# Just Say No to Jackson



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

From the AJC:



> Stephen Jackson is not going to pick up the $1.1 million option on his contract and will be an unrestricted free agent this summer. He averaged a career-high 18.1 points last season and will be on the priority list of at least four teams this summer -- the San Antonio Spurs, Chicago Bulls, *Portland Trail Blazers* and Indiana Pacers.


To which I say:

NOOOOOOOOOO!

I know Jackson has some fans, and it's true the Spurs won with him in the lineup, but we have a HUGE logjam at swingman, he hasn't really got guard skills, and he plays out of control. I'd much rather give out any minutes he'd take to Miles, Patterson, Woods and the Russians, even at 2G.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> From the AJC:
> 
> I'd much rather give out any minutes he'd take to Miles, Patterson, Woods and the Russians, even at 2G.


You'd rather play Qyntel Woods and two rookies than a guy who averaged 18 ppg for an entire season? Why?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> You'd rather play Qyntel Woods and two rookies than a guy who averaged 18 ppg for an entire season? Why?


I can think of 42.5% reasons why..


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> I can think of 42.5% reasons why..


Much of that low percentage is due to shooting a lot of threes. His adjusted field goal percentage is 48.3% whic ranks him ahead of Gordan Giricek, a guy most see as a fine shooter. 

And BTW, Qyntel Woods shot a whopping 37% from the floor, so I ask again, why would anyone want to play Woods over Stephen Jackson?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> I can think of 42.5% reasons why..


Average shooting for a guard in today's NBA.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Much of that low percentage is due to shooting a lot of threes. His adjusted field goal percentage is 48.3% whic ranks him ahead of Gordan Giricek, a guy most see as a fine shooter.
> ...



Id rather let young guys like woods grow , anybody watch Jackson play this year his shot selection is way worse than DA


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Average shooting for a guard in today's NBA.


so average is now accepted slang for "really crapppy"?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Much of that low percentage is due to shooting a lot of threes. His adjusted field goal percentage is 48.3% whic ranks him ahead of Gordan Giricek, a guy most see as a fine shooter.
> ...


adjusted schamjusted.

I know that if you take away someone 3 point shots their 2 point % goes up, but thats like saying "well, if he wouldn't miss so many 3's (or take so many) he'd be a better shooter!"

I know that if you adjust it for "such and such % of 3's is better than such and such % for 2's" but thats hogwash. 

That basically gives license to shoot 3's by guys who shouldn't be shooting 3's.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> so average is now accepted slang for "really crapppy"?


No, it means in the middle range of shooting guards.

Hey, we can all make up random "competence" standards. I could say anything under 70% shooting is "really crappy" and that would mean every player who ever played in the NBA sucked. It would seem pretty weakly connected to reality, but one could do it.

You have some arbitrary standard for how guards "should" shoot that has no bearing on how they actually do. In the NBA today, 45% shooting is great for guards, while 40% is poor shooting. 90% of NBA guards are in between, and 42.5% is right about in the middle of that spectrum.

In Kobe Bryant's and Tracy McGrady's best seasons, they shot about 45%. Ray Allen shot 44% last season and is a 44.8% shooter for his career. Being 2.3% worse than perhaps the sweetest-shooting guard in the NBA is hardly "really crappy."


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> adjusted schamjusted.
> ...


You don't seem to understand the concept of adjusted field goal percentage. It's not, "if he didn't take/miss so many threes, he'd be a better shooter."

Adjusted field goal percentage gives extra value to 3PT% relative to 2PT% to reflect that three-pointers are worth more than two-pointers. In other words, shooting 33% from three-point territory is equivalent to shooting 50% from two-point territory. A guard who shot only three-pointers and made 36% of them would have a 36% field goal percentage, which would look terrible, but that wouldn't reflect his true value as he's actually scoring more efficiently (since every make is worth three) than a center shooting 50% from the field.

Adjusted field goal percentage simply reflects the fact that 3PT% should be lifted when compared to 2PT% due to the fact the three-pointers give you more points.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Id rather let young guys like woods grow , anybody watch Jackson play this year his shot selection is way worse than DA


But he still shot a much higher percentage than Anderson or Woods.

I don't understand the hate for Jackson. He's much better than what we have already.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the concept of adjusted field goal percentage. It's not, "if he didn't take/miss so many threes, he'd be a better shooter."
> ...


Yes I did understand it. Thats why I said it's like saying "well, if he didn't shoot so many 3 pointers, his % would be X instead of Y".

It's a lame theory.


> A guard who shot only three-pointers and made 36% of them would have a 36% field goal percentage, which would look terrible, but that wouldn't reflect his true value as he's actually scoring more efficiently (since every make is worth three) than a center shooting 50% from the field.


this is why this is a lame comparison. 3 pointers are just a part of the game, and not the majority of the shots.

I'll take a guy who shoots 2 point shots really good, and doens't launch 3 pointers like a drunk man launches puke.



> Adjusted field goal percentage simply reflects the fact that 3PT% should be lifted when compared to 2PT% due to the fact the three-pointers give you more points.


I do know how it works, which is why I wrote the following:



> I know that if you adjust it for "such and such % of 3's is better than such and such % for 2's" but thats hogwash.


Doesn't change what I think of it.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Id rather let young guys like woods grow , anybody watch Jackson play this year his shot selection is way worse than DA



The only thing Qyntel wants to grow is weed. Give up on his lazy *** already.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> No, it means in the middle range of shooting guards.


again, because everyone else sucks at shooting doesn't make it ok. Because Iverson got the MVP while shooting under 40%, that doesn't mean shooting barely above 40% means you're a good shooter.


> Hey, we can all make up random "competence" standards. I could say anything under 70% shooting is "really crappy" and that would mean every player who ever played in the NBA sucked. It would seem pretty weakly connected to reality, but one could do it.


not the same as what I'm saying. Hardly anyone has come close to shooting 70% from the floor ever in the NBA. Players however have shot 45+% in the NBA. 



> You have some arbitrary standard for how guards "should" shoot that has no bearing on how they actually do. In the NBA today, 45% shooting is great for guards, while 40% is poor shooting. 90% of NBA guards are in between, and 42.5% is right about in the middle of that spectrum.


again, because the standards are lower, doesn't mean it's a good shooter. A big chunk as to why people shoot such horrible shots is because they believe they are the man. They think they can deliever the dagger, the 3! Thats what happened to Kobe in the finals (that and defense). He kept shooting shots out of his game, because he wanted to be the hero.



> In Kobe Bryant's and Tracy McGrady's best seasons, they shot about 45%. Ray Allen shot 44% last season and is a 44.8% shooter for his career. Being 2.3% worse than perhaps the sweetest-shooting guard in the NBA is hardly "really crappy."


you're convienently leaving out some tidbits here.

Ray Allen shoots 40% for his career from 3's. McGrady shoots 36% (since playing in Orlando). 

Jackson over the last 2 seasons, shoots about 33%.


This was McGradys 1st season (outside of the 50 game season where almost no one in the league shot good) he shot under 45%.

The only way Jackson comes close to shooting 45% is if you take away his 3 point shots.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> Yes I did understand it. Thats why I said it's like saying "well, if he didn't shoot so many 3 pointers, his % would be X instead of Y".


But that's wrong. The concept is, "Considering three-pointers are worth more, his effective field goal percentage is really X."

It has nothing to do with "if" he didn't shoot those threes.



> It's a lame theory.


You've given absolutely no reason why it is. And it isn't a theory...it's perfectly solid logic. Essentially, instead of looking at (shots made / shots taken) which doesn't differentiate three-pointers from two-pointers at all, look at some variant of (points / shots taken) which means that made three-pointers will be given more value than made two-pointers. You know, like they have more value in real life, on the court.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

Stephen Jackson is young! He can Shoot and if he can be had why not? His FG% will increase overtime and he wont be the only one on the team shooting like he was in Atlanta after Sars left.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> again, because everyone else sucks at shooting doesn't make it ok.


Just because everyone who's ever played in the NBA sucked at shooting doesn't make shooting 60% okay. Shoot 70% or get out of the league.



> not the same as what I'm saying. Hardly anyone has come close to shooting 70% from the floor ever in the NBA. Players however have shot 45+% in the NBA.


But very few guards today do. So what's the answer, fire 95% of the current guards as incompetent and get...aliens?



> again, because the standards are lower, doesn't mean it's a good shooter.


The standards define good shooting and bad shooting. Relative to anyone else in the NBA you can have, Stephen Jackson is average. Relative to some made-up, imaginary league where the majority of guards shoot 50%+, yes, he's terrible.



> Ray Allen shoots 40% for his career from 3's. McGrady shoots 36% (since playing in Orlando).


Yes, but you don't care about that. Adjusting field goal percentage for three-point attempts is hogwash, remember? Point is, Allen shot 44% from the field last season. Not even 45%. Pathetic, he shouldn't even be in the league.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Yes, but you don't care about that. Adjusting field goal percentage for three-point attempts is hogwash, remember? Point is, Allen shot 44% from the field last season. Not even 45%. Pathetic, he shouldn't even be in the league.


where am I doing adjusting?

I'm saying that Ray Allen shot 40% from 3's, which is far more impressive than 33%.

McGrady, outside of last year, shot a higher 3 point % than Jackson, and a higher combined %.

There was no reference to adjustment whatsoever.

I also never said that Jackson should be out of the league. I'm saying that if 42% is considered a great shooter, or even good, it's sad.


----------



## Wyrmm (Dec 31, 2002)

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> I also never said that Jackson should be out of the league. I'm saying that if 42% is considered a great shooter, or even good, it's sad.


42.5% *is* average in today's league. I'm not talking about "considered" or rendering an opinion. In today's league, 42.5% shooting puts you roughly in the middle of guards in terms of field goal percentage.

You can determine, thus, whether you consider the league sad or wonderful or whatnot. I'm simply pointing out the fact of the matter. 42.5% is average for guard field goal percentage in today's NBA.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I'm basing my negative opinion of Jackson on when I saw him play for the Spurs. He just looked constantly out of control. He was always spinning into the lane and losing the ball. He has no in-between game - all he does is shoot threes (at which he is okay) or that dumb spin move. He has below-average ball-handling skills and just didn't seem to have much of a basketball IQ.

And you know what? Put Qyntel on the Hawks last year and I bet he could put up Jackson's numbers. That team played NO defense. I mean Bob Sura was putting up back-to-back triple doubles. BOB SURA! (Who actually CAN handle the ball - I'd rather have him than Jackson.)


----------



## ill subliminal (Apr 3, 2003)

I don't really like this adjusted FG%. The lower value of 2's is made up for by the virtual absence of fouls on three point shots, skewing the measurement very unfairly toward 3 point specialists and away from post players and penetrators, who may in fact be better scorers, yet the adjusted % does not reflect that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ill subliminal</b>!
> I don't really like this adjusted FG%. The lower value of 2's is made up for by the virtual absence of fouls on three point shots, skewing the measurement very unfairly toward 3 point specialists and away from post players and penetrators, who may in fact be better scorers, yet the adjusted % does not reflect that.


True shooting percentage does, though. 

PTS / (2*(FGA + (0.44*FTA)))

Maybe that's the stat we should start using more, because players like Stackhouse and Iverson ARE more effective scorers than some (including me oftentimes) are willing to give them credit for since they go to the line so much.

But just because adjusted FG% is not perfect (and it's certainly not) doesn't mean it's not significantly better than standard FG% as an indicator.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> 42.5% *is* average in today's league. I'm not talking about "considered" or rendering an opinion. In today's league, 42.5% shooting puts you roughly in the middle of guards in terms of field goal percentage.


and like I said, thats a crappy %.



> You can determine, thus, whether you consider the league sad or wonderful or whatnot. I'm simply pointing out the fact of the matter. 42.5% is average for guard field goal percentage in today's NBA.


and I've it before. Because thats average does not make it good.

Lowering standards doesn't make things better.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> and I've it before. Because thats average does not make it good.


Average is not good. Average is not crappy.

Good and crappy are subjective. Average is objective (assuming you can agree to an objective sample, which I think we can for NBA swing men).

If you think average shooting is crappy shooting, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I fail to see a reasonable basis for that opinion.



> Lowering standards doesn't make things better.


And quoting stats for two of the best guards in the NBA doesn't make average the equal of "crappy" imo.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> And quoting stats for two of the best guards in the NBA doesn't make average the equal of "crappy" imo.
> 
> Ed O.



There are 21 swing men who shoot a better % than 42% in the NBA. 

Now granted, some of those guys aren't 3 point shooters (Miles for example) so taking out those guys who aren't shooting 3's like they're going out of style (roughly 75 or fewer 3's taken) thats 14.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ill subliminal</b>!
> I don't really like this adjusted FG%. The lower value of 2's is made up for by the virtual absence of fouls on three point shots, skewing the measurement very unfairly toward 3 point specialists and away from post players and penetrators, who may in fact be better scorers, yet the adjusted % does not reflect that.


Do missed shots in which you were fouled still count as misses? I didn't think so.

Actually, I think it's pretty fair to adjust. About the only variable I can think of is 2-point shots on which a player is fouled but the foul isn't called. This is somewhat offset by threes hoisted in time expiring situations (24 second violations and end of period/game shots.)


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who are the other 12?


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Hap-

I think you have either a bias against guards in todays NBA or you have a bias against todays NBA in general because 42.5% shooting is NOT crappy. It is not great, spectaculor or excellent. But it is not horrible, crappy, bad or lame.

If it is not aestetically appealing to you or as enjoyable as a fan well that is fine and that is your opinion. Personally I thought Det was one of my favorite teams EVER to play the game and their games have very low FG%'s. But I don't really understand your utopian theory of FG %. 

The league changes all the time and right now the game is just played in a way where shooting % and scoring are at an all time low. If you take some of the great FG % shooters who shot well above 50% 20 years ago and put them in the NBA today they'd almost certainly shoot under 50%.

I don't know if there has ever been a better shooter then Ray Allen, in pure shooting skill I'd say he's comparable to Bird even, (just in shooting not the whole package). It just isn't realistic to expect a possible 50% shooting from guards in the NBA the way the game is played today.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> There are 21 swing men who shoot a better % than 42% in the NBA.
> 
> Now granted, some of those guys aren't 3 point shooters (Miles for example) so taking out those guys who aren't shooting 3's like they're going out of style (roughly 75 or fewer 3's taken) thats 14.


Don't really see how this supports your ideas, certainly makes SJ look more then acceptable at 42%!


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Back on topic....

I am not in favor of Jackson either. I think he will not fit in to the team as well, he'll compain if he isn't getting the minutes he thinks he deserves. I'd much rather have Monya over here, or sign Person/B Barry, or even J. Barry! Those guys would provide better shooting then jackson but play with in the teams system more effectively and use better judgement.

I'd like to see us get Q Rich as our new SG (out of the plausible scenarios).

Q Woods is as good as gone imo so not getting SJ has nothing to do with him!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

lets put it this way, if Stephen Jackson was such a great shooter, why did only 1 team offer him anything decent?

Why did the team he was on, and argubably had his best success on, not go out of their way to re-sign him?

Not only that, if you guys want to settle for mediocrity, be my guest.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Draco</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't really see how this supports your ideas, certainly makes SJ look more then acceptable at 42%!


Ed had commented that It wasn't fair to comment only on the top 2 players at the swing position. 

So I said that there were 21 other guys (and 14 guys who shot a fair amount of 3's) who shot better than him.

And if you go with the "adjusted" FG%, there are 13 guys ahead of him, of which 9 shoot a fair amount of 3 pointers.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>gambitnut</b>!
> 
> 
> Who are the other 12?


If you change it to 60+ it ads more, but here are the guys ahead of him who are 3 point shooters:

Mobley, Joe Johnson, Allan Houston, Flip Murray, Giricek (he's at 60), Jim Jackson, Finley, Kittles, Kobe, Richardson, Ray Allen, Redd, Magette and Posey.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

All I have to say is Jackson is better than DA and therefore a upgrade. Hell, id rather have Steven than Gordan.....


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> Ed had commented that It wasn't fair to comment only on the top 2 players at the swing position.
> 
> ...


Well if there are only 13 guys ahead of jackson in the entire NBA i'd say that makes the case that he should come to portland just on adjusted FG%! Nobody said jackson was in the top 10 at his postion, you were just pointing out his % as evidence that he shouldn't come here when it is not.

I don't want jackson either but his FG % isn't the reason.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> If you change it to 60+ it ads more, but here are the guys ahead of him who are 3 point shooters:
> 
> Mobley, Joe Johnson, Allan Houston, Flip Murray, Giricek (he's at 60), Jim Jackson, Finley, Kittles, Kobe, Richardson, Ray Allen, Redd, Magette and Posey.


Everyone of those players would be much harder to obtain then jackson. So are you saying for the players with similar likelyness of obtaining, jackson has the highest FG%?


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> lets put it this way, if Stephen Jackson was such a great shooter, why did only 1 team offer him anything decent?
> 
> Why did the team he was on, and argubably had his best success on, not go out of their way to re-sign him?
> ...


I agree Jackson has many faults to his game. He plays out of control, and for his skill level I don't know if he'd accept limited minutes that well. Ruben P is an example of a similar skilled player who will accept any role, I doubt jackson would do the same.

I don't think the spurs or any other team cut jackson because of his FG%.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>:
> All I have to say is Jackson is better than DA and therefore a upgrade.


Better at what? He's not a better ball-handler or passer. He may have a better stand-still 3-pointer, but that's not enough to make the difference.

That said, if this were a TRADE of DA for Jackson, I wouldn't be that opposed to it. But the fact is, we're stuck with DA, so it would be ADDING Jackson to an already crowded roster. If we're going to throw FA money at someone, it should either be a TRUE SG with guard skills (Jackson has about the same dribbling and passing skills as Ruben Patterson - i.e., negligible) or a different position. If you want a good shooter, Person would be cheaper (although also a waste of money, in my view). I'd rather see more out of Monya and Khryapa, whom we've already got.



> Hell, id rather have Stephen than Gordan.....


I'd agree with you on that - I think Giricek is greatly overrated - he hasn't helped out any of the teams he's been with, and he's bounced around enough to make it look as if he's not greatly valued.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> And if you go with the "adjusted" FG%, there are 13 guys ahead of him, of which 9 shoot a fair amount of 3 pointers.


So, if you go by a more accurate measure than raw FG%, Jackson is dead average in shooting for starting two-guards.

Just exactly as I said from the start.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> So, if you go by a more accurate measure than raw FG%, Jackson is dead average in shooting for starting two-guards.
> ...


well then he needs to cut down on his 3 point shooting, and increase his 2 point shooting.

No matter what hockey theorem you come up with, it'll still be a pass on my part.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> I'd agree with you on that - I think Giricek is greatly overrated - he hasn't helped out any of the teams he's been with, and he's bounced around enough to make it look as if he's not greatly valued.


I don't know how you can be written off as 'bouncing around' when you've been in the league 2 years. 

I guess you could say the same about Darius Miles...do you value him? I sure do.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know how you can be written off as 'bouncing around' when you've been in the league 2 years.
> ...


well, Darius actually played for the same team for 2 straight years, where Giricek had been played for 3 teams in his first 2 years. And that little factoid isn't true about Darius.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> well, Darius actually played for the same team for 2 straight years, where Giricek had been played for 3 teams in his first 2 years. And that little factoid isn't true about Darius.


Actually, considering that Darius Miles was a #3 draft pick, it's shocking that he's been traded twice, whereas, Giricek was a second rounder. 

Has there EVER been another top 3 pick that was traded twice before his rookie contract was up?

But you know what? None of that matters. All that matters is that Giricek is a good shooter and he has helped the teams he's been on.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Actually, considering that Darius Miles was a #3 draft pick, it's shocking that he's been traded twice, whereas, Giricek was a second rounder.
> 
> Has there EVER been another top 3 pick that was traded twice before his rookie contract was up?
> ...


under the current CBA, I don't know. But I'd venture a guess that no, there haven't been any other 3rd (or 2nd, or 4th) picks traded twice before their original rookie contract had either expired or been extended.

I think, myself, that my main problem with people always claiming that 'so and so is such a great shooter' and that the Blazers should/trade for him, is that generally, it's a lateral movement.

IMHO, signing Jackson is a lateral move. He's not a good enough shooter, imho, to warrent him as an upgrade over DA. 

For all the positive talk about Stephen Jackson being such a good shooter, how 'bout these apples?

Since last season was a really bad year for DA, let's take the season before. His first year as a starter in Portland. Taking out 3 pointers, he shot 47%. In his year w/the Spurs, taking out 3's, he shot 47%.

Does anyone really think that DA is good enough as a shooter to be OUR outside shooter?

God no.

And why??

because he bricks too many shots. Just like Stephen Jackson does.

Bricking a lot of 3's means that he'll have games where he shoots a lot of 3's because he's under the impression he's a good shooter.

Does anyone think that DA's shot selection is any good? Or that he's a good outside shooter?

He has to be wide freaking open to make shots, and even then it's iffy.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Um, I was just getting into it and suddenly realized - 

We're argueing about DA or Stephen Jackson! Both mediocre and both have serious flaws but neither are important enough for anyone to care about which we end up with. IMO of course.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> Um, I was just getting into it and suddenly realized -
> 
> We're argueing about DA or Stephen Jackson! Both mediocre and both have serious flaws but neither are important enough for anyone to care about which we end up with. IMO of course.


agree'd.

man, do we need something to happen..I'm already sick and tired of arguing over who the blazers should or shouldn't sign.

start the season already!!!


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> start the season already!!!


The NBA season has been over for what 2 weeks?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> If you change it to 60+ it ads more, but here are the guys ahead of him who are 3 point shooters:
> ...


2 questions:

First, are any of the guys you list available?

Second, do you disagree that Jackson is an upgrade over DA?

The reality is, we are looking for a stop-gap until we can afford/trade for an impact SG. Even if we can get Monya over next season, he will probably need at least a year before he is ready to start.

Sometimes reality bites......but it does no good to ignore it!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Mostly I'm with Ed on this one -- it feels like lateral movement. Given that, I'd rather not see another large financial commitment. Otoh, while I could imagine being content with DA for the time being, I *do* fear for the team if/when he goes down. Even if he returns to his stronger play of a few years ago, it seems like he could go down at any time. Who'd get those minutes? Woods? Patterson? Miles? Thus, I find myself returning to the idea of adding someone like Person as we hold out for either a more serious player via trade or for one of the youngsters to grow into the role.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Just say no to lateral movement*

I am of the school of thought that unless a move actually improves the team, you do not make it. I do not feel Stephen Jackson would be any more effective then what is in place now. I also feel he plays out of control, and becomes a thorn in the side of a team when the wins are not rolling in, not the type of player you want on this fragile team right now.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Say No to Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> 2 questions:
> ...


enough that having DA and Jackson on the same team is stupid.

Neither one is so much better than the other that it's obvious that one would be the bench player, and the other, the starter.


> The reality is, we are looking for a stop-gap until we can afford/trade for an impact SG. Even if we can get Monya over next season, he will probably need at least a year before he is ready to start.
> 
> Sometimes reality bites......but it does no good to ignore it!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Stephen Jackson is not an upgrade over DA. He is an erratic shooter and we don't need another one of those.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> Stephen Jackson is not an upgrade over DA. He is an erratic shooter and we don't need another one of those.


I disagree. 82 games from Jackson IS an upgrade over the 40-60 healthy games we will get out of DA.

When DA was young, he was athletic enough to overcome some of his weaknesses. At this point, he is ready for the glue factory.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

If you're John Nash, you have your chance to put your stamp on the team this offseason...

SG is a big question mark that can be addressed in a number of ways. 

I think we can all agree that Jackson is an upgrade as compared with DA. I think we would also agree that it isn't much of one - especially if DA has a mildly healthy season.

There just doesn't seem like much point in commiting money to a guy who isn't much of an upgrade when there are so many other avenues available.

I really thought that Jackson played fairly selfish and out of control with SA. Especially considering who he had on his team... I don't think he's the kind of player that this team needs.

Does Jackson have anything resembling what you want this team to look like in the future? 

For me, he doesn't. Keep looking.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Actually, considering that Darius Miles was a #3 draft pick, it's shocking that he's been traded twice, whereas, Giricek was a second rounder.
> 
> Has there EVER been another top 3 pick that was traded twice before his rookie contract was up?


Chauncey Billups. #3 pick in 1997.

He was actually traded 3 times - to the Raptors, the Nuggets and the Magic - before being signed as a FA by the Wolves and then as a FA by the Pistons.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Chauncey Billups. #3 pick in 1997.
> ...



isnt that under the old CBA tho, where rookies were able to sign those insane contracts they used to?

I know he was traded in his rookie year, played the strike shortened year with Denver..traded the next year from Denver to Orlando (But didn't play in Orlando?) and then signed with Minnesota, all before he started his 4th season.


I think


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> isnt that under the old CBA tho, where rookies were able to sign those insane contracts they used to?
> 
> ...


Rookie scale contracts started in 1995. Billups absolutely was under a rookie scale when he was traded 3 times in his first 3 years. He was almost unanimously considered a "bust" as a #3 pick, too - up until he started playing well with Minnesota, that is.

BTW, he shot under 40% from the field for the year (39.4%), but I think it's safe to say that most on this forum would take him to be a Blazer....


----------

