RealGM

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11116 ... rrett-jack

i would try to squeeze some sort of pick(either round) and pull the trigger

Jack is the better player and would provide insurance if Livingston does bolt for more $. He's also guaranteed until 2016... isn't that when the rest of the Nets contracts expire so they would all come off the books at the same time?

yep

plus he is Livingston insurance

Thx. For better or worse the current guys Johnson, Deron, etc are the Nets team until 2016 when they can hopefully reload again.

i dont get the trade... livingston doesnt really play PG for us, so i dont see jack as a livingston replacement. i dont see jack starting and playing in a 3 gaurd lineup. livingston works cause he is 6'7"

jack might be the better player, but i see thornton as the better fit. isntant offense off the bench, which is really what we need more of.

i dont like this deal. especially when you consider the contracts with thornton expiring. unless we get a pick off cleveland id balk

Livingston is definitely a pg for us

one can aruge that when Livingston and Dwill play at the same time Livingston is really the PG while we use Dwill as a small shooting guard

jerzeyguy201 wrote:Livingston is definitely a pg for us

one can aruge that when Livingston and Dwill play at the same time Livingston is really the PG while we use Dwill as a small shooting guard

its irrelevant what you call livingston. the point is, he is playing ina 3 gaurd lineup, and at 6'7" he allows us to have decent size on the floor despite us being a smallball team.

you put jack in, and now we go from being "big" at the 2 to being "small" at the 2 (with either dwill or jack there).

Jack cant gaurd guys like durant or george or lebron or whomever, he doesnt have the size. he also cant take advantage in the post if teams gaurd him with a PG like livingston can.

if we get jack, its as a backup and dwill insurance. he simply isnt capable to replace livingston in the starting lineup.

This wouldn't make any sense to me. We avoided this move at the deadline because of his contract, but now all of a sudden we're interested again? I also liked what Thornton brought off the bench, which was instant offense, something we lack. If this trade is made, I would at least hope Cleveland would be sending us a draft pick, but with Billy King, you never know.

rj2496 wrote:This wouldn't make any sense to me. We avoided this move at the deadline because of his contract, but now all of a sudden we're interested again? I also liked what Thornton brought off the bench, which was instant offense, something we lack. If this trade is made, I would at least hope Cleveland would be sending us a draft pick, but with Billy King, you never know.

yea... i mean i wouldnt say no to jack + 33 for thornton. but im not doing just thornton. and even jack +33 doesnt really excite me a ton.

This trade makes alot of sense. Jack's final year is only guaranteed at 500k for 2016/17. That means we could use him in a trade (1) as an expiring in 2015/16, as a (2) draft day or (3) sign and trade in the summer of 2016/17. In the mean time he fits the 2 year window we have remaining with this group.

F3LON wrote:This trade makes alot of sense. Jack's final year is only guaranteed at 500k for 2016/17. That means we could use him in a trade (1) as an expiring in 2015/16, as a (2) draft day or (3) sign and trade in the summer of 2016/17. In the mean time he fits the 2 year window we have remaining with this group.

i think its easier to find a backup PG (devin harris?) then it is to find an instant offense guy like thornton who doubles as a large expiring.

id rather just go after devin harris.

Prokorov wrote:

F3LON wrote:This trade makes alot of sense. Jack's final year is only guaranteed at 500k for 2016/17. That means we could use him in a trade (1) as an expiring in 2015/16, as a (2) draft day or (3) sign and trade in the summer of 2016/17. In the mean time he fits the 2 year window we have remaining with this group.

i think its easier to find a backup PG (devin harris?) then it is to find an instant offense guy like thornton who doubles as a large expiring.

id rather just go after devin harris.

Jack is twice the player Harris is. NO reason we can get both though. Harris is likely a vet min guy at this point

Prokorov wrote:i dont get the trade... livingston doesnt really play PG for us, so i dont see jack as a livingston replacement. i dont see jack starting and playing in a 3 gaurd lineup. livingston works cause he is 6'7"

jack might be the better player, but i see thornton as the better fit. isntant offense off the bench, which is really what we need more of.

i dont like this deal. especially when you consider the contracts with thornton expiring. unless we get a pick off cleveland id balk

This sounds good for Cleveland but horrible for Nets. Jack isn't what he was in Golden State and not even close to what Livingston is on defense. Nets passed on Jack last year now they want him..right.

jerzeyguy201 wrote:Livingston is definitely a pg for us

one can aruge that when Livingston and Dwill play at the same time Livingston is really the PG while we use Dwill as a small shooting guard

No, you can't argue that. Deron was our main ball handler. When Livingston was asked to be the main ball handler, he struggled. He's not good at running PnRs. He doesn't turn it over but he's not a great playmaker. He played a ton off the ball and primarily guarded wings.

Don't fall for the ESPN narrative that Deron wasn't our PG. It's complete BS.

kamaze wrote:

Prokorov wrote:i dont get the trade... livingston doesnt really play PG for us, so i dont see jack as a livingston replacement. i dont see jack starting and playing in a 3 gaurd lineup. livingston works cause he is 6'7"

jack might be the better player, but i see thornton as the better fit. isntant offense off the bench, which is really what we need more of.

i dont like this deal. especially when you consider the contracts with thornton expiring. unless we get a pick off cleveland id balk

This sounds good for Cleveland but horrible for Nets. Jack isn't what he was in Golden State and not even close to what Livingston is on defense. Nets passed on Jack last year now they want him..right.

Let's put it this way: Without Livingston, the backup guards are Jorge Gutierrez and Marquis Teague.

Jarrett Jack would be such a significant upgrade and Kidd would probably revitalize his career here in a real offense compared to Mike Brown's putrid offense.

F3LON wrote:

Prokorov wrote:

F3LON wrote:This trade makes alot of sense. Jack's final year is only guaranteed at 500k for 2016/17. That means we could use him in a trade (1) as an expiring in 2015/16, as a (2) draft day or (3) sign and trade in the summer of 2016/17. In the mean time he fits the 2 year window we have remaining with this group.

i think its easier to find a backup PG (devin harris?) then it is to find an instant offense guy like thornton who doubles as a large expiring.

id rather just go after devin harris.

Jack is twice the player Harris is. NO reason we can get both though. Harris is likely a vet min guy at this point

But harris wouldnt cost us thornton. and i strongly disagree with jack being "twice as good" as harris. better, sure, but twice as good? no chance.

both doesnt make any sense, they play the same position. you dont need 4 point gaurds.

MGrand15 wrote:

jerzeyguy201 wrote:Livingston is definitely a pg for us

one can aruge that when Livingston and Dwill play at the same time Livingston is really the PG while we use Dwill as a small shooting guard

No, you can't argue that. Deron was our main ball handler. When Livingston was asked to be the main ball handler, he struggled. He's not good at running PnRs. He doesn't turn it over but he's not a great playmaker. He played a ton off the ball and primarily guarded wings.

Don't fall for the ESPN narrative that Deron wasn't our PG. It's complete BS.

agreed... livingston was a combo gaurd and what made it work was his size. you cant replace him with a 6'3" point gaurd. jack isnt going to gaurd the other teams best SG or SF and he isnt going to be able to switch on to a SF or PF and hold his own

Paradise wrote:

kamaze wrote:

Prokorov wrote:i dont get the trade... livingston doesnt really play PG for us, so i dont see jack as a livingston replacement. i dont see jack starting and playing in a 3 gaurd lineup. livingston works cause he is 6'7"

jack might be the better player, but i see thornton as the better fit. isntant offense off the bench, which is really what we need more of.

i dont like this deal. especially when you consider the contracts with thornton expiring. unless we get a pick off cleveland id balk

This sounds good for Cleveland but horrible for Nets. Jack isn't what he was in Golden State and not even close to what Livingston is on defense. Nets passed on Jack last year now they want him..right.

Let's put it this way: Without Livingston, the backup guards are Jorge Gutierrez and Marquis Teague.

Jarrett Jack would be such a significant upgrade and Kidd would probably revitalize his career here in a real offense compared to Mike Brown's putrid offense.

thats fine.... but he still isnt a suitable livingston replacement. you cant replace livingston with a PG. you need to replace him with someone who can play SG and SF and also handle the ball.

id rather go after a backup PG who wont cost us one of our few good assets as well as our only real offense off the bench other then mirza if blatche leaves.

Prokorov wrote:

MGrand15 wrote:

jerzeyguy201 wrote:Livingston is definitely a pg for us

one can aruge that when Livingston and Dwill play at the same time Livingston is really the PG while we use Dwill as a small shooting guard

No, you can't argue that. Deron was our main ball handler. When Livingston was asked to be the main ball handler, he struggled. He's not good at running PnRs. He doesn't turn it over but he's not a great playmaker. He played a ton off the ball and primarily guarded wings.

Don't fall for the ESPN narrative that Deron wasn't our PG. It's complete BS.

agreed... livingston was a combo gaurd and what made it work was his size. you cant replace him with a 6'3" point gaurd. jack isnt going to gaurd the other teams best SG or SF and he isnt going to be able to switch on to a SF or PF and hold his own

It all depends on how you view Livingston. I dont see him as a PG. He is a SG in my eyes who can also play point foward. Jack is a combo guard who plays better as a SG while Harris is more PG then SG.

Adding Jack would resemble the old Sacramento Kings backcourt

True PG:
DWill / Bibby

Defensive SG who can bring the ball up some but also slide up to play some SF:
Livingston / Doug Christie

Combo guard who can come in and light it up:
Jack / Bobby Jackson