# Jamal Crawford Wants To Be Traded?



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> There's bad and then there's the Knicks. Anytime Sonics fans want to groan and bemoan how terrible their team is, they need to take a long look at the Knicks and thank the basketball gods that Isiah Thomas isn't coaching this team.
> 
> Ok that's a little harsh. Isiah the coach isn't so bad, but Isiah the GM is horrible. Case in point is New York's broken down lineup of mismatching parts.
> 
> Spoke with Rainier Beach boys Jamal Crawford and Nate Robinson afterward. Crawford is ready for a new change of venue. He told me he's making the best of a tough situation, but wouldn't mind being traded. He talked about returning to Seattle and playing here, but then a lot of the Seattle guys say that. Crawford seemed serious, however, there's nothing in the works and it probably will never happen because he essentially plays Kevin Durant's position.


http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/sonics/index.html#022052


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I'm suprised a Seattle sportswriter would sympathize with anybody else. We're the ones losing the team.

I don't see Crawford in Seattle, but I wouldn't mind giving up a PG for Robinson.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

crawford and durant don't play the same position. or at least they shouldn't. durant is a sf. crawford clearly is not.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Durant plays 2 guard.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Chan said:


> Durant plays 2 guard.


durant might play 2 guard, but 2 guard is not durant's position. durant is a small forward. just because seattle did a ****ty job and used two top 5 picks to take two small forwards and now is doing an even dumber thing and playing their best player out of position doesn't change what durant is.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

On what? He's starts at SG, and he plays SG most of the time, therefore he is a 2. Duh. Are you gonna argue that Marion isn't a PF? Or insist Hakim Warrick is 4?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Chan said:


> On what? He's starts at SG, and he plays SG most of the time, therefore he is a 2. Duh. Are you gonna argue that Marion isn't a PF? Or insist Hakim Warrick is 4?


on the fact that small forward is by far durant's best position and that it will be his position longterm. if the sonics want to keep playing durant at sg, they can but he's just going to continue to struggle. he's as pure a small forward as there is in the league. he's not big enough to play pg(though he will probably be able to get by there for small stretches) and he's not quick enough and doesn't have the handle to play shooting guard well for long periods of time.

like i said, just because the sonics are doing a ****ty job with him currently doesn't change what his real position is.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> on the fact that small forward is by far durant's best position and that it will be his position longterm. if the sonics want to keep playing durant at sg, they can but he's just going to continue to struggle. he's as pure a small forward as there is in the league. he's not big enough to play pg(though he will probably be able to get by there for small stretches) and he's not quick enough and doesn't have the handle to play shooting guard well for long periods of time.
> 
> like i said, just because the sonics are doing a ****ty job with him currently doesn't change what his real position is.


The fact is, Durant hasn't played SF all year and for good reason. He's a wing, simple and plain. He's too weak to guard the 3, but his long arms make him a good man defender at the 2. His post game is nonexistent and he plays like a less streetball oriented Crawford.

If Durant isn't a 2, then Al Horford isn't a 5, and Marion and Josh Smith aren't 4s. It doesn't matter what you think his position is; it matters what position he plays.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Chan said:


> The fact is, Durant hasn't played SF all year and for good reason. He's a wing, simple and plain. He's too weak to guard the 3, but his long arms make him a good man defender at the 2. His post game is nonexistent and he plays like a less streetball oriented Crawford.
> 
> If Durant isn't a 2, then Al Horford isn't a 5, and Marion and Josh Smith aren't 4s. It doesn't matter what you think his position is; it matters what position he plays.


what matters is where he should play. that is his position. durant should be at small forward. and small forwards are wings. and durant would be a much better defender at small forward that at sg. he still mostly has his height and length advantage there but he's not giving up speed and quickness. just because durant can shoot doesn't change the fact that the position he should be playing is small forward.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Durant should be playing SF, because of his body type. He needs to put on some pounds to be effective at the 3 though.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> what matters is where he should play. that is his position. durant should be at small forward. and small forwards are wings. and durant would be a much better defender at small forward that at sg. he still mostly has his height and length advantage there but he's not giving up speed and quickness. just because durant can shoot doesn't change the fact that the position he should be playing is small forward.


Durant is not a better defender at 3. He affects more jumpshots than post moves or layups, so he is suited to be more of a perimeter shot defender. Ideally he'd weigh more and play the 3 but he doesn't. A lot of players change their positions, and Durant is no different. If he plays 2, he is a 2.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

small forward is not a post position. small forwards are almost always perimeter players. no sure what you're talking about saying that durant isn't a small forward because he's a wing. small forwards are wings. at small forward, he won't be defending the post and protecting thr rim from layups.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

SFs get in the post more. The difference between a 2 and a 3 is getting Ronnie Brewer on you instead of Kirilenko, or Iverson/Anthony Carter instead of Carmelo, or Kevin Martin instead of Artest, and vice versa. Durant is weak for a 2, don't mention a 3. So that's what he plays.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

Chan i have to disagree. He's a SF. Just because players are versitile enough to fill in at other spots when injuries or poor management dictate it, that doesn't change there true best position. Durant and also Dunleavy should be playing the 3 not the 2. Mostly because there not quick enough for 2 guards and like some one said before there body types suggest that there SFs. If you wouldn't have drafted Green, there no doubt that Durant would be playing the 3. Your team is simply doing what it can to put the 5 best players on the floor.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

And kirilenko is the exception not the rule.


----------



## undefined_playa (Oct 23, 2005)

nice debate guys


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

SGs are a lot more perimeter oriented than the bruising SFs, especially in the Northwest division. With the exception of Bonzi Wells, every team in the West has a finesse SG. Durant was a SF at Texas but in Seattle, and as long as he's this skinny, is a SG. Durant is more suited to matching up at the 2 with, say, Quinton Ross instead of Corey Maggette. There's no logic in putting him up against much bigger 3s. And they're all bigger.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Chan said:


> SGs are a lot more perimeter oriented than the bruising SFs, especially in the Northwest division. With the exception of Bonzi Wells, every team in the West has a finesse SG. Durant was a SF at Texas but in Seattle, and as long as he's this skinny, is a SG. Durant is more suited to matching up at the 2 with, say, Quinton Ross instead of Corey Maggette. There's no logic in putting him up against much bigger 3s. And they're all bigger.


durant was the starting 4 for texas. they went with a small team. and no durant is not more suited to guard smaller players that are much quicker than he is to guard players that are closer to his size(but still don't have his height or length) that he can match up with in quickness. the 3s are not all much bigger than durant. yes they have some more bulk and strength, while durant has more height, length, and in many cases is quicker. most small forwards in the league are not dominant post players that will abuse durant there until he gains more strength.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Durant's can't guard anyone that has a lot of bulk. Green is the player we want on 3s. He's best suited to contesting jump shooters. His lack of SG speed isn't as important for now, because of his long arms. I feel like we're going in circles. Durant has shown to be a SG so far.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Chan said:


> Durant has shown to be a SG so far.


durant has struggled to be a shooting guard so far because he's being misused.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm not sure why this is even being discussed.

What reason would Jamal have to make a statement like that?

All he's ever done as a Knick is try to act like a leader, and say all the right things publicly, so he goes to Seattle and tells some reporter he wishes to be traded to their ****ty squad?

Come on.

Crawford's got the keys to the team right now, and they've responded, despite the tough road trip.

He denied making the statement, and that's good enough for me.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> durant has struggled to be a shooting guard so far because he's being misused.


The kid is just chucking right now. Moving to the 3 won't make him a better shooter.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

statistically, crawford is the biggest loser in the league.......shut up and play.....you go to seattle, play 2nd fiddle to durant for a year and will get frustrated and wanna be traded again.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Chan said:


> Durant is not a better defender at 3. He affects more jumpshots than post moves or layups, so he is suited to be more of a perimeter shot defender. Ideally he'd weigh more and play the 3 but he doesn't. A lot of players change their positions, and Durant is no different. If he plays 2, he is a 2.


Durant's a terrible defender at the 2. I mean Szczerbiakian bad. There are very few low post SFs in the NBA, so that isn't a big concern. He hasn't played a lot of minutes at the 3 so I can't judge his defense there. But were it not for the presence of Szczerbiak and Green, he'd be there, and there'd be no issues with playing Durant and Crawford at the wings because it isn't humanly possible for them to be a worse defensive pairing than Wally Szczerbiak and _anyone_.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Durant is inconsistent. Like Jamal Crawford bad, not Drew Gooden/Zach Randolph bad. And Wally in the zone D isn't nightmarish. For our standards. I don't know what it looks like when Seattle plays good D anymore, so I don't have a benchmark.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

1st things 1st , you are where you play .

durant is a 2.

he may play the 3 or even the 4 later but for now he is a 2.

and 2nd crawford dinied saying thise things in today's paper.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> 1st things 1st , you are where you play.


you are where you should play. durant is a 3.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> you are where you should play. durant is a 3.


says who ?

you ?

is there some sort of skill, size and athletic ability generator that spits out your position ?

in this league there are and have been 7'4 power forwards , 7 foot small forwards 6'3 small forwards , 6'9 240 pound point guards, 6 '6 centers...and i'm just talking about the last 20 or so years.

a few years ago the knicks had a starting fronline of a 6'10 250 lbs sf

a 6' 240 lbs pf 
and a 6 '8 265 pound center , you are not a position because of how big you are but because its where your team needs to be to be a better team.

rashard lewis is a 4 now, and his team is much better for it.

you are what you play.

if durant was really a 3 right now he'd be playing it , he is their franchise player , if there is any1 who would not be put in a spot to play out of position its him because they need him to be good.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Think about it outside the NBA for a minute. When I play pickup at the gym I usually play 3. When I play rec league I usually play 4. When I play with my friends I can play 5. When I play with people that suck I'm a 1. What am I?


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Crawford's got the keys to the team right now, and they've responded, despite the tough road trip.


And they just lost to the clippers at home. 6 game losing streak.

This team lacks a winner/leader. Steph isnt it and neither is JC.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Arguing over Durant's position in a Jamal Crawford thread.. Wtf :laugh:


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Arguing over Durant's position in a Jamal Crawford thread.. Wtf :laugh:


Well if Jamal Crawford is supposedly the Knicks leader and the Knicks are playing like crap, then is Crawford anything worth arguing?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Arguing over Durant's position in a Jamal Crawford thread.. Wtf :laugh:


well they said crawford wanted to or wouldn't mind being traded to seattle but the sonics wouldn't be interested because him and durant play the same position. but durant is(and should be) a small forward, so crawford would be fine there if the sonics wanted him.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Well if Jamal Crawford is supposedly the Knicks leader and the Knicks are playing like crap, then is Crawford anything worth arguing?


Nope hes not. Hes another player on the knicks that if you looked up "crap" in the dictionary you would see his picture.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

urwhatueati8god said:


> Well if Jamal Crawford is supposedly the Knicks leader and the Knicks are playing like crap, then is Crawford anything worth arguing?


you've never heard of a good player on a bad team before? not saying that is necessarily the case hear, but what you said is a pretty dumb statement to make.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Come on now, the same can be said for Al Jefferson.


----------



## Dean the Master (Feb 19, 2006)

I honestly think that Jammal deserves a better team. Therefore, I don't blame him for wanting to get traded. However, I think the Knicks shouldn't trade him. They should make major moves. Eddie Curry should be traded a lone time ago. This team needs to rebuild. Pieces I would say need to stay. 

David Lee, Nate Robinson, Jamal Crawford. That's it. 

New York is the biggest market, it wouldn't stop any superstars from coming. The team just needs to have enough cap space and better management.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dean the Master said:


> I honestly think that Jammal deserves a better team. Therefore, I don't blame him for wanting to get traded. However, I think the Knicks shouldn't trade him. They should make major moves. Eddie Curry should be traded a lone time ago. This team needs to rebuild. Pieces I would say need to stay.
> 
> David Lee, Nate Robinson, Jamal Crawford. That's it.
> 
> New York is the biggest market, it wouldn't stop any superstars from coming. The team just needs to have enough cap space and better management.


cap space is nice but having assets are even better , both crawford and curry were able to leverage deals with the knicks to get in nyc , in the end its the surest way to gather talent, to have both the other team's GM and the player both wanting to deal with you, because sometimes players can be swayed by more money , for instance texas and florida have no state tax so even if you match their offer they still outbid you.

i think the team needs a major infux of enforcers and defensive types.


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Arguing over Durant's position in a Jamal Crawford thread.. Wtf :laugh:


LOL

the argument sounds like, 

"my _____ is bigger than your _____."


----------



## CrackerJack (Jul 2, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> cap space is nice but having assets are even better , both crawford and curry were able to leverage deals with the knicks to get in nyc , in the end its the surest way to gather talent, to have both the other team's GM and the player both wanting to deal with you, because sometimes players can be swayed by more money , for instance texas and florida have no state tax so even if you match their offer they still outbid you.
> 
> *i think the team needs a major infux of enforcers and defensive types*.


you need a team one the same page, right now the knicks look like muppets all playing for themselves. you need players who play for the team to win not players that play to pay for their mansion and 24" rims a major overhaul is needed, maybe the knicks should go to the d-league for a year to regain some passion


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

urwhatueati8god said:


> Well if Jamal Crawford is supposedly the Knicks leader and the Knicks are playing like crap, then is Crawford anything worth arguing?


Actually, are the Knicks REALLY playing like crap? I've felt they're playing the best basketball in a while, however, the main problem is closing out. I feel like they play phenomenal for 36 minutes and then all of the sudden they just give up.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

^They can't seem to close out games, just like at that Spurs match-up. Any other team with qualified leaders would have found a way to win.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

CrackerJack said:


> you need a team one the same page, right now the knicks look like muppets all playing for themselves. you need players who play for the team to win not players that play to pay for their mansion and 24" rims a major overhaul is needed, maybe the knicks should go to the d-league for a year to regain some passion


i pretty much had some strong doubts about the team when jamal crawford had that run in with the celts in the preseason when JC committed a hard foul and the celts circled Jamal and only wilson chandler came to defend him .

to a power team has to have an edge to them and the knicks showed me then that they dont have one , they dont stick up for each other and its shown only in more apparent fashion during the season how fractured they can be.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> cap space is nice but having assets are even better , both crawford and curry were able to leverage deals with the knicks to get in nyc , in the end its the surest way to gather talent, to have both the other team's GM and the player both wanting to deal with you, because sometimes players can be swayed by more money , for instance texas and florida have no state tax so even if you match their offer they still outbid you.
> 
> i think the team needs a major infux of enforcers and defensive types.


No it doesn't. Teams need to build from the inside and they do so with cap space. The only way to obtain a franchise player through a trade is to make sure he has been there before. There has only been one player obtained through a trade or free agency that hasn't been to a championship that went on to lead his team to victory. That's Chauncey Billups. That's been the only exception to the rule. It's over 98.7 percent accurate that teams that want to win a championship do so through the draft or by trading for proven championship leaders. Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry are not proven championship leaders. They never will be. In the N.B.A. and especially today's N.B.A., teams build by obtaining a franchise player and building around them. To build a team and plop some random player in there and just title him "savior" is asinine. The Knicks have done it numerous times with Marbury, Curry, and now Randolph and it's done nothing but destroy their confidence and make them martyrs of the organization's flaws to the New York Media.


----------

