Re: Why not Marc Jackson?

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>]

Actually, according to the stories I've read, the sticking point has been
money. He wants mid-level exception money or slightly more (a la Calvin
Booth in Seattle, who certainly doesn't have the track record of Jackson).
Golden State can match anything up to the exception, but isn't sure it wants
to go that high. If you could get him for that kind of money for three
years, that seems like a no-brainer. If he insists on six years, then
certainly it's a much tougher decision (unless it's a sign-and-trade for
Vitaly or Battie).

Anyway, "cap room" doesn't get us anything in and of itself. Detroit had cap
room this year, and what did they get? The Bulls? The Clippers? If the
Celtics don't start winning-and soon-why would free agents consider coming
to Boston? The weather? That's why you try to win. You have to build
credibility. Toronto saw that and probably overpaid for Antonio Davis,
Jerome Williams and Alvin Williams, and still is trying to land Shammond
Williams. But it showed they were contenders, and committed to staying a
contender, and Vince Carter signed an extension because of that.

So the grand plan of watching the bad contracts come off the books is
great-as long as it pays off with some talent. A guy like Marc Jackson is
the bird in the hand, so to speak. You may not have cap room in 2003, but
you have a pretty attractive bargaining chip when you're discussing a
sign-and-trade for Jermaine O'Neal or Tim Duncan.

Mark