http://www.nba.com/warriors/news/jackson_signs_extension.html I'll reserve my opinion until I see the numbers EDIT: looks to be 28 over 3 years.
So here's my opinion. Good move. It's a pretty good deal to get him at 9.3M/year until he's 35. That's a very tradeable salary and given that he's been healthy (knock on wood) his whole career, we'll probably be getting the best of Stack Jack. He seems to understand the big picture when it comes to the future of the Warriors and I wouldn't be surprised if he took a lesser role on the floor to allow the young guys to step up. That being said, he is our undisputed leader for years to come.
Not a fan of this signing. I love me some Jack and I think (or maybe its hope) that he'll play well into his old age because hes already slow and somewhat unathletic and gets by on skill and intelligence but I can't support signing an old guy to a contract that goes through 35 y/o when we're rebuilding. We just dropped 5/50 on Mags too plus new contracts for Beans and Monta. Why not just wait until Jack's contract expires then re-sign him (or not)? Makes no sense financially. Nice that we showed him some love but what the hell man? Rowell denies Baron's extension but approves Mags signing and does the whole Jack contract by himself. As annoying as Baron can be you have to admit we'd be pretty well off if we kept him instead of getting Mags. We'd probably still have gotten Turiaf because of the money we saved on Baron's annual salary dropping and Barnes, Pietrus, etc. expiring.
I agree that it's not really overpaying, however I would not have signed him. The obvious reason is that we did not have to. But the main reason is that it pretty much kills any hope of signing a real PG. I had been kind of hoping that the Monta at PG experiment would fail so they would put him back at 2 and get a real PG. Now with Jax here for an additional 3 years, the starting lineup is set with Monta/Jax/Maggette. Oh well, hopefully Ws management (and Maggette) realize that Maggette's best role is as a 6th man, opening a spot for a PG. I don't even care who, just anyone who can beat a press, get to the hoop, find an open man, and hit a 3 when open.
Yeah, this was my thinking too until I saw the numbers. It's a significant amount but it's not a ridiculous amount. Will it keep us from signing our young potential stars? Maybe. Will it keep us from landing a big FA in 2010...most likely. It kind of depends what the salary cap will be. But what we get in return is a proven leader (and an evolving leader) who garnishes a lot of respect from the coaches, players, and obviously front office. If we had kept Baron, we probably would be in a better situation now but we all know that he's not a pass first point guard. His shot selection really hurt us and the development of the team. Look at the last game he played (as a Clipper) against us...he was chucking up three's with 20 seconds on the shot clock when they were only down single digits with plenty of time left. Anyway, I think Jackson is more of a team guy than Baron is as far as his play is concerned. Sure, his shot selection is also questionable at times but I think he's a lot more coachable than BD was/is, as much as BD loved Nellie, I think Stack loves him more. He's openly admitted that he would do anything the coach asks him to do. And like I said, he gets the big picture, so I don't think he's one to get in the way of our young team developing.
With Azubuike and Randolph, I think it's very possible that Maggette will be traded in a year or two.
Terrible business move. Senseless, premature spending of $$ and, from a GM perspective, basically an unnecessary self-handcuffing and financial lock-up. In chess terms, it's like sacrificing a rook for a pawn to try to win on tactics, when you already have the win if you just take your time and play the end game. Rowell already has the financial win by waiting to see what the hell GS should do with Jax in a few years. Oh wait, no, he doesn't have that any more. Now he's just gambled the future of the Warriors, in part, on iffy tactics that may or may not pay off. This is a GM laugher around the league, I'm sure.
Not sure how I feel about this. It does probably take us out of the FA market, although next year we have Foyle's and hopefully Harrington's (or whatever expiring contract he's traded for) salaries coming off the books. But, I think we need Jackson right now. It's hard to put a value on leadership, but he does provide that. Monta and Andris don't command that kind of respect...yet, and while Maggette could help to set examples, he is not a natural leader. Jackson, like Maggette, will still be a tradable commodity. Everyone wants to trade for a premiere point guard, but the problem is it's not like there's a lot of them available and that job is Monta's anyway, until further notice. I don't think it's going to happen.
I'll just call him Captain Jack. Sjax is awesome. I like the signing. Some may say why sign him and not even look at Baron. I'll argue in favor of Sjax because he's not going to be the primary ballhandler on most occasions when Ellis gets back. He stays a lot healthier playing heavy minutes than Baron does. He gets to the foul line about the same rate per game and makes his free throws at a higher frequency. Sjax can actually shoot a nice looking shot and he's usually 80% at the foul line. Sjax can also play defense with his feet rather than his hands. Sjax has a lot better work ethic IMO and he's had to earn his way into the league rather than getting spoon fed all the way as a highly regarded draft pick. He's a great complimentary player to whoever we have on this team, especially big men like Biedrins. Jim Barnett seems to like him which counts for something because unpolished players usually draw out his criticisms (See Al Harrington and Mickael Pietrus). Until Randolph becomes a complete player, I'd want to see Sjax in a warriors uniform for 4-5 more years and hopefully retire his number (I'm not kidding Sjax is a border-line star that you'd want to have starting some games and even coming off the bench in the future). Even though he's lost some quickness, he still leads the way offensively and defensively. When he sucks, the Warriors suck, so that says something about Sjax's value to the team. We need him and he's the perfect player to go from point A to point B and then finally to C. The biggest success the warriors can achieve is if Biedrins continues dominating and another big man steps up and Sjax is there to feed these guys the ball and stretch the floor playing the 1,2,3 or even 4. I hope our future bigs to be Brandan Wright and next to him at the small forward spot, Anthony Randolph. That would be killer.
I have to admit I was not in favor of extending SJax because of the FAs available in 2010 when his old contract expired. Yet, what free agent would have wanted to come here. LeBron? Yeah, right. So now that the deed is done, the first positive thing that hit me was that it means the W's are still trying to win now assuming that Monta would be here now playing PG. I'm not sure if this team will be the core to make the playoffs, but I'm interested to find out: PG: Monta, CJ, SJax SG: Azubuike, Morrow, Marco SF: Mags, AR, SJax PF: BW, AR, Kurz, Hendrix C: Beans, Turiaf Between the two, I would have picked Baron. He would've been the surer thing. You can't just give up on your best player when you could have re-signed him for reasonable dollars.
Well, just because you may not be the hottest guy/girl in the town, that doesn't mean you stay at home watching TV all the time. Because if you do, you will definitely never get lucky. Why do you think we ended up with Davis, Washington ended up with Arenas, or Philly ended up with Brand? Nobody expected them to land those players, but because they were available, those players eventually relocate themselves in those teams. And, with this extension, Warriors once again locked themselves from 2010 FA market (till 2013 to be exact) or significant expiring contract except Harrington next year. Yeah, you can say we never attracted big name FA. But, the main reason is because we never had a big caproom except last year. And, when we did, we were able to spend on top ranked FA (Maggette was ranked top 5 UFAs in 2008). To me, this is an idiotic move, and move that reminds me a lot of Mullin ver. 1 First, I need one good reason for this extension. It's not like Jackson is at his last year or he has a tremendous talent, so that when it comes to 2010, we may have to spend 15 mils for his extension. As a matter of fact, he is 30 years old now, and instead of deciding on extension when he becomes 32 years old (when players usually start to decline), we just locked him up until he becomes 35 years old. He might be a good value right now, and he still may be a good value when he becomes 32 years old. However, at 33-35 old with over 9 mils per year? I am not sure it will be a good bargain, and I certainly will not make a decision when he is 30 years old and I can wait next two years to make that decision. We are not getting a bargain by this extension. Loyalty? We traded Jamison and Richardson despite what they did, and tons of players left their own teams for money. Loyalty in sports only goes so far, and when it comes to money, loyalty takes a backseat. Jackson is highly emotional player, and now we have to hold our breath for next 5 years… Second, return of "I will make you feel good by extending your contract way earlier than I have to be". That's exactly what we did to Richardson, Dunleavy, and Murphy. Mullin ver. 1 was quite famous for doing this, and instead of waiting for their 4th year, Mullin jumped the gun and gave them fat extensions. Consequently, those moves, along with Foyle and Fisher, killed our financial situation. Mullin learned a lesson on how to treat own FAs, and he played hardballs on Biedrins and Monta. Thus, we did not give them an early extension or overpaid them. With Rowell, we are starting to see Mullin ver. 1 move again. Third, where are we? In terms of financial situation, this team is set for next 5 years. Monta (11) for 6 years, Jackson (9), Maggette (10) and Biedrins (9) for 5 years, and Turiaf (4) for 4 years. it's not as bad as Richardson (12), Dunleavy (9), Murphy (10), Foyle (9), Fisher (6), and the talent level is better than previous version. However, there is no doubt that we are set for next 5 years without making any move, and only trade-friendly assets are Biedrins (we are not trading him) and possibly Monta (assuming that he recovers close to 100%). And, as I mentioned before, we will not have any caproom till 2013. Not as bad as before, but still lacks financial flexibility for long time. Then, where are we exactly? Based on first 10 games, this team still can play well for first 3.5 quarters, but can't score at all in 4th quarter due to lack of go-to-guy. The team needs a good ball handler/distributor, and we don't have it. Thus, our FG% suffered (21th in the league now, and from 46% to 43.5%), and TO increased (13.2 to 14.8). Unless Monta becomes a savior or Wright/Randolph becomes an All-Star, Rowell will regularly attend NBA draft to get 9th to 13th pick or at best 7th or 8th seed. In another word, we need a major help to become a contender, and we just made it harder to do so. Fourth, what in the world is going on here? I was initially against Davis’ extension only because I thought he would demand at least 15 mils per year for next 5 years, and becomes too much of a risk. It turned out that Davis only asked 13 years/3 years extension, and in overall, we could have locked him for 56 mils/4 years. Then, Rowell vetoed it. OK. Maybe Rowell wanted to maintain financial flexibility by not spending tons of money on injury prone player. Then, he gave Maggette 50 mils/5 years, when Maggette is equally injury prone player, same age, and stat fodder, not a game changer like Davis. Now, we miss what Davis provided for us, 4th quarter scoring and ball handling. Then, he gave Jackson unnecessary extension and killed any financial flexibility we had… No matter how you slice it, I just can’t find a good logic behind it. Will this be another financial nuclear winter? Situation isn’t as hopeless as before, but it certainly resembles it…
Yeah, I like Jackson on this team right now, but the extension doesn't seem like a great move, at least not for the amount and length. If next year they gave him a 2-year extension for $7M per year, I'd be OK with it, but this is a bit much. As Kwan says, it smells like a Mullin version 1 move. I love where we are at C with Biedrins, and I love Monta if he comes back healthy (I'd rather see him at SG that PG, but whatever). I don't love but like PF with Wright. I like having Azubuike and Randolph and Morrow and Turiaf and Belinelli and Watson off the bench, it's a really good bench. But the whole SG-SF thing seems not quite right to me with Maggette and Jackson. First you are probably overpaying both of them. Then, they each are poor volume shooters prone to ballhogging (stopping ball movement), poor shot selection, and unnecessary turnovers (taking the ball into too many defenders, dangerous passes, leading the break when better ball handlers are there). I could live with either one of them, but having both of them there next to each other, starting, it just feels bad to me, I can't really describe it.
Can I retract this statement? Sjax has been one of the worst players on the team. Now, it seems his heart is not into it. Rumors that he argued with Nellie, etc. etc. Pretty disastrous.
I think I've always hated Rowell more than Cohan. Mullin was bad initially, but Nelson just took it to a whole new level. This whole thing just does not fit well together.
