Stephen Jackson spending time at the end of Bucks' bench

[SilverSpur]

After spending most of last week sitting on the bench, Stephen Jackson isn't sure where he stands with the Milwaukee Bucks.

Jackson has played just over nine minutes total the past five games. He sat out one game because of an NBA suspension for verbally abusing an official and Bucks coach Scott Skiles benched him for three others. Jackson says he'll stay ready to play whenever his name is called.

"'I'm supporting my teammates the way that I've always been,'' Jackson said Monday. ''I'm going to respect the coaches, I'm going to respect everybody around. But at the end of the day, everybody knows I want to play. That's not a secret.''

Jackson wouldn't say if he had requested a trade. The Bucks signed the veteran as a free agent in the offseason, hoping he could provide some offense. Jackson was a regular starter for the Bucks until he missed a team shootaround in New York last month and was benched for one game. Skiles was ill and did not attend Monday's practice. Assistant Jim Boylan said coaches will consider putting Jackson back in the regular rotation.

''That's something that will be discussed,'' Boylan said. ''Nothing lasts forever, especially in this league.'' Boylan said Jackson has remained upbeat. ''Steve's been great,'' Boylan said.

''He was outstanding today in practice, his attitude's been positive. So he doesn't need to do anything more for me, I know that. Since all of this has gone on, he's handled himself well. So I have no complaints.'' Jackson has played for seven different teams in 12 seasons. To some fans, he's best known for his role in the infamous Pacers-Pistons brawl in 2004, resulting in a 30-game suspension.

Jackson insists his reputation doesn't reflect his commitment to his teammates. ''I've been showing my commitment every day,'' Jackson said. ''I've been up cheering, supporting the team. I'm going to support my teammates. I'm a team guy. At the end of the day, when I get called, I'm going to be ready to play. That's what I love to do.'' Bucks point guard Brandon Jennings spoke up for Jackson, saying he was ''a little disappointed'' Skiles didn't play Jackson during Saturday's blowout home loss to Chicago. ''I felt like he should have played against Chicago,'' Jennings said. ''The fact that we were struggling, I was in foul trouble, maybe he could have gave us a spark. Just his presence probably could have changed the game. You never know.'' Jennings praised Jackson's attitude. ''The main thing is just to see what the coaches do,'' Jennings said. ''It's the coaches' decision at the end of the day. But he's been going hard and at the end of the day he's still a big part of the team, no matter what.''

Jackson brushed off a question about his relationship with Bucks coaches. ''I'll be ready to play when they call me,'' he said. ''That's not important. None of that's important. My job's to play basketball. My job's not to be here to be friends with anybody.'' Before last Wednesday's victory over Miami, Skiles said he'd had a ''good conversation'' with Jackson. Going into the Miami game, Jackson was suspended for a game against the Lakers and was benched for a game against Detroit. ''Look, I don't want anybody, especially somebody like `Jack,' to be happy about not playing in a game,'' Skiles said on Feb. 1. ''I have too much respect for him. I've been in that position myself, I totally understand it. But Jack's going to be a professional about it, and he's going to keep working hard, and when he gets his chance, he'll get into the game and help us. I'm fully confident of that.'' Jackson played nine minutes and 29 seconds against Miami, and hasn't played in the Bucks' past two games. ''Of course it's frustrating, because I want to be out there to help my teammates,'' Jackson said.

''I never want to leave a guy out there to battle by himself. But at the end of the day, I only can worry about what I can control.''

Jackson lingering on Bucks' bench, role uncertain

[grizzly_bexar]

If he's on the end of a bad team's bench, probably can't help us.

And always keep in mind: if you trade for a wing, Pop has to bench or reduce minutes for one or more of: Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Gary Neal, Manu Ginobili, Richard Jefferson.

What I want is for the roles of Kawhi and Danny to increase over the season, not for them to disappear with the return of Manu and a trade for another veteran.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by grizzly_bexar

If he's on the end of a bad team's bench, probably can't help us.

And always keep in mind: if you trade for a wing, Pop has to bench or reduce minutes for one or more of: Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Gary Neal, Manu Ginobili, Richard Jefferson.

What I want is for the roles of Kawhi and Danny to increase over the season, not for them to disappear with the return of Manu and a trade for another veteran.

Why would he be on the end of the bench in SA? SJax doesn't like Skiles never heard him do or say a bad thing about Pop. RJ needs to go period.

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

Why would he be on the end of the bench in SA? SJax doesn't like Skiles never heard him do or say a bad thing about Pop. RJ needs to go period.

Why does RJ need to go? He's playing well and within the system. The offense is balanced right now. Why would you want to mess that up? The last thing the team needs is for someone to come in and try to get their next contract.

[grizzly_bexar]

It's nice to have a guy with killer instinct like Jackson. But you need other guys to balance that out. Him, Danny Green, and Manu on one team might be a bit much.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

Why does RJ need to go? He's playing well and within the system. The offense is balanced right now. Why would you want to mess that up? The last thing the team needs is for someone to come in and try to get their next contract.

Every NBA player who is not as old as dirt wants their next contract.

[alliask]

Jackson's problem is he want's an extension, not that he hates Skiles...well he might hate Skiles, but what started all of this was the contract situation. Spurs aren't going to extend him.

Unless something has changed in his ability from last year he does have something left in the tank, but if they were going to make a move like this it would have been when Manu went down, not after we've weathered the storm. Unless you think he puts you over the top, there's probably more downside risk than upside value from this type of move.

[clovisnmspurfan]

Jackson is not a team player, nuff said.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by alliask

Jackson's problem is he want's an extension, not that he hates Skiles...well he might hate Skiles, but what started all of this was the contract situation. Spurs aren't going to extend him.

Unless something has changed in his ability from last year he does have something left in the tank, but if they were going to make a move like this it would have been when Manu went down, not after we've weathered the storm. Unless you think he puts you over the top, there's probably more downside risk than upside value from this type of move.

He scored 34 on the Spurs not too long ago. If there was any doubt that he could still perform he showed that to them already. Nobody is gonna likely extend him but Skiles is a hot headed coach.

[MichaelWi101]

Jackson needs to stay on the end of the Bucks bench. I still say he's a head case and the Spurs are better off without him. He wouldn't fill any of the real needs (other than getting rid of RJ...) that the Spurs have. He's not a big, he's not a shot blocker, he doesn't play defense and if we want someone to heave up 3 point shots we have Bonner.

I really don't get why some folks think he'd be a good addition to the team. He hasn't been thought highly enough by anybody else to keep him around.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by MichaelWi101

Jackson needs to stay on the end of the Bucks bench. I still say he's a head case and the Spurs are better off without him. He wouldn't fill any of the real needs (other than getting rid of RJ...) that the Spurs have. He's not a big, he's not a shot blocker, he doesn't play defense and if we want someone to heave up 3 point shots we have Bonner.

I really don't get why some folks think he'd be a good addition to the team. He hasn't been thought highly enough by anybody else to keep him around.

Getting rid of RJ is enough

[MichaelWi101]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

Getting rid of RJ is enough

I can't believe that even you really believe that. You'd rather poison the entire chemistry with a self-centered loudmouth than have RJ? Sorry, doesn't make any sense.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by MichaelWi101

I can't believe that even you really believe that. You'd rather poison the entire chemistry with a self-centered loudmouth than have RJ? Sorry, doesn't make any sense.

A throat slashing thug type with an edge is what this team needs! Doesn't make sense to pay a guy $30.5 million to keep sucking over and over. A guy who contributed to a championship or a guy who put up two goose eggs in the playoffs last year. A guy who has one less year on his contract. Yes it's an easy choice. Give me a decent reason to keep RJ?

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

A throat slashing thug type with an edge is what this team needs! Doesn't make sense to pay a guy $30.5 million to keep sucking over and over. A guy who contributed to a championship or a guy who put up two goose eggs in the playoffs last year. A guy who has one less year on his contract. Yes it's an easy choice. Give me a decent reason to keep RJ?

Ok, we get it. You just don't like RJ. But this goes along with all the other scapegoats, they are not the reason the Spurs lost in the playoffs. Right now, RJ is fitting well and the Spurs are gelling, with the prospect of Manu joining the team soon. There's no reason to bring Jackson. I will give you that RJ is overpaid. Your reasoning is that he helped the Spurs win a ring in 2003. At this point, he's not worth the trouble. Now if you're going to trade RJ, you do it for something you need.

[TDFTW]

It is important to remember that Jackson has played for the Spurs (going back to 2003), so he knows how Pop works. Add to it that it was that season which allowed Jackson to go to Indiana, Golden State, Charlotte, Milwaukee (sp.)...

If the Bucks, once again, traded small forwards with the Spurs (how we got Mr. Jefferson in the first place) I would do it in an Oberto/Curry heartbeat.

While Jackson (and Jefferson for that matter) are no longer the athletes they once were, Jackson has already proven his ability to work within Popovich's system [something Jefferson is starting to show promise in in only 3 seasons of play now...]. This would never happen, ever. Jefferson's contract is Godzilla spawning toxic. Add to it that the Bucks know Jefferson in the biblical sense (hence them giving him to us for pittance).

Hopefully, Jackson will be freed to play somewhere else and also help the Bucks get better through his trade. They are a franchise that could use some assistance.

[grizzly_bexar]

Jackson did play for the Spurs and he knows how Pop works.

He also left in a huff.

[MichaelWi101]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

Give me a decent reason to keep RJ?

He's not SJax

[clovisnmspurfan]

We also know that Jefferson is a team player and will do what is asked of him. We know that Jefferson is starting to contribute more especially on the defensive end. He can shoot the 3 ball, worked with us on a contract, did not pout, you want more?

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

Ok, we get it. You just don't like RJ. But this goes along with all the other scapegoats, they are not the reason the Spurs lost in the playoffs. Right now, RJ is fitting well and the Spurs are gelling, with the prospect of Manu joining the team soon. There's no reason to bring Jackson. I will give you that RJ is overpaid. Your reasoning is that he helped the Spurs win a ring in 2003. At this point, he's not worth the trouble. Now if you're going to trade RJ, you do it for something you need.

There are players that I disliked (Horry) but helped the Spurs eventually. I disliked K-Mart but would have welcomed him here. I don't like RJ' s play. I never blamed RJ for losing that playoffs. I just said two goose eggs does not help the cause. It's about performance versus liking a guy.........lol

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by clovisnmspurfan

We also know that Jefferson is a team player and will do what is asked of him. We know that Jefferson is starting to contribute more especially on the defensive end. He can shoot the 3 ball, worked with us on a contract, did not pout, you want more?

I would not pout either if I got the money he is receiving......lol. Lame

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

There are players that I disliked (Horry) but helped the Spurs eventually. I disliked K-Mart but would have welcomed him here. I don't RJ' s play. I never blamed RJ for losing that playoffs. I just said two goose eggs does not help the cause. It's about performance versus liking a guy.........lol

Well that's the only explanation for your wanting to mess with the chemistry that's going on right now. Either way, success in the playoffs depends on the former Big 3 being healthy and playing at a high level. Also getting favorable matchups. Even if defenses don't have to double the big 3, they need to be able to make them pay.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

Well that's the only explanation for your wanting to mess with the chemistry that's going on right now. Either way, success in the playoffs depends on the former Big 3 being healthy and playing at a high level. Also getting favorable matchups. Even if defenses don't have to double the big 3, they need to be able to make them pay.

Do you know for a FACT that it would mess anything up? FYI he was not at the end of bench tonight! The big 3 needs outside help to make another serious run.

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

Do you know for a FACT that it would mess anything up? FYI he was not at the end of bench tonight! The big 3 needs outside help to make another serious run.

Well you don't know that it WON'T mess anything up, so there!
Look, if the Spurs actually do something and bring him in, then kudos to you. But I have a feeling that they aren't even looking in his direction.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

Well you don't know that it WON'T mess anything up, so there!
Look, if the Spurs actually do something and bring him in, then kudos to you. But I have a feeling that they aren't even looking in his direction.

we shall see

[WILLTHETHRILL]

FYI Found some material to share


Some sources identify Jackson in a more positive manner. Former teammate Tim Duncan once labeled Jackson as the "ultimate teammate" during his days in San Antonio. ESPN analyst and sportswriter Michael Smith finds Jackson to be "articulate, charming, and thoughtful."[41] Lang Whitaker, executive editor of Slam Magazine, states Jackson is "one of my favorite players, after all."[42]


Former coaches Rick Carlisle and Don Nelson have constantly referred to Jackson's high character. On the Jim Rome show, Nelson stated Jackson is not simply a good person in the limited world of the NBA, but one of the finest people he has ever known.[45] Former Pacers executive Donnie Walsh, who was principally responsible for the Golden State trade, stated "I love Jack to death. He's emotional and he's going to get technicals. But that's just part of the package. He's a great team guy."[46]

[Jose_TheGenius]

are you all really arguing Stephen flippin Jackson?

MANU IS RETURNING SATURDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

FYI Found some material to share


Some sources identify Jackson in a more positive manner. Former teammate Tim Duncan once labeled Jackson as the "ultimate teammate" during his days in San Antonio. ESPN analyst and sportswriter Michael Smith finds Jackson to be "articulate, charming, and thoughtful."[41] Lang Whitaker, executive editor of Slam Magazine, states Jackson is "one of my favorite players, after all."[42]


Former coaches Rick Carlisle and Don Nelson have constantly referred to Jackson's high character. On the Jim Rome show, Nelson stated Jackson is not simply a good person in the limited world of the NBA, but one of the finest people he has ever known.[45] Former Pacers executive Donnie Walsh, who was principally responsible for the Golden State trade, stated "I love Jack to death. He's emotional and he's going to get technicals. But that's just part of the package. He's a great team guy."[46]

That's all fine, and I'm sure he's a good guy. But why would you make the trade? Is the only reason to get rid of RJ? If you're going to disrupt what they have, you have to at least do it for something you need. If Jack were a 6'10" SF I'd be all for it.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Jose_TheGenius

are you all really arguing Stephen flippin Jackson?

MANU IS RETURNING SATURDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I should call you Jose_TheJohn Kerry! You were for that trade idea before.............lol

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

That's all fine, and I'm sure he's a good guy. But why would you make the trade? Is the only reason to get rid of RJ? If you're going to disrupt what they have, you have to at least do it for something you need. If Jack were a 6'10" SF I'd be all for it.

To answer my questions since it seems I'm the only one who does that around here.



Why?

I already stated that.

Only reason to drop RJ?

Yes and no. I already stated the reasons.

Thank you

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

To answer my questions since it seems I'm the only one who does that around here.



Why?

I already stated that.

Only reason to drop RJ?

Yes and no. I already stated the reasons.

Thank you

I know. That was a rhetorical question. Your reasons are not good reasons.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

I know. That was a rhetorical question. Your reasons are not good reasons.

Creating cap space. Adding toughness and a proven winner. Yeah sounds really dumb.

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

Creating cap space. Adding toughness and a proven winner. Yeah sounds really dumb.

Creating cap space how? He makes 9.2 mil this year and 10mil next. And he'll leave after that. So if you're thinking about rebuilding mode in 2014, then sure. By then Duncan and Manu are gone. Plus it still doesn't address the fact that while he may be a good teammate, he has still proven difficult with ownership when things don't go his way.

I'll leave you alone now.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

Creating cap space how? He makes 9.2 mil this year and 10mil next. And he'll leave after that. So if you're thinking about rebuilding mode in 2014, then sure. By then Duncan and Manu are gone. Plus it still doesn't address the fact that while he may be a good teammate, he has still proven difficult with ownership when things don't go his way.

I'll leave you alone now.

Guess you want RJ at $11 million plus for his last year of his deal which is one year longer than SJax? I'm going to show you that it's 2013 not 2014 on your above statement.
2014 for RJ's deal to expire. 2013 for SJax deal to expire. You are looking at the years incorrectly my friend. When you see lets say 3 years right now. You take this season and minus one. So after this year RJ has two years left. SJax would only have one year remaining. TD says one year on his deal but after this year he is a free agent. So go ahead and man up AND ADMIT YOU MADE A MISTAKE! Also a side note on SJax and management did you read the paragraphs from the comments made about him? Don't bring up ......well that's why they traded him. They traded George Hill. I'm sure Hill raised a lot of hell here to get traded out of here. Not! Admit your error on your response please.

THANK YOU AGAIN

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

Guess you want RJ at $11 million plus for his last year of his deal which is one year longer than SJax? I'm going to show you that it's 2013 not 2014 on your above statement.
2014 for RJ's deal to expire. 2013 for SJax deal to expire. You are looking at the years incorrectly my friend. When you see lets say 3 years right now. You take this season and minus one. So after this year RJ has two years left. SJax would only have one year remaining. TD says one year on his deal but after this year he is a free agent. So go ahead and man up AND ADMIT YOU MADE A MISTAKE! Also a side note on SJax and management did you read the paragraphs from the comments made about him? Don't bring up ......well that's why they traded him. They traded George Hill. I'm sure Hill raised a lot of hell here to get traded out of here. Not! Admit your error on your response please.

THANK YOU AGAIN

9 mil 11-12 season. 10mil 12-13 season. So 13-14 season Sjax (who is a year older than RJ) is gone and RJ still has one year left. I'm saying that season will most likely be a rebuilding year. I don't think Manu will last that long and TD won't either. Even if they are here, they won't be at the same level, so it's still a rebuilding year. So like I said, I agree, if that's what you're looking at then sure make the trade. But it doesn't do anything now for cap space, and IMO it will hurt the team's mojo right now. Just because a guy helped you win 9 years ago doesn't mean it will be the same now.

[Jose_TheGenius]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

I should call you Jose_TheJohn Kerry! You were for that trade idea before.............lol

[grizzly_bexar]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

I should call you Jose_TheJohn Kerry! You were for that trade idea before.............lol

Oh, snap! I think Jose just got Thrill-Boated.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by grizzly_bexar

Oh, snap! I think Jose just got Thrill-Boated.

For what?lol
I liked that video.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

9 mil 11-12 season. 10mil 12-13 season. So 13-14 season Sjax (who is a year older than RJ) is gone and RJ still has one year left. I'm saying that season will most likely be a rebuilding year. I don't think Manu will last that long and TD won't either. Even if they are here, they won't be at the same level, so it's still a rebuilding year. So like I said, I agree, if that's what you're looking at then sure make the trade. But it doesn't do anything now for cap space, and IMO it will hurt the team's mojo right now. Just because a guy helped you win 9 years ago doesn't mean it will be the same now.

I like that you only respond to certain things and not the whole post. Reminds me of the other great basketball minded people on here. Going by the first two sentences you are saying that I was correct in a roundaboutway about the contracts. I never said it did anything cap wise this year. I was talking the very near future. What difference does it make if Duncan or Manu are not around? Why would you want to pay that guy that money for an extra year? Hurt the mojo? Did it hurt the mojo when Spurs lost Malik Rose for the unknown big man addition in Nazr Mohammed? A guy in Rose who had blood, sweat and tears for two title runs? SJax is slightly older but remember he never played NCAA ball so his mileage is deceiving. I'm not saying add SJax and title #5 is here on a silver platter. I'm saying add him for proven PLAYOFF production and a more cap friendly contract because it's shorter. It was 9 years ago but the guy is still in his early 30's.

[katyspursfan]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

I like that you only respond to certain things and not the whole post. Reminds me of the other great basketball minded people on here. Going by the first two sentences you are saying that I was correct in a roundaboutway about the contracts. I never said it did anything cap wise this year. I was talking the very near future. What difference does it make if Duncan or Manu are not around? Why would you want to pay that guy that money for an extra year? Hurt the mojo? Did it hurt the mojo when Spurs lost Malik Rose for the unknown big man addition in Nazr Mohammed? A guy in Rose who had blood, sweat and tears for two title runs? SJax is slightly older but remember he never played NCAA ball so his mileage is deceiving. I'm not saying add SJax and title #5 is here on a silver platter. I'm saying add him for proven PLAYOFF production and a more cap friendly contract because it's shorter. It was 9 years ago but the guy is still in his early 30's.

What's he done in the playoffs the last nine years?

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by katyspursfan

What's he done in the playoffs the last nine years?

Look it up dude........... I'm sure it's better then RJ's averages.

[katyspursfan]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

Look it up dude........... I'm sure it's better then RJ's averages.

In other words, he's done nothing.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by katyspursfan

In other words, he's done nothing.

In other words..........I'm not your slave!

[grizzly_bexar]

I'll sponsor the steel cage match so we can settle this once and for all.

[clovisnmspurfan]

Manu is back!!

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

I like that you only respond to certain things and not the whole post. Reminds me of the other great basketball minded people on here. Going by the first two sentences you are saying that I was correct in a roundaboutway about the contracts. I never said it did anything cap wise this year. I was talking the very near future. What difference does it make if Duncan or Manu are not around? Why would you want to pay that guy that money for an extra year? Hurt the mojo? Did it hurt the mojo when Spurs lost Malik Rose for the unknown big man addition in Nazr Mohammed? A guy in Rose who had blood, sweat and tears for two title runs? SJax is slightly older but remember he never played NCAA ball so his mileage is deceiving. I'm not saying add SJax and title #5 is here on a silver platter. I'm saying add him for proven PLAYOFF production and a more cap friendly contract because it's shorter. It was 9 years ago but the guy is still in his early 30's.

What did I not respond to? Your hand picked quotes about how great he is? There are just as many out there saying he's not so great a teammate. No point in arguing about that. I said 2014, when it's actually 2013-2014 season, so we were both right on the years. And I'm giving you credit for thinking about cap space in the future, however this team is in win now mode.

As far as your Malik Rose comparison, at that point, in the middle of the 2005 season, he wasn't doing much and if you can get a decent legit 7 footer you do it. The joke was on NY. The Spurs needed a big man. The difference is Jackson is known as a trouble child. He got to the Bucks and immediately started talking about extension without ever having played a game with them. He was also unhappy with the Warriors (even after they upset the 1 seed) and with the Bobcats (despite playing a big role there). And like I've said before, the Spurs low balled him and LET him walk. He's got other things on his mind, and winning isn't one of them.

The Spurs need size, not a risky SG/SF with an attitude and dollar signs in his eyes.

[katyspursfan]

Originally Posted by WILLTHETHRILL

In other words..........I'm not your slave!

Huh? In the decade since Jackson played for the Spurs, he hasn't done crap in the playoffs.

What does that have to do with you being submissive to me?

[Jose_TheGenius]

forget Stephen Jackson

Manu..........HE RETURNS!

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by katyspursfan

Huh? In the decade since Jackson played for the Spurs, he hasn't done crap in the playoffs.

What does that have to do with you being submissive to me?

His playoff averages are better then RJs and SJax playoff numbers have improved since he left SA. Has he helped win another title? Nope but it's kind of hard to compete when you play with the Hawks and Bobcats etc.

The slave comment was because you seem to think I need to look up things for you. I don't think I should do that for you or anyone else on here if I choose not to. You got a computer and internet ability.........look it up yourself. That's all I meant by that. Besides I've seen the numbers and it favors my side FYI.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

What did I not respond to? Your hand picked quotes about how great he is? There are just as many out there saying he's not so great a teammate. No point in arguing about that. I said 2014, when it's actually 2013-2014 season, so we were both right on the years. And I'm giving you credit for thinking about cap space in the future, however this team is in win now mode.

As far as your Malik Rose comparison, at that point, in the middle of the 2005 season, he wasn't doing much and if you can get a decent legit 7 footer you do it. The joke was on NY. The Spurs needed a big man. The difference is Jackson is known as a trouble child. He got to the Bucks and immediately started talking about extension without ever having played a game with them. He was also unhappy with the Warriors (even after they upset the 1 seed) and with the Bobcats (despite playing a big role there). And like I've said before, the Spurs low balled him and LET him walk. He's got other things on his mind, and winning isn't one of them.

The Spurs need size, not a risky SG/SF with an attitude and dollar signs in his eyes.

Pretty much what it is if I say let's just say 4 things on a post...... You will comment and pigeon hole one of the 4 and leave the rest of my comments out. Maybe not on this one but the others before on many threads.You are kind of treating me like the media treats Mitt Romney.(I'm not a fan of his FYI) I think you do that to hammer your strongest point against one of mine that can be questioned. That's fine do what you want but I don't do that to people on here. I debate the whole conversation. As far as the summer of 2013 versus the summer of 2014 it's not the same but you seem to have admitted that your math was wrong I guess. Of course the team is in a win now mode but that does not mean you can't do a move that is win now and lets think about the future. Which was exactly what the Nazr/Malik trade was about. They got a center who helped them win a title and got rid of a bad contract. The Spurs had a mojo then and they tweaked it. They improved that's my point. It's not automatic that they sink or swim. That trade was still a risky move at the time. I already commented on the low ball thing. Did you know the Spurs low balled David Robinson in 2001? Guess he is a piece of garbage. Dude what have the Warriors/Bucks/Bobcats done recently in NBA basketball history? Nothing much except lottery visits. It would be silly to blame one player on a franchise with shaky help at best. SJax is not going to go to Scott Skiles or Larry Brown's X-mas parties anytime soon. A lot of his issues were with them. The coaches! I never said the Spurs do not need to make a move for size. I agree they do. As far as attitude......They need some! Dollar signs in his eyes????? Guess RJ took a sweetheart deal without those $$$ signs.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by Jose_TheGenius

forget Stephen Jackson

Manu..........HE RETURNS!

I thought you agreed with the trade idea?????What happened? Guess you will be buying a Bonner jersey now too.lol