YANBAT

[spanky]

just saw a interview with dirk on espn2 and this question came to my mind....

why did the rockets trade jim jackson for david wesley? i just feel that the rockets could really use jackson's 3pt %, as well as his def. wesley is an undersized sg and teams with big guards can post him all day long.

the only reason i think the rockets had for the trade was that they wanted to shift tmac to sf and wanted a sg in return. why not keep tmac at sg? was jackson ineffective at sf?

 

[Miramonti]

It wasn't a popular trade because if I'm not mistaken he was their locker room voice and leader. They wanted a point guard because they were having a problem running their offense and getting people into sets, and as a result weren't as productive as a team as they needed to be (thus the early season struggles.)

In hindsight you have to figure that it worked since they were able to turn the corner. Its also forced the younger guys (tmac?) to be more vocal and grow into being team leaders. I don't get to see many of their games tho to be honest.

 

[aplefka]

The Rockets never should have gotten him in the first place. Kings were damn stupid for letting him go.

 

[spanky]

Originally posted by: jjsole
It wasn't a popular trade because if I'm not mistaken he was their locker room voice and leader. They wanted a point guard because they were having a problem running their offense and getting people into sets, and as a result weren't as productive as a team as they needed to be (thus the early season struggles.)

In hindsight you have to figure that it worked since they were able to turn the corner. Its also forced the younger guys (tmac?) to be more vocal and grow into being team leaders. I don't get to see many of their games tho to be honest.

i suppose... but their point guard woes could be traced to sura being out earlier in the season, no? if they start sura, jackson, tmac, yao, and juwan... not a bad five. of course, this is assuming everyone is healthy.