bank.

Hicks
07-10-2004, 12:18 PM
RG, instant reply is still here

Unclebuck
07-10-2004, 12:20 PM
In two years will Jackson be better than Fred Jones? I don't know, perhaps we should ask Suavenes, he might have an opinion

Hicks
07-10-2004, 12:31 PM
In two years, it will only BE those two. who cares which starts?

ChicagoJ
07-10-2004, 12:35 PM
But Fred will up for an extenion, and Suaveness thinks he's a "max" player. :devil:

I wouldn't give Stephen Jackson more than a two-year deal. He is not a long-term solution.

Can you imagine how many ulcers I'll go through with him turning the ball over for six seasons. It'll be like Herb Williams all over again. :mad:

zxc
07-10-2004, 12:40 PM
I agree too. I don't really like the thought of getting Jackson as a long term solution at the 2 and giving him that long of a deal here. But I guess we just don't have any other options. Still hoping we can trade for someone decent instead.. but no real big names left on the trading block that we can afford I guess.

Suaveness
07-10-2004, 12:47 PM
In two years will Jackson be better than Fred Jones? I don't know, perhaps we should ask Suavenes, he might have an opinion

Honestly, I couldn't tell you. I haven't seen enough of Jackson to give an opinion of him. I don't know what he brings to the table, but from what I hear it is shooting. Something of which Fred will eventually be able to do well, and he is getting better. And jackson is turnover prone, which Fred is not.

But Fred has only played 1 year essentially (since his first year he mostly watched), and he grew tremendously over the year. I want to see what Fred has improved on when the season begins. If he is showing that his shot is reliable, and the other aspects of his game have improved, then I have no doubt in my mind he will be better.


And Jay, OF COURSE he is a max player :devil:

Mourning
07-10-2004, 12:51 PM
Okay! than name 3 other SGs which would be long term solutions and aren't all-stars as of yet and ...
"available".

Jackson isn't old or anything and though he has made too many TOs why not assume that can be changed in Indy? It worked for Tins pretty well this year. He's got enough range in my book, he's tall, very decent defender, he's not injury prone as far as I know.

With the enormous amount of overpaying at the moment you will have to wonder if you actually CAN afford not too yourself at the cost of not beying competitive for a serious championship run.
Sure, we did very nice with the talent we got through trades and drafting, definitely, and I really HOPE Al could get us a decent SG, but without extra's added I don't think we will get what some here on this board expect us to get from other teams.

So, IF that doesnt get us what we need or we use Al's replacement to upgrade another position we will have to spend the MLE on Jackson and 4 or 5 years certainly would be "cool" with me.

Reggie will be off the books next year and Pollard is not too far away either that should again relieve or generous (not sarcastically meant!!!) owners somewhat.

Regards,

Mourning:cool:

J-Wont
07-10-2004, 01:02 PM
Wow, a 4th Straight-Outta-High Schooler on the Pacers..
What's not to be excited about Stephen Jackson?
The Pacer's improve their offense, defense, and bench if they can pick him up. Jax would be the Pacers #3 scorer and should get atleast 15 a game. You can also expect his FG% to rise since he'll actually have teammates to draw the focus of opposing teams defense off him. His defense is so much better than Reggie's it's almost laughable. He just makes us an ever better defensive team. Ron & Jax would be the best perimeter defensive duo in the league by a huge margin. He should also start at 2 which pushes Reggie to the bench and adds a lot of experience and scoring there, I'd try Fred as backup point guard. Jax also just 26 and has improved drastically every year he's been in the league, which shows me he has a strong work ethic which is a big plus. And last but not least, he's got big game experience and is clutch.
I think the MLE would end up being a huge steal for this guy.
And Fred Jones is nowhere near Jacksons level. We're comparing a 6'8" 220 shooting guard who averaged 18/5/3 and has won a ring to a 6'2" shooting guard who averaged what? 4-5 points a game? Come on people, get real....

able
07-10-2004, 01:05 PM
I agree with UB that Jackson is simply not worth that kind of money.

Are we completely forgetting that this guy did not get a contract back with the Spurs that was around 2.6 which he then would've signed? that he went to ATL for 1.1 ?
What has he done/improved the last year that he all of a sudden has a 5.6 mil starting salary value ?

Let others buy their own Cro contracts, we have a few and definitely no need to add to those, paying that much would add one rapidly.
For those thinking that his behaviour and to's will be better on the P's, face reality please: Pop was unable to stop it, he's no slouch coach, Brown was there as well, and it did not stop either. TO's. on that team, they did not have a particularly bad PG who threw the ball that bad :D
He DID play last year in Atl, but please remember he played on the Spurs the year before and they (despite having sufficient room) did NOT want to extend him for less then half of what you are now talking about.
Anyone gonna tell me next he's better then J-Rich? (trade, 2.6 mil. decent extension options, worth at least 5.6)
Sorry, but everything that comes even near the MLE is ridiculous for Jackson.

I'm starting to get annoyed by this trade for trade sake talk.
Terry is NO upgrade over Tins, no matter what some say, a great backup PG for us, but simply not the future Tins has, Jackson a throw in maybe, but again, not at that price.

I will post some ideas in a fresh thread, don't want to hijack this one.

ChicagoJ
07-10-2004, 01:18 PM
Okay! than name 3 other SGs which would be long term solutions and aren't all-stars as of yet and ...
"available".



Ginobolli *was* available very recently (although, admittedly, there was a high risk SA would match.)

Mobley *was* available for a trade just a few weeks ago (and could still be traded for, as we learned with Rasheed, if he's the only player coming here.)

There were two Richardson's available. And maybe Joe Johnson.

I'm sure DW and Bird have been trying, but our lack of a transaction isn't because there are no players available.

I still think Ray Allen and Paul Pierce are available if we're serious about improving.

I think we're trigger-shy.

Mourning
07-10-2004, 01:30 PM
Sorry, but if thats the case what exactly has Jason Richardson shown, besides beying a great dunker. I mean I like the guy, but some of you are talking about Jackson as if he is some 24th rate SG. Take a look at who were offered deals so far this post season and tell me they were all worth it.
Jackson IS a quality SG that should be within our reach and Jones, I like him too, he's going to get a lot better, but come on its not like he's a new Ray Allen here, he will be on par with Jackson in the future in the best case (with less TO's, but without the length advantage and we don't know if he will be able to shoot the ball as good as Jackson ... consistantly). So, why waite for Jones to develop into somekind of savior that he might never become, while our young players grow older, other teams get better and our "window of opportunity" closes? Sorry, I just don't get it. What's wrong with getting Jackson long term?

Regards,

Mourning:cool:

bulletproof
07-10-2004, 01:35 PM
I was going to start a new thread about this, but has anyone here ever heard of a thing called viral marketing?

I'll get back to that in a moment, but first I want to address something able said in another thread that was quickly dismissed by Hicks. In effect, he said, "J-Rich has still not appeared on any radar screen, nor have the Pacers. Coincidence?"

Now what does this have to do with viral marketing? Well, first let me say, all companies do this now because of the viral nature of the internet. Make no mistake, the Pacers have people within the organization who frequent these boards, especially the IndyStar board. That said, you have a guy like DD00 get on there and allude to a trade that you should "trust him on." Before you know it, this trade rumor spreads like wildfire, i.e. a virus. Call it a smokescreen, if you will.

Meanwhile, what happened to all the talk about Damp getting $10 mil. a year? My point is, I wouldn't put it past Donnie and Larry to create a smokescreen to keep teams and fans distracted while they negotiate a backdoor deal, something no one sees coming.

Mullen and Bird go way back, it only makes sense that these two have talked in recent weeks. And trust me, the subject of Damp and J-Rich has come up. If we entertained the thought of getting Shaq, we've seriously looked at getting Damp back here. Moreover, GMs like to deal with GMs they know. Knight and Walsh know one another very well, but so do Bird and Mullen.

Bottom line, don't be so quick to dismiss what able said. Don't be so quick to buy what DD00 said.

Mourning
07-10-2004, 01:38 PM
Okay! than name 3 other SGs which would be long term solutions and aren't all-stars as of yet and ...
"available".



Ginobolli *was* available very recently (although, admittedly, there was a high risk SA would match.)

Mobley *was* available for a trade just a few weeks ago (and could still be traded for, as we learned with Rasheed, if he's the only player coming here.)

There were two Richardson's available. And maybe Joe Johnson.

I'm sure DW and Bird have been trying, but our lack of a transaction isn't because there are no players available.

I still think Ray Allen and Paul Pierce are available if we're serious about improving.

I think we're trigger-shy.

Ok, well IF we want to get Allen and particularly Pierce chances are high we would have to ravage our roster, very likely starting with Artest. For Pierce I might just do that, but not for Allen. All in all I think we are aiming too high with these 2 players, whom I both like, let me make that clear.

Ginobili, Q are off the market and either way much to expensive for us, I think.

J. Richardon, I like him, but I REALLY wonder if he is what we are looking for. Is he such a great 3pt threat? How is his defence?

I think Jackson and Cutino both fit the bill and I also rightnow would drop my objections of a quality rookie coming here for Al as long as he get serious playing time and has already played in college and has a good perceptive of being a pro-ball player in the NBA. In other words I wouldnt obejct to Luke Jackson either I guess.

Regards,

Mourning:cool:

wintermute
07-10-2004, 01:40 PM
actually, i rather like that the pacers are trigger shy now that everyone is throwing big money around.

if you notice, the only "fiscally responsible" team who has signed anyone are the spurs, and the people they've signed have come at bargain prices (well except for ginobili, but i think he's worth it). most other announced deals are overpaid, i believe.

stephen jackson is on the way to becoming very much overrated by pacer fans. face it, if the likes of ginobili or q-rich or even brent barry were still available, we would barely mention him.

Hicks
07-10-2004, 01:41 PM
J.Richardson's a prettyboy player in my eyes. Terrific dunker, and not much else.

And how would Damp NOT get something more than what we DIDNT pay Brad last year? We're gonna go from not paying Brad starting at 7mm a year, to going to paying Dampier 8+mm a year? I seriously doubt it.

bulletproof
07-10-2004, 01:42 PM
If Cleveland is going to lose Boozer, and it looks like they will, a deal involving Harrington and Luke Jackson might be good for both teams.

Hicks
07-10-2004, 01:46 PM
If Cleveland is going to lose Boozer, and it looks like they will, a deal involving Harrington and Luke Jackson might be good for both teams.

Maybe. Luke sounds like a great pickup if we get him I'll be happy, but I hope maybe they throw in Diop.

bulletproof
07-10-2004, 01:48 PM
J.Richardson's a prettyboy player in my eyes. Terrific dunker, and not much else.

And how would Damp NOT get something more than what we DIDNT pay Brad last year? We're gonna go from not paying Brad starting at 7mm a year, to going to paying Dampier 8+mm a year? I seriously doubt it.

A lot of you refuse to accept or fail to lose sight of the fact that Donnie evaluated Brad's worth based on his lackluster play and tendency to be slowed down by nagging little injuries down the backstretch.

kerosene
07-10-2004, 01:48 PM
J. Richardon, I like him, but I REALLY wonder if he is what we are looking for. Is he such a great 3pt threat? How is his defence?


He's not really a good 3pt shooter but he goes on hot streaks and his defense is bad.

Hicks
07-10-2004, 01:50 PM
J.Richardson's a prettyboy player in my eyes. Terrific dunker, and not much else.

And how would Damp NOT get something more than what we DIDNT pay Brad last year? We're gonna go from not paying Brad starting at 7mm a year, to going to paying Dampier 8+mm a year? I seriously doubt it.

A lot of you refuse to accept or fail to lose sight of the fact that Donnie evaluated Brad's worth based on his lackluster play and tendency toward nagging little injuries down the backstretch.

And apparently you don't get that Damp's not any better than Brad was here, and would be a worse fit. To pay him more than we wouldn't pay Miller would be an insult.

themachotaco
07-10-2004, 01:51 PM
Here's a question -- what exacty is Jackson's market value? Presumedly for these other players getting larger than normal contracts, its because other teams are interested and driving the price up.

But for Jackson? What are his other options? San Antonio apparently decided to give Barry money, they are re-signing Bowen, plus are locking up Manu. You would think that Jackson's value would be low with them right now (althought they could still make a MLE bid because of their cap space, right?)

Jackson also listed Atlanta, who has all the money in the world to spend if they want to, but their needs at swingman are not too high with their recent draft. Right now you would think they are waiting in committing any capspace before they find out what K-Mart is going to do. But could they really be offering more than the MLE to Jax right now? (besides the fact that teams like Cleveland are probably trying to dump contracts on them for nothing, potentially adding more capspace)

(Does Atlanta have any type of Bird rights on Jackson?)

If his value has really gotten up to the MLE level for 6 years, I have GOT to believe that there is someone else in this race driving the price up. Question is, who?

bulletproof
07-10-2004, 01:52 PM
And apparently you don't get that Damp's not any better than Brad was here, and would be a worse fit. To pay him more than we wouldn't pay Miller would be an insult.

To whom? Brad? You? Peck? Ragnar?

Hicks
07-10-2004, 01:53 PM
And apparently you don't get that Damp's not any better than Brad was here, and would be a worse fit. To pay him more than we wouldn't pay Miller would be an insult.

To whom? Brad? You? Peck? Ragnar?



Anyone that knows anything about basketball.

able
07-10-2004, 01:54 PM
You are only fixing Damp on his price, the one mentioned on the net, have you read anything about Damp lately ? sightings with teams, talks, agreements?

I am sure some have dropped out of the race and most are not interested in the price, it'll come down :D

the rest in the new thread, this one is about prices paid and how we should not pay silly money to get Jackson, not about why we did not sign brad and whether J-Rich is "good enough" to warrant interest.

indytoad
07-10-2004, 01:54 PM
The longer this offseason goes, the stronger that sinking feeling gets, the one I get because all we end up doing is signing an aging, third-rate SG and trading Al for capspace. Crud.

IndyToad
Imprisoned by destiny

MagicRat
07-10-2004, 01:57 PM
Apparently nobody gets that Brad was a forerunner to Boozer. "I wanted to stay here, but my agent went crazy."

And I'm only about half kidding.......:neutral:

Peck
07-10-2004, 04:30 PM
To me. :dance::dance:;)

ChicagoJ
07-11-2004, 01:44 AM
J.Richardson's a prettyboy player in my eyes. Terrific dunker, and not much else.

And how would Damp NOT get something more than what we DIDNT pay Brad last year? We're gonna go from not paying Brad starting at 7mm a year, to going to paying Dampier 8+mm a year? I seriously doubt it.

A lot of you refuse to accept or fail to lose sight of the fact that Donnie evaluated Brad's worth based on his lackluster play and tendency toward nagging little injuries down the backstretch.

And apparently you don't get that Damp's not any better than Brad was here, and would be a worse fit. To pay him more than we wouldn't pay Miller would be an insult.


I don't understand this one. Brad Miller wasn't really much of a center - he played in the high post or on the wing. He had no post game offensively. He wasn't any better of a post defender than JO. He was, like Rik, an oversized SF masquereding as a C. He was mostly effective and he complimented JO very well, but let's not go overboard about a guy that always disappears shortly after the groundhog sees his shadow.

Dampier can do both of those things and allow JO to play PF, where many of you think he's better suited to play than C. I think he's fine at C but I admit he's a little light.

Now I think Harrison has potential to make us forget about either Brad or Dampier. Of course, he also has the potential to make us long for the peaceful Ron Artest/ Isiah Thomas years. :unimpressed:

TheSauceMaster
07-11-2004, 02:25 AM
BRIAN CARDINAL is getting paid this much. It's not overspending to me. Especially if he's our starting 2. Using the MLE is not breaking the bank.

Kudos Hicks , I dont even have to read the Rest of this thread :laugh:

Mourning
07-12-2004, 01:27 PM
I still think getting Jackson is a good move and stick by it. He's tall, got a lot of experience (good and bad ones), is still pretty young, has a decent defence, has a nice length and he can get really hot.

Offcourse, his TOs are certainly high, but check those with the number or Al's TOs and also I expect to see Jackson's TOs number to go down with a lot better and a lot more options we have here aswell as the structure Rick has instilled into this team.
We needed some more long and med range firepower with a player who also has some decent defense, I think we certainly got that. I guess he would score between 14-17avg points for us coming season.

Almost sounds like some people here were expecting us to get Ginobili or T-mac with Al. I think getting Stephon is a good and balanced deal for both sides involved.

Regards,

Mourning:cool:

fwpacerfan
07-12-2004, 01:46 PM
Paying the MLE to Jackson is a good deal. The only complaint I've seen is that he is TO prone - well he averaged 2.76/game last year and the man he is being traded for averaged 2.02. For all of the pluses you are getting w/Jackson and all of the needs he fills, I'll take less than 1 TO/game difference.

I think too many on here are still suffering from the Croshere signing, the bargain contract of Artest and are overvaluing Harrington. Artest is getting less than his worth. He should be making more than Jackson for sure, but he isn't and he won't for 4 more years. It seems that Harrington isn't generating the kind of interest that many on here think he should. Evidently a Harrington for Kobe trade isn't going to happen. I think this deal makes a lot of sense for the Pacers and the best part is it doesn't tear a 61 win team apart and it still leaves us some flexibility to use our MLE on someone, although many on here would only want to spend that kind of money on Shaq, Kobe or McGrady:).

Kegboy
07-12-2004, 02:43 PM
Paying the MLE to Jackson is a good deal. The only complaint I've seen is that he is TO prone - well he averaged 2.76/game last year and the man he is being traded for averaged 2.02. For all of the pluses you are getting w/Jackson and all of the needs he fills, I'll take less than 1 TO/game difference.

I think too many on here are still suffering from the Croshere signing, the bargain contract of Artest and are overvaluing Harrington. Artest is getting less than his worth. He should be making more than Jackson for sure, but he isn't and he won't for 4 more years. It seems that Harrington isn't generating the kind of interest that many on here think he should. Evidently a Harrington for Kobe trade isn't going to happen. I think this deal makes a lot of sense for the Pacers and the best part is it doesn't tear a 61 win team apart and it still leaves us some flexibility to use our MLE on someone, although many on here would only want to spend that kind of money on Shaq, Kobe or McGrady:).

Good points. However, I think the thing with Al isn't so much that we overvalue him, as much as teams feel they have us over a barrel with him asking to be traded. And I don't say that in regards to Sax, but in Denver offering draft picks. :unimpressed:

Ultimate Frisbee
07-12-2004, 02:44 PM
Give Stephen Jackson a chance first!!

Kegboy
07-12-2004, 02:52 PM
Give Stephen Jackson a chance first!!

No! If we did that, we'd have to table this discussion for 3+ months. What are we supposed to do in the mean time??

:confused:

:sarcasm:

BillS
07-12-2004, 03:08 PM
It is difficult to evaluate Jackson from his Hawks experience because the Hawks really had a very easy to defend front court. That takes away from the ability of the perimeter shooters to really blow it out because the defense didn't need to collapse or double-team down low very often.

That, and I think the coaching here just wasn't that good.

Given Jackson's numbers and experience, I think MLE-range is right where he expects to be paid. He's 26, so I wouldn't exactly call him "aging".

To be honest, I wasn't ever as impressed with his game as I was with Terry or Crawford - who had more of a killer reputation - but (as I've said here before) Jackson is a good, solid SG who can definitely carry his weight at the position.

Bottom line is that he should hold his value, barring injury, as an MLE-capable player. That means if Freddie steps it up and/or Jon "This time for sure" Bender becomes everything some folks are still hoping for, it should not be too hard to unload Jackson at this contract level. That makes it a pretty good move that definitely addresses one of our most glaring needs.

Mourning
07-12-2004, 03:10 PM
Well offcourse other teams will be trying to shortchange us with Al. I mean look at what the Nuggests are offering for K-Mart:laugh: The fools might even have to pay the max, because they don't want to give up Nene to NJ in exchange, who also plays PF.

I mean what does Denver want with one all star PF from the east and another PF who is regarded as a good talent? Who btw didn't get any significant plays or touches that he should have had last year and who only become more unhappy because his minutes look scheduled to go down HEAVILY is K-Mart comes to Denver.

Only thing I can think of is that they want to trade Nene this off season or the next for something else. But, next season his worth is probably less than this summer, because of his limited playing time, etc.

Regards,

Mourning:cool:

Ragnar
07-12-2004, 07:37 PM
And apparently you don't get that Damp's not any better than Brad was here, and would be a worse fit. To pay him more than we wouldn't pay Miller would be an insult.

To whom? Brad? You? Peck? Ragnar?


Damp is not a very motivaded player other than in a contract year. Brad plays hard all the time. Brads problem is that he is a two fisted drinker in an NBA that requires players to be in shape year round. Plus he does not seem to report injuries untill they flair up past the point of being minor.

I would rather take the chance that Brad will start being more responsible for his body than that Damp will decide to play hard in non contract years.