Should the Warriors 'Tinsley' Jackson?

We know it's not in his nature, but Stephen Jackson might want to try to be a little bit careful. After all, he doesn't really want the Golden State Warriors to Jamaal Tinsley him does he?

Or Stephon Marbury him.

But that's what Jackson risks if he continues to be a problem for the Warriors. And if that were to happen -- if the Warriors simply tell Jackson to go away for a while, even with pay -- it's going to be a lot worse for Jackson than it is for Golden State.

Jackson wants out. I know that, you know that and the Warriors know that. They've said they'll see what they can do. In the meantime, the onus is on Jackson to be professional. Period.

What seems to have gotten lost in all the criticism of Warriors' management and anger at Jackson's behavior is something pretty important: Jackson has no leverage. It doesn't matter if you think Warriors' management has made hundreds of mistakes in the past few years alone, it doesn't alter the fact it can't let Jackson keep doing what he's doing.

Jackson already has gone too far, first by talking about wanting out this summer, then by reaffirming that wish on media day and then last week getting suspended two games for getting into an argument with coach Don Nelson.

The irony, of course, is the three-year contract extension Jackson signed last year is going to make it more difficult and more problematic to move him. So, yeah, signing Jackson to that extension was a terrible idea, but that doesn't mean you've got to put up with this.

And it doesn't mean you trade him in a hurry, either, just to get rid of him. Jackson will have more value later in the season because that's when a Stephen Jackson might make a difference to a contender. Not not. Not in October.

Jackson talks a lot about his love and respect for the game and about how he's a winner and big-shot maker. He went on and on a few weeks ago about how he was made to play in the postseason.

Well, if all that's true, then it would be a pretty crushing blow if you told him to hit the pike -- just take the game away from him. If Jackson is as much of a competitor as he says, wouldn't it kill him inside to be in exile? Particularly if it lingered?

As far as the Warriors are concerned, how much better are they with Jackson than without Jackson? I'm not sure I know the exact answer to that, but it's not the difference between being a playoff team and not being one.

Jackson played most of last year, and the Warriors won 29 games.

Point is, the Warriors ain't going anywhere this year with or without him ... so it's not like they need to be beholden to him. And truth be told, there might not be too many tears shed in the team's locker room if he weren't around.

Remember, this isn't the Warriors of three years ago when they had Baron Davis, Al Harrington, Jason Richardson and Matt Barnes. Those were Jackson's guys.

The Warriors are different now. You think Corey Maggette would mind the extra touches he'd get if Jackson were gone? Stephen Curry, Anthony Randolph, Anthony Morrow, C.J. Watson, Kelenna Azubuike, even Rony Turiaf and Andris Biedrins -- those guys either have no allegiance to Jackson or are too professional for it to be an issue.

So, it's not like there would be an undercurrent of gloom. The one possible exception in this case would be Monta Ellis, who is said to have a close relationship with Jackson. Maybe so. But at the same time it would be a hell of a lot easier for the Warriors to become Ellis' team if Jackson weren't around.

And did we mention all the extra touches?

Sure, it would be great if Jackson could return and be professional until the Warriors can trade him to another team. But if Jackson can't do that, then maybe he shouldn't get to play for any NBA team.

More Steinmetz on Twitter: @matt_steinmetz