I'd rather give up Jackson than Wallace any day. But I doubt they'll want that, but who knows.
I think Okafor will be fine on this team and while not a true center, I think the combo of him and Tyrus would be pretty nasty and would give teams a fit with their shotblocking. If you have Okafor-TT-Wallace, that would be a pretty great front court on defense and decent on offense.
Also, Okafor has missed like ONE game the last 3 years, so he's pretty healthy and only like 27 years old.
If they wouldn't take Jackson instead of Wallace, then the front office would be a fool if they did it.
The team would BE NO BETTER with Paul and no Wallace, then it would be with no Paul and Wallace.
That's how big of a deal that gapping hole at SF would make.
Take Ginobli off the Spurs and tell me how many Championships they have in the Tony Parker era.
Stephen Jackson is a LAZY PLAYER, unless the ball is in his hands. Wallace = more possessions (rebounds) and better defense.
If you can't get rid of Jackson instead of Wallace, then there should be no deal.
This is not to say I'm saying either has to GO, but if one did, that's what i think about it.
Edited by EC123, 15 July 2010 - 12:12 PM.