http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4659552

Well hopefully West gets his shit together. Many people didn't was Jax in Cleveland but he would have been a great option if West continues his actions.

At least he won't mess up the salary cap for next year.

Yeah, the end of the article basically tells us what we needed to know. Cleveland is still waiting on Delonte and didn't want to make the trade for Jackson so early in the season which is understandable.

Jackson is a better player than west. Jackson would have been a great addition to the cavs.

Is it true that the Cavs didnt make a deal for him because they were hesistant to give up Z?

Tully Blanchard wrote: Is it true that the Cavs didnt make a deal for him because they were hesistant to give up Z?

No, the article says and many agree, that it would have been Wally+West for Jackson.

They didn't want to give up on West and make the Jackson trade this early in the year.

I understand the Cavs reasoning. Unfortunately it has the potential to really bite them later on.

Laley23 wrote: I understand the Cavs reasoning. Unfortunately it has the potential to really bite them later on.

How? There will be guys with more or near the talent level of Jackson available at the deadline and I bet they don't have ugly contracts either.

devil1197 wrote:

Laley23 wrote: I understand the Cavs reasoning. Unfortunately it has the potential to really bite them later on.

How? There will be guys with more or near the talent level of Jackson available at the deadline and I bet they don't have ugly contracts either.

Obviously if they make another trade it wont backfire. But that isnt a sure fire lock to happen. This deal was on the table basically. They may have to give up a lot more later on if West is still on the fringe. Teams wont make a trade for Wally/West if neither are very good (although Wally has the contract expiring).

Now, they could make a move later and that will be all well and good. But if not, this will hurt given the fact the trade was theirs to accept.

yeah, no need to blow our load for stephen jackson

Laley23 wrote:

devil1197 wrote:

Laley23 wrote: I understand the Cavs reasoning. Unfortunately it has the potential to really bite them later on.

How? There will be guys with more or near the talent level of Jackson available at the deadline and I bet they don't have ugly contracts either.

Obviously if they make another trade it wont backfire. But that isnt a sure fire lock to happen. This deal was on the table basically. They may have to give up a lot more later on if West is still on the fringe. Teams wont make a trade for Wally/West if neither are very good (although Wally has the contract expiring).

Now, they could make a move later and that will be all well and good. But if not, this will hurt given the fact the trade was theirs to accept.

You are missing the trade chip in Z also.

There was no reason to jump on this trade for Cleveland at all and it won't come back to hurt them in the long run.

It's Stephen Jackson, not Amar'e or Bosh.

I'd love to have a guy like Captain Jack, but his contract really turned me off.