Stack Jack to Cleveland, w/Charlotte

giberish · Post #1 » by **giberish** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 2:27 am

I know it's been done to death, but I though I'd try for a plausible option:

Cleveland trades: Z, West, 2010 1st for Jackson, Bell, Nazr

Cleveland upgrades their wing rotation at the expense of a late 1st and taking on salary (this year and long-term).

Charlotte trades: Bell, Nazr, Radman for Z, West, 2010 Cleveland 1st

Charlotte gets smaller and has to deal with West, but saves some money and gets a late 1st.

GSW trades Jackson for Radman

At this point, getting an overpaid but still useful (and somewhat fitting on-court) player for Jackson may be as good as GS can get.

Several variations from this could also be in play
1) 2010 Cleveland 1st is replaced by Hickson. Probably Cleveland doesn't do this, although it does add an option for Charlotte in their PF rotation.
2) 2010 Cleveland 1st is taken out, but Nazr is replaced by Diop. Charlotte saves more $$ at the expense of a late 1st. Cleveland again probably isn't interested.
3) West is sent to Memphis and Iverson to Charlotte.
4) After Dec. 15 West could be replaced by Moon or Parker - either to Charlotte or to Memphis for Iverson.

InBoobieWeTrust · Post #2 » by **InBoobieWeTrust** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 3:00 am

Charlotte has no place in this deal. The Cavs give up way too much here.

A Jackson deal will be for an expiring. The Cavs aren't adding any assets.

Post #3 » by **loserX** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 3:06 am

Charlotte takes major advantage of the Cavaliers...what the Bobcats give up is not worth a large expiring, a young guard and a first round pick (or Hickson).

bcortell · Post #4 » by **bcortell** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 3:36 am

No way Cleveland does this.

Dr Aki · Post #5 » by **Dr Aki** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 4:29 am

cleveland wants talent, but wont give up capspace...

cant have it both ways... gotta sacrifice one or the other, wait too long and cleveland might be spending their 2010 capspace trying to replace lebron

old rem · Post #6 » by **old rem** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 4:58 am

Aki wrote:cleveland wants talent, but wont give up capspace...

cant have it both ways... gotta sacrifice one or the other, wait too long and cleveland might be spending their 2010 capspace trying to replace lebron

I guess they are not concerned with that. Warriors can take their time. It's not like what they get in this kind of deal matters much. Some team probably will decide Jackson gives their rotation some extra talent,and they offer enough that GSW is happy to say yes.

InBoobieWeTrust · Post #7 » by **InBoobieWeTrust** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 6:02 am

Aki wrote:cleveland wants talent, but wont give up capspace...

cant have it both ways... gotta sacrifice one or the other, wait too long and cleveland might be spending their 2010 capspace trying to replace lebron

It's not about the cap-space here.

It's about us giving up way too many other assets for the toxicity that is Stephen Jackson.

Dr Aki · Post #8 » by **Dr Aki** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 9:52 am

its convenient to paint sjax as a toxicity when you want to lower his value, but yet the only deal you're willing to accept are garbage deals.

this isn't a garbage deal. its what its probably going to take in order to land sjax, especially with the scarcity of money (and therefore, the popularity of holding onto expiring deals) and decent big men in the league

but you're dealing with the warriors who:
1. looking for a big man in return (of which radmanovic is NOT)
2. looking for expiring contracts (of which they want big Z and cavs are unwilling to part with unless hes replaced)

the way i see this deal for cleveland is:
1. trading slow-footed Z for nazr
2. trading undersized delonte + low 1st for sjax and 6'6" bell (exp)

depth chart:
shaq/nazr/AV
AV/powe/hickson/lebron/sjax
lebron/sjax/moon
sjax/a.parker/bell
mo/sjax/gibson

its a great trade for increasing squad depth, versatility (go big, small, defensive, offensive) playand cleveland's no-lebron, 3-guard-style-unit wouldnt look as clueless (as it does currently with mo williams trying to create offense) and small

and all it would take is capspace of which if u re-sign lebron there wouldnt be any left, seeing as the only way you could attract FAs were by offering them deals beyond 2010

and a 1st (which judging from ferry's recent drafting history isn't going to pan out quickly enough anyway)

Post #9 » by **B Mac** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 4:35 pm

Delonte was the Cavs second best player last year. He's not just some throw in.

InBoobieWeTrust · Post #10 » by **InBoobieWeTrust** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 5:32 pm

Aki wrote:its convenient to paint sjax as a toxicity when you want to lower his value, but yet the only deal you're willing to accept are garbage deals.

this isn't a garbage deal. its what its probably going to take in order to land sjax, especially with the scarcity of money (and therefore, the popularity of holding onto expiring deals) and decent big men in the league

but you're dealing with the warriors who:
1. looking for a big man in return (of which radmanovic is NOT)
2. looking for expiring contracts (of which they want big Z and cavs are unwilling to part with unless hes replaced)

the way i see this deal for cleveland is:
1. trading slow-footed Z for nazr
2. trading undersized delonte + low 1st for sjax and 6'6" bell (exp)

depth chart:
shaq/nazr/AV
AV/powe/hickson/lebron/sjax
lebron/sjax/moon
sjax/a.parker/bell
mo/sjax/gibson

its a great trade for increasing squad depth, versatility (go big, small, defensive, offensive) playand cleveland's no-lebron, 3-guard-style-unit wouldnt look as clueless (as it does currently with mo williams trying to create offense) and small

and all it would take is capspace of which if u re-sign lebron there wouldnt be any left, seeing as the only way you could attract FAs were by offering them deals beyond 2010

and a 1st (which judging from ferry's recent drafting history isn't going to pan out quickly enough anyway)

Z for Nazr is such a dramatic downgrade contractually and talent-wise, even though Z is slow and old now, that it's not even worth discussing a trade where you see "Z for Nazr" as being a main component of it.

This deal is absolute trash. I'm not against trading Z for Jackson and filler. The Cavs may eventually wilt on that as well.

But adding assets to Z to have the privilege of eating Nazr Mohammed's contract and getting a redundant Raja Bell is silly.

I think we'll see either Jamario Moon+Wally Szczerbiak(Keith Van Horn Salary filler role)+some cash and maybe a 2nd rounder for Jackson.

Or, we'll see a Z for Jackson+filler deal.

Keep it simple.

old rem · Post #11 » by **old rem** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 5:42 pm

B Mac wrote:Delonte was the Cavs second best player last year. He's not just some throw in.

He's an 11 ppg undersize SG who could land in jail. Jackson has a couple years now as a 20 pt guy..is 6-8.

GSW isn't too thrilled with just getting Vlad, but it's,I guess,do-able.

SportsBoy · Post #12 » by **SportsBoy** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 6:46 pm

NO WAY.

Z is needed to backup SHAQ ( he wont last the full season) IMO

West is critical to the CAVS chemistry.

The best you will get for S-JZX will be an expiring and a low pick.

Wally (S&T) 5Mil, Moon (3Mil), 1st round pick

Post #13 » by **B Mac** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 9:44 pm

old rem wrote:
B Mac wrote:Delonte was the Cavs second best player last year. He's not just some throw in.

He's an 11 ppg undersize SG who could land in jail. Jackson has a couple years now as a 20 pt guy..is 6-8.

GSW isn't too thrilled with just getting Vlad, but it's,I guess,do-able.

If only scoring was all that mattered in the NBA...

Gordon Bombay · Post #14 » by **Gordon Bombay** » Mon Nov 9, 2009 9:49 pm

old rem wrote:I guess they are not concerned with that. Warriors can take their time. It's not like what they get in this kind of deal matters much. Some team probably will decide Jackson gives their rotation some extra talent,and they offer enough that GSW is happy to say yes.

but who?
- denver could use him but they have nothing to give up.
- boston would have the expirings to do a deal but they already have a younger version of stephen jackson in marquis daniels off the bench. adding jax would certainly help them but it could become a too many cooks in the kitchen type of thing (especially with minimal swingman minutes available)
- orlando could do it but when healthy they have about zero minutes available anywhere because they are so talented as it is
- san antonio could be a player to bring him back for michael finley and some change
- dallas has the pieces but minimal minutes available

looks like san antonio and cleveland in this sweepstakes of teams that could be realistically involved in trading for stephen jackson, his contract and his personality