Sorry, this just happens over and over again. I probably overreactedFolsom Al said:People get really TOUCHY around here.
My apologies ... this is my last SORRY !!!
Heuge said:Sorry, this just happens over and over again. I probably overreacted
HndsmCelt said:Good for JJ (I guess), good for NO they get something for nothing, and not bad for Phoenix who get some help at the 2-3 but as noted by other posters that was not their problem. Even if they now make the deal for Dalembert does that really do anything to adress the no back up for Nash issue or the team cant paly with Nash out of the play isue? probably not, it does extend their strenths while compleetly ignoring their quite public weakness.
KA_2 said:Rumor has it that this sets up the Suns for a Joe Johnson-Sam Dalembert trade. That would give the Suns a lineup of Nash-Q-Marion-Amare-Dalembert. Scary. Still no bench outside of Barbosa, though that's easily fixable.
edit: Whoops, this was already mentioned. That said, Johnson is a big price to pay, and it definitely hurts their perimeter D. But when you have Amare and Dalembert able to block shots in the lane, perimeter D becomes less of a concern.
I'm not sure that the Suns need a "true center" the run and gun favors flexable players, and demands that who ever is playing the 5 be extreemly moble and able to shoot from out side the paint. Stoudemire and Voshkul both fit this tyle perfetcly, Im not saying that Dalembert wont play well in the system but givne the number of half court sets they play Im not sure he bring in that much over what they already have... he imporves the line up no doubt but not sure it will near the impact that a back up PG would have.Bricklayer said:Eh...that Dalembert deal is interesting, because it DEFINITELY addressess their weakness -- no true center. But to give up Joe Johnson for him? Ouch.
Could be right they may be in the process of reinventing thmeselves for the play offs. If so the move sort of makes sense but as you noted it will be a costly trade that could leave them realy in lurch next season.Bricklayer said:Problem is that no run and gun team is ever going to win a title. So I understand them making a move like that -- same thing Dallas finally realized. But the cost is just very high -- They've got 4 young studs taking a passes from Nash, and now it will be 3. Agree that Dalembert will be a fish out of water a bit. If they make that move, they might be built better for the postseason, but i could easily see their ridiculous scoring pace start to tail off.
Let the record reflect that, just as another player (whom shall remain nameless) is only ever referred to by me as FSM, Jim Jackson shall henceforth be only referred to by me as "Hippo," as in short for hypocrite.bdouble013 said:What I find interesting in this whole deal is JJ suddenly found it in him to play again. Guess we were right all along Brickie.![]()
Bricklayer said:Problem is that no run and gun team is ever going to win a title. So I understand them making a move like that -- same thing Dallas finally realized. But the cost is just very high -- They've got 4 young studs taking a passes from Nash, and now it will be 3. Agree that Dalembert will be a fish out of water a bit. If they make that move, they might be built better for the postseason, but i could easily see their ridiculous scoring pace start to tail off.
funkykingston said:There is a reason why a lot of veteran guys consider retirement before reporting to a horrible team after a trade. Don't forget, Vlade threatened to retire rather than play for Charlotte. And that was a much better Hornet team and Divac had a lot more left in his tank than Jackson does.
KA_2 said:Not only that, but will the Suns match the ridiculously high offer sheets Dalembert will get this summer as a RFA? He'll be getting $65M-$70M offers. Wouldn't that be horrible for the Suns if they lost Johnson for nothing because they couldn't match an offer sheet for Dalembert.
Great post, I agree completely.funkykingston said:What exactly did Jackson have to play for? Not money, since he said he was willing to forfeit the remainder of his contract. Not wins, certainly. For what? A sense of obligation?
To whom should he be obligated? He signed a contract with the Rockets. And he was willing to suffer the consequences of not fufilling his contract and give up his salary for the year.
Athletes often get criticized for being more concerned with money than winning. And now when Jackson says that he doesn't care about money and just wants to play for a winning team he is criticized as well.
I guess I see this a little different when the player involved is nearing the end of his career. I jumped on guys like Eli Manning, Steve Francis, Kobe Bryant (if it was true in his case) and Dikembe Mutombo (remember that Kings fans?) but the difference is that those guys all had a long career to try an turn around a heretofore moribund franchise with their presence. The best that Jim Jackson could do is upgrade the team from having the 1st pick to maybe the 7th or 8th pick before packing it in and calling it a career.
I think the turning point for me in terms of viewing trades in the NBA was when the T'Wolves traded Doug West for Anthony Peeler. West was an original Timberwolf, a fan favorite and an aging veteran who had just emerged victorious from a publicized bout with alcoholism as the team was finally winning games. Kevin McHale went ahead and dealt him to another expansion team with no hope of success.
The bottom line espoused by players, owners, GMs and agents alike is that the NBA is a business. Each side is going to do exactly what helps THEM the most. If Jackson can sit out and force a trade to a better team, why SHOULDN'T he? That's what's in HIS best interest, which is what the NBA being a business is all about.
We may not like it, and I HATE it when it is a draft pick that does it, but I certainly understand in the case of an aging veteran who recognizes that it is his only alternative to finishing his career languishing for a lottery team.
I'm not sure what makes JJ a hypocrite here, if there is one thing JJ has made clear through out his career it is that he is not in the game for anyone but JJ. In some respects we could blame NO for trading FOR him. It's like the story of the woman who saved the snake only to be bit by it latter on... she knew he was a snake when she picked him up. Now before all the JJ fans get too riled up here, Im not saying he is a bad guy, or even that in some situations (Sac, Houston) that JJ is not able to be a productive member of team. But 10 teams in 12 years says a lot for guyof JJ's skills. One more team and he will have tied T Mass for the gypsy record. Looking at this and opting to take JJ espcialy without talking to JJ makes the Hornets stupid, and they are lucky that Pheonix just bailed them out.Mr. S£im Citrus said:Let the record reflect that, just as another player (whom shall remain nameless) is only ever referred to by me as FSM, Jim Jackson shall henceforth be only referred to by me as "Hippo," as in short for hypocrite.