Warriors-Bobcats (Another Stephen Jax Trade)

Mich3006 · Post #1 » by **Mich3006** » Sat Nov 7, 2009 1:40 pm

Jackson, Claxton for Bell, Mohammed, 1st Rd Pick

Bobcats: Felton, Jackson, Wallace, Diaw, Chandler
Warriors: Ellis, Morrow, Maggette, Randolph, Biedrins

Why for them: The Bobcats would have a potential post-season starting lineup, Jackson could give them D like Bell and he´s a 20-6-6 player...The Warriors get off Jax´s contract and get the extended of Raja Bell, a solid Two-Guard+they get a lottery pick

old rem · Post #2 » by **old rem** » Sat Nov 7, 2009 9:06 pm

This justifies GSW eating these contracts. I'd assume the Bobs put some protect on any pick...but I THINK their 2010 is traded,so it might be that the pick is 2012, making it less value,even if less protected. Unprotected, it would be rather attractive as GSW's 2012 is owed,but protected,and so the 2011 is not tradeable. However...I doubt the Bobs deal an unprotected.

Extended Bell? I don't recall he's been extended? I'd rather he's NOT.

spectre_ · Post #3 » by **spectre_** » Sat Nov 7, 2009 9:48 pm

1st round pick? :rofl:

The only thing GSW would be eating is one year of Nazr at about 6.9 million. We on the other hand would be taking on 27 million over the next 3 years for a guy who's asked to be traded!

If it was Gana instead of Nazr then we might could discuss a pick...but not Nazr & Raja (who has NOT been extended).

Coxy · Post #4 » by **Coxy** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:29 am

Um, yeah sign me up for the original deal please. Wouldnt happen though.

old rem · Post #5 » by **old rem** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 3:00 am

spectre_ wrote:1st round pick?

The only thing GSW would be eating is one year of Nazr at about 6.9 million. We on the other hand would be taking on 27 million over the next 3 years for a guy who's asked to be traded!

If it was Gana instead of Nazr then we might could discuss a pick...but not Nazr & Raja (who has NOT been extended).

Jackson has scored a tasty 20 per the last 2 yr at just a bit more pay than Nazr,who's been pretty low impact. Diop is of no worth to GSW in any regard so we'd rather pay a volume scorer than a backup big.
I can put up with Nazr for a rd 1,but not a longer deal guy who's less worth here.

don nelson · Post #6 » by **don nelson** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 5:02 am

Bell and Claxton have similar sized expiring contracts and aren't playing because of injuries making them a wash. That makes this trade Stephen Jackson for Nazr Mohammed who still has 2 years left on his contract and a 1st round pick. The stat comparison below should be self explanatory.

2008-2009 stats of Nazr Mohammed and Stephen Jackson and 2009-2010 salaries

Nazr Mohammed age 32, 2.7 points, 2.0 rebounds, 0.4 blocks/game 2009-10 salary $6,466,600 outstanding balance of the player's contract: 2 years at $13.35 million

Stephen Jackson age 31, 20.7 points, 5.1 rebounds, 6.5 assists/game 2009-10 salary $7,650,000 outstanding balance of the player's contract: 4 years at $35.4 million

One first round pick is obviously not adequate for the Warriors to eat two years of Nazr's $13.35 million contract since Nazr can't produce at anywhere near the levels that Stephen Jackson has. The Warriors say no unless Charlotte substantially improves their offer for Jackson. Even Gerald Wallace doesn't compare favorably to Stephen Jackson's overall production. Here's Wallace's stats

Gerald Wallace age 27, 15.5 points, 7.8 rebounds, 2.7 assists/game 2009-10 salary $9,075,000 outstanding balance of the player's contract: 4 years at $41 million

Coxy · Post #7 » by **Coxy** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 5:11 am

Stats dont take mental capacity into consideration though don.

Post #8 » by **Hassassin** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 5:16 am

don nelson wrote:Bell and Claxton have similar sized expiring contracts and aren't playing because of injuries making them a wash.

Umm no. EDIT: Bell started the last 3 games for the Bobcats

don nelson · Post #9 » by **don nelson** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 6:50 am

HA! wrote:
don nelson wrote:Bell and Claxton have similar sized expiring contracts and aren't playing because of injuries making them a wash.

Umm no. EDIT: Bell started the last 3 games for the Bobcats

If Raja Bell is playing instead being sidelined because of wrist surgery I stand corrected. However Bell is still a 34 year old player who is playing on an expiring contract. Since the Warriors are trying to rebuild around their young core of players who are all 20-26 years old, Bell would not fit into the Warriors long term plans and his value would pretty much be limited to his expiring contract. Taking both Raja Bell and Speedy Claxton out of this trade is not a problem because the presence or omission of these 2 players will not alter outcome of this trade proposal for the Warriors at all.

killacalijatt · Post #10 » by **killacalijatt** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 6:55 am

Warriors take and run

old rem · Post #11 » by **old rem** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 7:19 am

Coxy wrote:Stats dont take mental capacity into consideration though don.

Not that Nazr is gonna win any contests in that area.

it is the sort of deal that nobody likes much but at some point both might see as better than the status quo. i'd hope GSW does a bit better than this,but I've seen worse.

spectre_ · Post #12 » by **spectre_** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:23 pm

SJax has asked out and it appears he's screwing with the young guys' heads. Don't you think that...and that no one else seems willing to take him...would kind of negate his stats? Looks to me GSW should be THRILLED to dump him for less salary. Asking for a pick (and odds are a lottery pick) is pretty ludicrous.

Thankfully it's being reported that our interest is way overblown; supposedly we made one initial call and that was it. Source was quoted as saying SJax would never be a Bobcat.

And so ends this.

don nelson · Post #13 » by **don nelson** » Sun Nov 8, 2009 8:04 pm

spectre_ wrote:SJax has asked out and it appears he's screwing with the young guys' heads. Don't you think that...and that no one else seems willing to take him...would kind of negate his stats? Looks to me GSW should be THRILLED to dump him for less salary. Asking for a pick (and odds are a lottery pick) is pretty ludicrous.

Thankfully it's being reported that our interest is way overblown; supposedly we made one initial call and that was it. Source was quoted as saying SJax would never be a Bobcat.

And so ends this.

Negating stats is like saying you do not not care about whether you even get paid for working at whatever job you have. If you buy that line of crap I can assure you there are plenty of people that would be glad to hire you even in this economy. After all the numbers $ don't matter to you.

Jackson's camp has let it be known he would rather stay in Oakland than be traded to Charlotte.

spectre_ · Post #14 » by **spectre_** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 12:15 am

don nelson wrote:Negating stats is like saying you do not not care about whether you even get paid for working at whatever job you have. If you buy that line of crap I can assure you there are plenty of people that would be glad to hire you even in this economy. After all the numbers $ don't matter to you.

You seem to think that no matter what SJax says or does he still holds the value of someone who put up the same stats and didn't act like an idiot. Good luck with that.

don nelson wrote:Jackson's camp has let it be known he would rather stay in Oakland than be traded to Charlotte.

Awesome...the feelings mutual!

don nelson · Post #15 » by **don nelson** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 2:39 am

spectre_ wrote:
don nelson wrote:Negating stats is like saying you do not not care about whether you even get paid for working at whatever job you have. If you buy that line of crap I can assure you there are plenty of people that would be glad to hire you even in this economy. After all the numbers $ don't matter to you.

You seem to think that no matter what SJax says or does he still holds the value of someone who put up the same stats and didn't act like an idiot. Good luck with that.

don nelson wrote:Jackson's camp has let it be known he would rather stay in Oakland than be traded to Charlotte.

Awesome...the feelings mutual!

What I am saying is that even an unhappy Stephen Jackson has a lot more value than someone like Nazr Mohammed who is no longer capable of being a productive player in the NBA. I posted their 2008-2009 stats just to illustrate the magnitude in the difference of the actual production of these two players. The difference between a player who can actually produce in the NBA like Jackson and Nazr whose future as a player is somewhere outside the NBA is a lot more than a first round pick especially with the amount of money remaining on Nazr’s contract. The reality is Nazr Mohammed is actually worth more in a trade to a NBA team dead than alive. The only significant difference between Nazr Mohammed and a D league player is his guaranteed contract primarily because he's still breathing. The basic problem with this trade is Charlotte is trying to trade Nazr for a productive player when he is still alive and owed $13.25 million over the next two seasons. But if Nazr Mohammed suddenly and unexpectedly dies, then Warriors should accept this trade.