Written by J.D. Shultz

---

Stephen Jackson is not coming to Cleveland . . . not tonight, when the Golden State Warriors visit The Q, nor via trade, which is something that has been speculated about a lot recently. Yesterday, Golden State traded Jackson to the Charlotte Bobcats for Raja Bell and Vladimir Radmanovic. Should Danny Ferry look into another similar trade for a veteran, or stand pat with this team and instead look to infuse some young talent at some point? J.D. Shultz gives us his thoughts in his latest. Stephen Jackson is not coming to Cleveland . . . not tonight, when the Golden State Warriors visit The Q, nor via trade, which is something that has been speculated about a lot recently.

Yesterday, Golden State traded Jackson to the Charlotte Bobcats for Raja Bell and Vladimir Radmanovic.

Half of the Cavaliers fan base was relieved . . . and the other half was disappointed.  That's because Jackson, like a lot of players that are available in mid-November, is a fairly polarizing player.  In fact, he was probably the most polarizing player available not named Allen Iverson.

Jackson's talent in undeniable.  He's good.  And he would look great in a Cavs uniform.  But he also has an undeniable . . . let's say, aura . . . that can be used for both good (intensity) and evil (volatility).

Maybe it isn't fair to bring up past off-the-court and just-off-the-court issues . . . but there are several significant ones.  And then there's his mercurial attachment to the team that's writing his paychecks.

But he and Mike Brown have a close relationship, and a mutual respect.  When Brown was an assistant, Jackson played for him both in San Antonio and later in Indiana.

Do I think Jackson would have been a success in Cleveland?  Yes.  Do I think he would have been a problem in Cleveland?  No.  Did I want them to trade for him?  Well . . . that depends.

"Cleveland Plain Dealer" beat writer Brian Windhorst reports that the Cavs were only offering Golden State an opportunity to dump Jackson's salary on them; they weren't offering any real talent in return:

"According to some league sources, the Cavs indeed had an offer into the Warriors for Jackson.  The two sides, I am told, talked about Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Delonte West and even a sign-and-trade for Wally Szczerbiak among other things.

"[But] the Warriors made it known they wanted some talent in return and didn't just want to clear Jackson off the books.

"The Cavs were not willing to give up any of their size for Jackson and that was simply a road block.  The only way they were willing to give up Ilgauskas is if there was an agreement to buy him out and have him return in 30 days, which is permitted under current rules. [...]  Frankly, [Charlotte was offering] more than the Cavs apparently were willing to offer.  Wanting the talent first, it makes sense that Golden State made this deal."

Meanwhile . . . Smooth at Cavalier Attitude analyzes the possibility that Golden State took a lesser offer with Charlotte, because they didn't want to do Stephen Jackson any favors:

"Jackson, when he demanded a trade earlier this year, said he'd like to play for New York, Cleveland or one of the three Texas teams.  Jackson wanted to win or go to a situation he was comfortable with.

"With the Warriors knowing that and with all the troubles he had caused them, they sent him to Charlotte.  They did it intentionally, sending him to the Bobcats who have no chance of making the playoffs and will end up in the lottery once again.  They sent him to a terrible team with a coach [Larry Brown] who's not easy to play for.  They gave him his trade but made sure to make him miserable for as miserable as he made them."

See what I mean by polarizing?  Is he more of a steal or more of a risk?

Jackson went from being a playoff hero in Golden State . . . to someone they purposely wanted to make miserable.  And although the Warriors are a mess, they did give him a three-year extension last year . . . an extension that won't even start until next year.

But if the Cavs were merely offering the things Windhorst mentioned . . . Delonte, a Wally sign-and-trade, and Z with a pre-arranged buyout (to balance the salary numbers) . . . that would've been worth doing.

Sure, the Cavs would be taking on over $28 million over the next three-and-a-half years . . . which, if LeBron re-signs, would take away a lot of cap flexibility for years to come. 

But the Cavs would have Stephen Jackson . . . and like the Shaquille O'Neal deal, we wouldn't be losing any of our current core players.  If the Warriors were interested, it could have worked out on our end.

And it would've had to, by the way, because if we learned anything from this whole dust-up . . . it's that Stephen Jackson (and his contract) are not regiftable commodities.  If we traded for him, it was for keeps.  (Although, I guess Danny Ferry was, miraculously, able to shed Larry Hughes' contract.)

It's a risk . . . and one worth taking . . . as long as we're not giving up anyone we want.

Yeah, that's a little ignorant.  It's like when people expect trades to be available because they work in a salary-balancing calculator.  Another team usually wants more than the spare parts you're willing to give up.  But the difference here is . . . we don't need to make any trades.

So why are we talking so much about this, since it isn't happening???

There's a nerve here, and it goes beyond Stephen Jackson.  Here's the gist of it:

The Cavaliers are an elite team now.  They added some players in the offseason, and it's too early to determine just how good the team is . . . and what all their rotation strengths and weaknesses will be.

There's also The Uncertainty Surrounding Delonte West, which at this point, should become his full legal name.  Until we hear otherwise, he could always be back tomorrow . . . and ready to play out the rest of the season, arguably putting the Cavaliers over the top . . . or he could never be back.

At some point between now and the end of February, Danny Ferry will have to decide what he's going to do with this roster . . . if anything. 

Do you convince free agent Antonio Daniels to accept a job at the end of the bench in exchange for a guaranteed contract?  Do you keep inquiring about minor trades involving Delonte, Szczerbiak and possibly Ilgauskas?  Do you wait until the trade deadline on the off-chance of hitting a homerun to pick up a bigger, younger name?  Or if the Cavs are flying though the regular season again, do you stand pat with what you have and save your money for the 2010 free agents?

It's the same "going all-in" debate all over again:  What's more important, pulling out all the stops to put the Cavs in the best possible position to win the Title this year . . . or leaving the team in the best possible position to win multiple championships?

Think about it this way:  Is LeBron more likely to leave if we fall short of the Championship this year . . . or if the future of the team is locked up without any salary / roster flexibility to continue infusing the team with strong, young talent?

These are the difficult questions that Ferry has to consider.

Obviously, you'd want both . . . but that's not always realistic.  Ferry can't trade away his young talent and future first round draft picks to bring in expensive, aging veterans . . . and not expect it to heavily affect the growth of the roster over the next few years.

The trick is for Ferry to find the happy medium.  You want to seize any opportunity to improve your team . . . but you also don't want to be seduced by quick fixes, who will overstay their welcomes.