-
Oct24
Jackson deserves to get paid … but the Warriors will need to explain it if they do
Filed under: Commentary; Tagged as: Adonal Foyle, Andris Biedrins, Baron Davis, Brandan Wright, Derek Fisher, Jason Richardson, Matt Barnes, Mickael Pietrus, Mike Dunleavy, Monta Ellis, Robert Rowell, Stephen Jackson, Troy MurphyANALYSIS
By Geoff Lepper
48minutes.netOAKLAND — It’s no secret that Stephen Jackson, the Warrior with the greatest responsibilities on the court but only the fifth-largest paycheck, is seeking an extension to his current deal. Acting as his own agent, Jackson has been in negotiations directly with team president Robert Rowell on a pact that could keep him in Oakland until age 35. Since Jackson is already under contract for two more seasons, at a total of $14.8 million, the most he can hope to get tacked on is three seasons worth $27.8 million.
Talks have been steadily progressing, and though this is just as an educated guess, I’d say it’s a better than 50-50 proposition that something gets done before the Warriors’ season opens Wednesday.
Does Jackson deserve to be paid an average of $9 million per year?
Absolutely. This is a guy who can score 20 points a game, can defend the opponent’s best player, almost regardless of position, and rarely misses time due to injury.
Does it fit into the team’s philosophy, as it’s been practiced over the last three years?
Absolutely not.
With Monta Ellis out, there is no question that Jackson is the Warriors’ most important player, and if they do make a return to the playoffs, it will undoubtedly be in large part because of Jackson dragging them there with a combination of scoring, playmaking and defending similar to what Baron Davis gave them down the stretch in 2006-07.
But if the Warriors choose to give Jackson an extension in the next week, then there will be some serious explaining for Rowell to do — because such a move would represent the antithesis of every salary-related choice the Warriors have made since Oct. 31, 2005.
That was the day the Warriors handed a five-year, $45 million extension to Mike Dunleavy, a forward with three middling seasons under his belt, to cap a spending and trading spree of more than $300 million in which Golden State netted long-term rights to the services of Dunleavy, Davis, Derek Fisher, Troy Murphy, Adonal Foyle and Jason Richardson.
However, after that well-compensated group led the franchise to another 38-44 season in 2005-06, Rowell ushered in a new era of fiscal responsibility. Underperforming players with oversized contracts — Fisher, Foyle, Murphy and Dunleavy — were traded or bought out. Richardson was dumped for draft pick Brandan Wright in part to help free up cash.
The idea was not just to stay under the luxury-tax threshold, but also to maintain maximum flexibility while doing it. No longer was the team willing to be locked into a bundle of long-term contracts that left it with no room to maneuver.
Free agents felt the squeeze as the team followed Rowell’s course: Mickael Pietrus and Matt Barnes were made to eat one-year deals before leaving for greener pastures. Andris Biedrins, who was signed to a six-year, $54 million deal this summer, had to wait a year to get his security after the Warriors tried to get him in 2007 for roughly $45 million over five years, according to sources at the time.
Most famously, Rowell was reportedly unwilling to commit a fully guaranteed $39 million to Davis for the three seasons after this one, prompting Davis to opt out of the final year of his deal and jump to the Clippers for a five-year, $65 million contract.
Basically, everyone had to earn their pay up until the moment they signed their deal. If Jackson gets three additional years while still having two on his current deal, that streak will be dead.
I asked Jackson earlier this week, why should you be the exception to the rule?
“Because I think I’ve proved myself since I’ve been here,” Jackson said. “For a perfect example: This team didn’t have a winning record until we got here. We didn’t make the playoffs in what, 12, 13 years? They didn’t have 48 wins in 13 years. So I think since I’ve been here, I helped turn this organization around. And I’m not saying I did it by myself, but I had a big part in it.
“I just think that I’m one of those guys that, if a guy deserves something, I think he should get it.”
Since arriving in Golden State, Jackson has rehabilitated his image, and in doing so, has become the Warriors’ ace in the hole, not just on the court, but from a public-relations perspective as well. Rowell is closer to Jackson than any other player in the locker room, and Jackson has more love for the Warriors — who provided support for Jackson’s recently opened charitable foundation — than he has had for any of his other NBA employers.
Maybe all those reasons, combined with Jackson’s play on the court, are important enough to convince the Warriors to set aside their guiding principle.
We’ll find out soon enough.
Contact: geofflepper@48minutes.net
20 Responses to “Jackson deserves to get paid … but the Warriors will need to explain it if they do”
-
My biggest concern about extending Jackson now is that the Warriors will no longer be free agent players in 2010. If the Warriors did not extend Jackson until his contract expires, the expiring contracts of Jax and Harrington ($17.68 million) plus Foyle’s buyout ($6.8 million this year) would be completely off their salary cap giving the team the ability to be a free agency player in 2010 when there will be some attractive players available. I’m not expecting the Warriors to sign someone like Lebron, Wade or Bosh but the trickle down effect may open the door for the Warriors to pick up a significant piece to add to a core of young promising players.
-
“But if the Warriors choose to give Jackson an extension in the next week, then there will be some serious explaining for Rowell to do — because such a move would represent the antithesis of every salary-related choice the Warriors have made since Oct. 31, 2005.”
Uh Geoff, didn’t he (Rowell) already do this type of move when he panicked and agreed to throw $48 million at Corey Maggette? Extending Jack when he still has 2 years left on his deal is just the icing on the stupid-decisions cake.
I’m glad that you are writing about how the W’s seem to be making moves that strategically don’t make any long-term (or even short-term) sense… About how the organization doesn’t have any plan for building a true contender. Most other local writers haven’t really focused on this, and for us die-hard fans I think this should be our #1 gripe.
-
Geoff Lepper October 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I disagree about Maggette, from a timing perspective at least. They have a tendency to make guys prove themselves on the court until the last possible moment — hence, making MP play out the qualifying offer, making Barnes play out a one-year deal to prove ‘06-’07 wasn’t a fluke, refusing to budge on Andris until he played out all his rookie-year options and became an RFA.
The Warriors used their leverage in all those cases — and may or may not use their leverage in similar fashion against Jackson.
But they didn’t have any leverage on Maggette, just a wad of cash thanks to Baron’s departure and a giant, gaping hole in the lineup. You can argue Maggette should not have been paid as much, but I don’t think it’s a similar situation with regard to leverage.
-
Geoff, I understand your point regarding leverage and yes the Maggs signing was not a similar situation as Jack. I guess I am making a completely different argument. I don’t think Maggs should have been signed at all, nevermind the the amount of money they gave him. Simply put, there is a problem when the team is right up against the lux tax and will be lucky to be a .500 team. Why not develop your youth and go into the season $10 mil under the cap? Who knows when a team may decide to rebuild and be willing to move a player that would really help us in exchange for salary cap relief (i.e. - Memphis/Gasol, Warriors/JRich).
I guess my complaint is that there doesn’t seem to be any sort of strategic plan with this organization (other than just barely being good enough to keep people buying tickets). And to me a Jack extension now will further confirm that. Maybe I’m in the minority here, I don’t know…
-
Geoff Lepper October 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Naddd: C’mon, now. How many season ticket holders would have revolted if the Warriors had done nothing over the course of this summer to replace Baron? 5,000? 10,000?
Most deals for teams seeking cap relief involve expiring contracts, or at least deals with shorter terms than the players they already have. The Grizzlies had to take back Kwame Brown and his $9.1M salary, but unlike Gasol’s deal, which had three years to go, Kwame’s expired this summer.
Eventually, Maggette will be in that same situation, kind of like Al Harrington is right now (although he’s still 18 months away from the end of his contract, so the trade drumbeats aren’t quite so loud at the moment).
Leaving $10M unspent under the cap [EDIT: should have said "luxury-tax threshold"] while hoping there’s a team that will want to get out from under a fat salary and give you a player on the cheap is like going all in with a pair of 10s while the board shows A-K-Q with three players left to act. You might get lucky and clean up, but there’s a much larger chance that you’ll wind up losing, badly.
-
Naddd,
If the Warriors did not sign Maggette to his $50 million free agent contract this past summer the Warriors would have a payroll of $58 million instead of $68 million. The 2008-2009 salary cap is set at about $58 million with the luxury tax limit at about $71 million. Not signing Maggette would have meant the Warriors would be not have enough room to sign to sign another free agent in the summer of 2009 to anything more than the mid-level exception. Do you honestly think a player that averages 22.1 points per game (Maggette’s scoring average last season) would sign with the Warriors next summer for the mid-level exception? Jackson is already getting $7 million but he’s just the 5th highest paid player on the team.
-
“How many season ticket holders would have revolted if the Warriors had done nothing over the course of this summer to replace Baron? 5,000? 10,000?”
Exactly my point. The Mags signing was done to make sure tickets were still sold. But was it best for the future success of this team? Debateable, but in my mind absolutely not.
I also understand your disagreement with my cap space theory, but even if a player doesn’t become available for cap relief (which obviously is a long shot at best) I still think it’s best to leave that cap flexibility for the future instead of making a bad investment now.
I think your poker reference actually applies to my argument too. Essentially by signing Mags the W’s now do find themselves going all in, only this time there is a 0% chance that they will get lucky and clean up. That’s what happens when you max out your cap with a team that can’t win.
I’m sure we won’t agree on this. But either way thanks for debating with me. I really appreciate your blog. It’s nice to have you back.
-
First of all, Geoff is spot on- you needed to make a move.
Compare Maggette’s paycheck to that of Richardson, Redd, and Richard Jefferson- he’s getting *less* than any of them, despite similar production (superior, in some respects) and drawbacks.Moreover, the Warriors needed some consistent offense to ease the strain on Ellis/Biedrins. Jackson certainly isn’t a reliable 2nd or 3rd scoring option, we’ve seen that. Maggette’s always been a highly efficient scorer, something we were sorely missing.
More to the point on Jackson, however, is that he’s going to be paid more while producing less. He already showed signs of wear and tear the past few years, and he’s going to be approaching his mid-30’s. His athleticism was never great, but will definitely not be getting better. Size and shooting age well, but he’s not a particularly great shooter, just a streaky one. Defense is bound to suffer as well overtime. An extension TWO YEARS EARLY with a RAISE is the absolute worst decision to make.
I don’t know if this is the forum to get into too much NBA-cap-o-nomics (and maybe Geoff intentionally left this out), but if we had not spent the $10M on Maggette, we would not have that money to use the following offseason.
For those that care, the reason we had such cap space the way cap holds worked. Ellis and Biedrins, before signing their extensions, had only a small “hold” on our salary structure, enabling us to use the empty space from Baron to sign on ANY free agent. After Ellis and Biedrins signed, they effectively got huge raises from their prior salaries and ate up proportionally more of our cap. As a result, the opportunity to spend with impunity on anyone we wanted would have disappeared. It really was a “use-it-or-lose-it” situation, and Maggette, for the immediate future, is well worth what he got paid.
Lastly, and what bugs me the most, is that there’s likely to be someone eminently available and a great replacement this summer: Josh Childress. He’s got opt-outs from his Greek deal each of the 3 years, the Hawks aren’t likely to retain his rights, and he probably won’t want to deal with them. His skill set is ideal as well- a good rebounder, a good defender on the perimeter, can handle the ball a bit, doesn’t need the rock to make an impact, makes all the hustle plays. He likely wouldn’t cost more than $9M anyways. Jackson should be shipped to a contender by next year, and Childress is a legitimate target to replace him (or at least, he’d be my target).
In short:
- Maggette was an opportunistic move, and by my estimation, a solid and necessary one.
- A Jackson extension is downright stupid.
- Ellis better come back 100%. -
CL,
You are right, without Mags and considering the guaranteed salary of our lotto pick, we would only have about $4-5 million in cap space next year. But what about 2 years from now when we would have had $20 million in cap space? What about 3 years from now? What if Randolph is ready to start at SF by then? Oh sorry, we will still be locked into overpaying an over the hill and most likely oft-injured (considering his history) Corey Maggette. Hey, at least Cohan still got paid.
-
Naddd,
As stated previously, in 2010 the Warriors will have the expiring contracts of Jackson and Harrington $17.68 million plus Foyle buyout of $6.8 million if it hasn’t been already used up. That’s $24+ million unless they choose to extend Jackson now. Maggette had plenty of suitors during the summer because 22 point scorers aren’t a dime a dozen in the NBA. Check out the players in the NBA who average over 20 points per game who are not playing on rookie contracts. You will not find many who are being paid less than what the Warriors are paying Maggette.
-
LOL @ Nadd
You think Cohan owns the Warriors to make money? Maybe it’s part of his “income”, but every NBA owner made his money already, and in some other business venture.
Owning a team in the “NBA” isn’t about annual profits, it’s about long-term investment (decades, not years) and prestige.
-
CL, 22 point scorers don’t necessarily equal wins. Especially when they play little defense and only average 66 games played per season over the course of their career.
Also, I’m not sure where you are getting your cap numbers from. You are not accounting for raises or for the salaries of draft picks. Your Foyle number is also wrong. In 2010 we will only see $660,000 come off the cap from the Foyle buyout.
With Al, Jack, Foyle, and Kosta’s deals all coming off the cap in 2010 we would have had a little under $14 million in cap space (this number assumes that the W’s pick up the options on Azubuke, Wright, Belinelli, Randolph, Williams, and Hendrix. It is also based on an estimated INCREASED salary cap). That cap space decreases to $10 million when you include the salaries of our early-to-mid 1st round draft picks from the ‘09 and ‘10 drafts. And since Jack is about to be extended you have to add back in $8 million for him. That leaves us approximately $2 million under the cap. And that is with only 12 roster spots filled. Fill out those remaining roster spots and you are left with a big fat ZERO.
So come 2010 we better hope that an aging Jack, an aging Mags, and internal development is enough to make us contenders, because we sure as hell aren’t getting any help from free agency for years to come after that.
Cut and paste this to see where I’m getting my numbers from:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1yXi6GPwrNs/SP-haZaoQfI/AAAAAAAAAbQ/-0pPZRFNqyk/s1600-h/Golden+State+Warriors+-+081021.jpg -
The question is answered in the article. The explanation for the surprising generosity is that Rowall/Cohen want to prove to the NBA that they WILL reward players that exhibit certain qualities.
Jack has been a leader his entire tenure as a Warrior. He proved that he could undo his reputation and keep his head in the game last year. If the Warriors made Jack sour asking so much from him and paying him, future free agents would have noticed.
It’s important for ownership to signal what they want from all their players. I think this is why Jack has put AR under his wing. He’s a champion and knows what it takes to win it all. More sacrifice than Monta, Mags, AB or Harrington can fathom.
Also, its a little dig on Baron if they sign Jack to a max extension.
-
Paying players based on what they’ve done for you in the past instead of based on what they’re expected do to for you in the future is usually the quickest path to oblivion
-
JustPuked October 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Jon, you made great arguments until you brought Childress into the discussion. While Childress may have a lot of “potential” upside, Jackson is one of the rare players that not only wants to take that last second shot, but has drained them…repeatedly. Childress is not that kind of crunch time player let alone leader. Furthermore, Jackson’s game and his should age well, he doesn’t rely on athleticism to make plays.
Where I agree with the arguments on the blog is that signing Jax:
1. Limits future flexibility.
2. Sends a conflicting message
Point one isn’t hard to argue, and point two already been laid out above. Goose, Scooter etc, all got leveraged big time, but Jax gets to stroll in and set terms? I’m not sure making good with Jax will be the clarion call to free agents Geoff suggests may be part of the motivation behind Rowell abandoning his hardball precedent. -
Naddd,
You are right that having a 22 point per game scorer like Maggette does not guarantee wins. But the final outcome on whether a team wins or loses a game is still based solely on who scored the most points. Having a player than can score 22 points per game may not guarantee wins but it increases the probability of winning games which is why NBA teams are willing to pay someone like Maggette large sums of money. Most of all having Maggette under contract is a tradable asset which is a lot better than the Warriors just sitting on a lot of cap space hoping and praying that an impact game changing player will choose to sign with the Warriors a couple of years down the road. This is what Memphis is doing but they will soon learn impact free agents prefer to sign with winning teams.
My salary cap figures for Foyle come from Hoopshype. Regardless of whether Blogspot’s $6.4 million or Hoopshype’s $6.8 million is correct, the point is the Warriors will not realistically have enough cap space when the bulk of Foyle’s contract comes off the books in 2009 to offer any free agent more than the mid-level exception that summer. In 2010 the Warriors will have enough cap space to pursue a meaningful free agent if they do not extend Jackson even with Maggette’s deal still on the Warriors books. This is why I would prefer to see the Warriors delay extending Jackson until the summer of 2010.
-
GSWFan24 October 24th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
With respect to J-Rich who is getting paid big money. Stack Jack and Maggs get the nod over the long time Warrior in terms of production and flexibility. Maggs is worth his deal folks, so let the contract talk go. Look around the league, anyone who averages 22 pts is getting paid. Jack always was a good player and deserves to be paid for his play, however, his character issues were usually his down fall. Lately, he’s not been a problem. The Warriors need to stop being cheap and pay their players. Let the potential materialize among the younger player’s but take care of the veterans who are deserving. (Not you either Al Harrington)
-
Geoff Lepper October 24th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
CL: Just as an FYI, neither of those figures for Foyle is correct. Adonal’s salary for this year was not fully guaranteed; there was a buyout of somewhere between $500K and $1M, although I’ll have to look the exact number up. The W’s total salary outlay for this season (barring any changes) will be roughly $65M.
-
Geoff,
Thank you for the information on Foyle’s salary cap figure.
-
[...] take hasn’t changed from what I wrote several weeks ago on the subject of Stephen Jackson’s extension with the Warriors, which after [...]
Leave a Reply
Categories
- Commentary (138)
- HTLFMARC (52)
- In Their Own Words (7)
- News (139)
- The Morning Report (46)
- The Wrapup (10)
- Uncategorized (6)
Recent Articles
- Cohan hangs the “FOR SALE” sign on Warriors’ HQ, but how much will he get?
- Monta Ellis returns from six-game layoff to face Trail Blazers; Watson in, Turiaf out
- Radio alert: Tune in to KNBR 1050 at 12:30 pm…
- Game 63, Live: Warriors (17-45) at Hornets (31-32)
- Game 62, Live: Warriors (17-44) at Bobcats (29-31)
- Game 61, Live: Warriors (17-43) at Hawks (39-21)
- Game 60, Live: Warriors (17-42) at Magic (41-20)
- Game 59, Live: Warriors (17-41) at Heat (29-31)
- No Monta Ellis tonight vs. Kings
- Game 52, Live: Warriors (14-37) at Lakers (41-13)
Recent Comments