# Harrington Sent to Atlanta for Stephen Jackson (6 Years, $44 Million)



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

*Indiana Signs Stephen Jackson for 6 years, $39 Million*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1837655

Your new starting SG.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

*Re: Indiana Signs Stephen Jackson for 6 years, $39 Million*



> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1837655
> 
> Your new starting SG.


Nope, Carlisle said that if we didn't get a star SG, that'd Reggie would start again. Thankfully, this gives us some more room to trade Al Harrington as Jackson can also play the 3.


----------



## Whips02 (Jun 17, 2004)

it was actually a sign and trade and the hawks landed harrington


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Indiana Signs Stephen Jackson for 6 years, $39 Million*



> Originally posted by <b>Pacers Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope, Carlisle said that if we didn't get a star SG, that'd Reggie would start again. Thankfully, this gives us some more room to trade Al Harrington as Jackson can also play the 3.


A correction then: "Your new starting SG (if the team has half a brain)."


----------



## ArtestFan23 (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm hoping someone comes out and yells "JUST KIDDING! HAHAHAHA!" cause giving Stephen Jackson nearly $7 mil per ranks up there with trading Brad Miller for Scot Pollard as one of the WORST freakin moves this team could do.

Absolutely horrible move ...we couldn't have given Brent Barry or Quentin Richardson an extra mil? C'mon.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan23</b>!
> I'm hoping someone comes out and yells "JUST KIDDING! HAHAHAHA!" cause giving Stephen Jackson nearly $7 mil per ranks up there with trading Brad Miller for Scot Pollard as one of the WORST freakin moves this team could do.
> 
> Absolutely horrible move ...we couldn't have given Brent Barry or Quentin Richardson an extra mil? C'mon.


It just so happens to be that we traded Al Harrington for Stephen Jackson. Nice move Donnie.:upset:


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan23</b>!
> I'm hoping someone comes out and yells "JUST KIDDING! HAHAHAHA!" cause giving Stephen Jackson nearly $7 mil per ranks up there with trading Brad Miller for Scot Pollard as one of the WORST freakin moves this team could do.
> 
> Absolutely horrible move ...we couldn't have given Brent Barry or Quentin Richardson an extra mil? C'mon.


The Brad Miller trade was good. It gave Foster more minutes. Notice how we improved and how Foster got better as the season went on and B. Miller got worse as the season went on?


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

Jeez I thought you guys could get more for Harrington but I guess thats just me...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, I wouldn't call this a bad move yet. I'm a big fan of jackson, and especially at the 2 he's a physical guy and a strong defender that will fit right in.

By trading Harrington you've also got the MLE still to spend if you can; land a guy like Stromile Swift or maybe a PG like Damon Jones or Bob Sura to help out there, and you're in good shape.

1- Tinsley, Johnson
2- Jackson, Miller
3- Artest, Bender
4- O'Neal, Croshere
5- Foster, Pollard

Still looking pretty decent... getting something out of Pollard's worthless *** wouldn't hurt though.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Fixed the thread title to reflect the trade.


----------



## ArtestFan23 (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> The Brad Miller trade was good. It gave Foster more minutes. Notice how we improved and how Foster got better as the season went on and B. Miller got worse as the season went on?


How was it good? Brad Miller played great in Sacramento until the playoffs when he was obviously hurt...

You'd rather have Jeff Foster getting minutes than a guy that could get you 15 and 10 each night?


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*I love the trade*



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan23</b>!
> 
> Brad Miller played great in Sacramento until the playoffs when he was obviously hurt...


And that's the story of Brad's career. Great regular season player, but doesn't have enough endurance to stay healthy through a whole season, so he sucks in the playoffs.

Anyways, I couldn't be happier with this trade. I wasn't drinking the Kool-Aid of some Pacers fans who thought we could get Ben Gordon or someone like that for Al Harrington. All I wanted for Al was a solid shooting guard who could step up and make big shots. That's what Stephen Jackson is. I really like the guy. He's not the most complete player in the world, but the guy has BALLS. He made a whole bunch of big outside shots for San Antonio in the playoffs. You win championships with role players like him, he's what we need.

I never really liked Al that much. He's got some skills, but he's not a guy who makes your team better. He's a horrible passer (so is Jackson, but Harrington is worse) so he can't make you pay for doubling him. I can't count how many times I threw my remote into my couch this year because he took a horrible shot instead of passing the ball.

Harrington might average a double-double next year, but unless Atlanta gets an impact free-agent they'll be worse than they were this year. Jackson is the better player.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan23</b>!
> 
> 
> How was it good? Brad Miller played great in Sacramento until the playoffs when he was obviously hurt...
> ...


I would rather have Foster's rebounding and hustle than Miller's extra points that Artest can make up for anyway. In addition, Foster is an excellent defender capable of guarding the likes of Duncan. So to answer, yes. We did become a better team with Foster as the starting center.

And I think the Harrington-Jackson trade was pretty decent, I hope he starts.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

*Re: I love the trade*



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Harrington might average a double-double next year, but unless Atlanta gets an impact free-agent they'll be worse than they were this year. Jackson is the better player.


Harrington won't average a double-double, he's not a solid rebounder, 8 rebounds max per game, although on a team like Atlanta I could see him getting 20 ppg. And no, Stephen Jackson isn't the better player.


----------



## Stacka_Lee (Jul 9, 2004)

well the goal was to sign someone like this with the mle, i guess. as far as the trade goes you'd have to withhold judgement until we see what we end up getting with that.

if we end up not using it for money-related reasons, then i'll be irritated.

Harrington has all of the mentioned problems, but second-unit offense is a neccessary thing. i really can't imagine why he isn't worth more, but i guess a skill set is really irrelevant when you're a tweener who can't shoot.


----------



## pacersrule03 (Jul 23, 2003)

This was a good trade for both team. When Jax is on, he is on. We got a good shooter, and the Al gets to start now. Now Bender will get more minutes. It all works out. What I am trying to figure out though is where is Fred Jones going to play next season? Backup pg?


----------



## naptownpimp (Feb 1, 2004)

what about freddy  :no:


----------



## pacersrule03 (Jul 23, 2003)

Here's what I'm hearing from spurs fans about Jax...

+Cold blooded (aka not afraid to take the clutch shot
+Scorer
+Good shooter
+Atheletic
+Above average defender
-Turnover prone
-Can pout
+Mike Brown will help with the pouting (he's his mentor)


----------



## thrillhouse (Apr 18, 2003)

i think it was a good trade for both teams, probably not a huge difference maker either way, but i think both teams became slightly better.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

I post on the Bulls board. When the Pacers traded Rose and Best for Artest, Miller and Mercer most Bulls fans thought it was a great coup. However, I thought Walsh made one of the great trades of the decade. 

I have seen Jackson play for the Spurs and Hawks over the past few years. Here is a guy who was underrated on the Spurs and a terrific scorer/defender for the Hawks. He still remains underrated. I am shocked that the Bulls did not go after Jackson (assuming the Crawford deal goes through which would give them cap relief).

To keep this short, Pacers fans should thank their lucky stars that they have a GM who knows what he is doing. Your going to love Jackson just as I thought Miller and Artest would be popular with the fans in Indy. You folks have not had the misfortune of living under continual mismanagement with GMs who don't have a clue as to what they are doing.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Realy strengthens our SL but I think our bench took a huge hit. Larry and Donnie must be confident in giving Bender and Jones a bigger role this year, and if they can come through as solid bench players for us this year, then this could turn out to be a good trade.

Im still leary about giving away the offense and defence that Harrington provided for us in the last few years. I guess Im for this trade, but I thought we could get more.

Looks like Ill be watching ATL next year too, and any fantasy basketball player should remember to pick up Harrington for cheap, and watch his stats go through the roof. The guy will break out this season, trust me.


----------



## Grangerx33 (Mar 9, 2004)

i think it willa dd more scroing and mor edefense but harrington was the guy always getn our guys pumped


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

It'll be interesting because Harrington always seems to have his biggest games against Atlanta such as his 40 point outing.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> 
> Im still leary about giving away the offense and defence that Harrington provided for us in the last few years. I guess Im for this trade, but I thought we could get more.


Harrington's defense has always been overrated by Pacers fans. It has gotten worse every year for the past few years. He's never been able to defend power forwards, and as he's gotten older and his body has filled out, he's lost the quickness he needs to defend small forwards. At this point he's just an average defender at best.

A lot of Pacers fans thought we'd get more, but I didn't. I expected to get someone like Larry Hughes, and I prefer Jackson to Hughes because he's a better shooter and a better team player. Jackson doesn't have the potential to take over a game, but that's not what we need in a shooting guard.



> Looks like Ill be watching ATL next year too, and any fantasy basketball player should remember to pick up Harrington for cheap, and watch his stats go through the roof. The guy will break out this season, trust me.


I respect your opinion, but I think Harrington will be one of the most disappointing players in the league next season. He's not a game changer because like I said before, his passing is so bad that he can't make teams pay for doubling on him. Since he'll get doubled on all the time next year, expect his shooting percentage to plummet. I'd guess he'll average 18 and 8 on around 42 percent shooting, on an Atlanta team that will be even worse than they were this year. I don't call that breaking out, your mileage may vary.


----------



## Grangerx33 (Mar 9, 2004)

i couldnt disagree more, he will fit atlantas chemistry perfect, thats just the place he needs to b although id prob rather keep him, i think stephen jackson will b the "silent assassin" as mercer weas called, he hits big shots without it bein noticed, he would make a good solid 3rd scorer the pacers needed instead of a new guy everygame


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

Somethings i like about this trade are

1) the pacers get another good defender.
2) They get a person who can hit the outside shot when JO is double teamed down low
3) Take some pressure off Artest, so now Ron doenst have to try so hard on the offensive end.

But one thing, is they must have alot of faith in, Bender to trade Harrington. Im still skeptical. But as long as they play jackson strictly as a catch and shoot type of guy i think they will do well. Do NOT let Jackson dribble the ball for more than 5 seconds!! Its a turnover waiting to happen.

I think this move makes the pacers better over all. Defense and spreading the floor.

As for Atlanta, with the two new josh's in the place, they needed to create some playing time without conflict from other players. They did exactly this. Al can play some PF too if needed, and if the josh's are having an off nite Al can fill in there as well. 

Be interesting seeing a lineup with AL, Childress and Howard.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> I respect your opinion, but I think Harrington will be one of the most disappointing players in the league next season. He's not a game changer because like I said before, his passing is so bad that he can't make teams pay for doubling on him. Since he'll get doubled on all the time next year, expect his shooting percentage to plummet. I'd guess he'll average 18 and 8 on around 42 percent shooting, on an Atlanta team that will be even worse than they were this year. I don't call that breaking out, your mileage may vary.


I'm with you. I like Harrington (I actually was hoping for that Hughes swap you mentioned before the draft), but there's just nothing about him that seems all that special to me. I remember a thread awhile back where people put in their thoughts on what Harrington could put up as "the man" on a team, and I saw a lot of "21/10, no problem" and "he'd probably be an all-star" comments. My personal guess was 17/8, and the team he was "the man" on would likely be the worst in the league.

I think he gets more credit because he's a solid player stuck on the bench behind a pair of all-stars. People see him putting up good numbers as a bench player, and they think that if he starts he won't be held back anymore and he'll start putting up some serious numbers. Obviously he'll produce more as the number one option, but in my opinion not nearly at the level that many expect.


----------



## noogie_da_sheep (Jan 12, 2004)

I really like this trade for Indy...we get a solid athletic shooter who will step in and take up most of Al's 30mpg...he'll take over starting at SG next yr...i don't think Carlisle will hand it over just yet.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

I think Indy could have done better.

They needed to trade a small forward for a shooting guard, but I think they would have been better off trading Artest.

Probably not the most popular opinion, but if it's true that they could have gotten Vince Carter for Ron, then I think that would have been the better move.

The whole point of getting a new shooting guard was the Pacers desperately need a creative perimiter scorer- someone who can just flat out beat their man. Stephen Jackson isn't that guy. He's a catch and shoot player just like Reggie. 

Simply put, Jackson doesn't move well. He doesn't move well without the ball, and he has the handles of a center. The guy flat out can not dribble. And while he IS an upgrade over Reggie, it's not as big as an upgrade as it may seem- expecially considering you had to give up Harrington to get him.

But hey, he IS a pretty good defender and he has proven he can be a contributing role player on a championship team. I just think the Pacers needed a little more than a role player to get to the next level.


----------



## naptownpimp (Feb 1, 2004)

one thing i can say about him

he's the best rapper in the NBA


----------



## amd pwr (Jun 24, 2003)

The deal should be Jackson and Terry for Harrington and Tinsley. It seems more even this way because, in my opinion, Harrington is worth a lot more than Jackson.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>amd pwr</b>!
> The deal should be Jackson and Terry for Harrington and Tinsley. It seems more even this way because, in my opinion, Harrington is worth a lot more than Jackson.


I'd hate to give up Tinsley, but I really like Terry so I'd really like that deal. Our offensive options would be great enough to defeat the Pistons I think.


----------



## jreywind (May 30, 2003)

Luckily the deal was only $38 mill, a much better deal.


----------



## jreywind (May 30, 2003)

Luckily the deal was only $38 mill, a much better deal.


----------



## sweendog93 (Jul 15, 2004)

*Why make the trade?*

Why make this trade at all? Start Harrington at 3 and Artest at 2. Harrington can defend most any SF in the league and Artest, as we know, can defend anyone whose name doesnt end with haquille O'Neal. Artest could push around most any 2 guard in the league on offense and Harrington has a nice diverse game as well.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

*Re: Why make the trade?*



> Originally posted by <b>sweendog93</b>!
> Why make this trade at all? Start Harrington at 3 and Artest at 2.  Harrington can defend most any SF in the league and Artest, as we know, can defend anyone whose name doesnt end with haquille O'Neal. Artest could push around most any 2 guard in the league on offense and Harrington has a nice diverse game as well.


Of course that's the smart thing to do, but management is intent on Reggie Miller starting.


----------



## Eamer (Jul 15, 2004)

I'm not sure about this yet, when you move to a new team you aren't instantly going to fit in. You have to prove yourself to get in the starting 5. This could be a bad move but it could be a great one or it might not make a difference. Time will tell.


----------



## Stacka_Lee (Jul 9, 2004)

*Re: Re: Why make the trade?*



> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course that's the smart thing to do, but management is intent on Reggie Miller starting.


I don't see how this is the "smart thing". Artest is consistently worse when playing the 2. It also leaves us with no dedicated perimiter scorers - 3 post players, one playmaker, and one offenseive rebounder - and maintains our problem of having no one who can handle quick 2s (As Dwanye Wade and Rip Hamilton exposed). 

I think it's possible that Freddie can be both, but that's risky, and even if they wanted to start Freddie Harrington still would have had to go.

The sad fact is that when Artest and O'neal are on the court, Harrington doesn't bring us a single skill that those two don't already possess. He was useful to us as a backup in case either got injured, and as a threat off the bench, but he wouldn't accept that.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> I don't see how this is the "smart thing". Artest is consistently worse when playing the 2. It also leaves us with no dedicated perimiter scorers - 3 post players, one playmaker, and one offenseive rebounder - and maintains our problem of having no one who can handle quick 2s (As Dwanye Wade and Rip Hamilton exposed).


I don't recall Artest being worse when playing the two. Artest shoots the 3 pretty well. We would have 4 possible offensive rebounders. And at least Artest would be better than Reggie at guarding quick 2s.


----------



## MillerTime (Jul 6, 2003)

I'll be honest, i don't watch much of Atlanta Hawks. So i might be wrong.

But isn't Stephen Jackson a ball hog? Isn't that why he wasn't brought back to the Spurs the year before? Doesn't he miss alot of shots and keeps taking shots like Allen Iverson to get his total points up?

If thats all true what i posted then this is a horrid move by Indiana.


----------



## Stacka_Lee (Jul 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't recall Artest being worse when playing the two. Artest shoots the 3 pretty well. We would have 4 possible offensive rebounders. And at least Artest would be better than Reggie at guarding quick 2s.


I looked up the stats on this and it seems like I"m wrong. Artest himself produces at about the same rate when he's at the 2. The team, however, is much worse - Pacers outscore their opents by about 10.6 per 48 minutes Artest plays at the 3, and get outscore by about 9 per 48 he plays at the 2.

The easiest reason for this, off the top of my head, can be found in the rest of my earlier post - when we played Artest at the 2, we had Harrington at the 3, and thus absolutely no real shooters.

I do think, however, an Artest/Bender wing combination would be interesting. Might involve Bender at the 3 on defense and the 2 on offense.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MillerTime</b>!
> But isn't Stephen Jackson a ball hog? Isn't that why he wasn't brought back to the Spurs the year before? Doesn't he miss alot of shots and keeps taking shots like Allen Iverson to get his total points up?


This is a misconception, last year he jacked up a lot of shots because he had to, especially after they traded Sheed out they just opened up the offense and that's why a lot of the Hawks' numbers ballooned. They were fastbreaking and playing a very loose brand of basketball that Stephen Jackson thrived in.

The reason he wasn't brought back to the Spurs, is because he overvalued himself. The Spurs gave him an offer when last year's free agency got underway, and he and his agent basically scoffed at it. Turned out that was the best offer he would get, he later turned around and signed with the Hawks for much less.

I think he can be a bit of a ballhog, but he has that dog in him that a lot of teams need. He's not scared of competition, and he's definitely not scared of taking the big shot. I think he was a terrific addition for the Pacers. He's not a superstar, but he's a top notch roleplayer.


----------

