# We should resign Crawford



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Let him rest the market. See what other teams think he is worth. I do not picture anyone signing him for a max contract. We match what others offer and consider it a day...he is ours. 

I also predict that Chandler/ our pick will be traded. We keep Curry. 

Crawford is very coachable. He has a coach willing to work with him and improve his game. I have seen a lot of improvement from Jamal. I am very pleased with his aggressiveness in taking it to the hoop. I can still see a big need for defense and shooting pct; and better shot selection but he can work on it this summer. 

I see in Crawford a future all star, _if he continues to be coachable_. Resigning him for 7-8 mill a year will be a bargain. He has stated over and over again he wants to play here. We will see this summer if that is true. We will see if he understands the need for us to be able to add talent, along with his newly signed contract. 

It took Miller and Artest a while to be all-stars. In one or two years Jamal will, be. Count on it.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I am leaning more and more towards keeping Jamal as well. Still a little skeptical but not nearly as much as I once was. As for your comment on us trading Chandler/pick, #1-Who doe you see that bringing here to Chicago, and #2 if that person is a SF like say Lewis who do you see as starting PF alongside Curry?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> I am leaning more and more towards keeping Jamal as well. Still a little skeptical but not nearly as much as I once was. As for your comment on us trading Chandler/pick, #1-Who doe you see that bringing here to Chicago, and #2 if that person is a SF like say Lewis who do you see as starting PF alongside Curry?


Chandler/pick will not bring us a superstar SF but it will bring us a SF on the verge of being a star. It will fill a need. With Eddie as backup we will have the SF spot covered! 

JYD, AD will play pf. We could get a pf in the second round, ala-baxter. Or bring in Austin??

Or we could sign a FA pf...MLE..

We let Fizer go. Too bad! A #4 pick in the first round. Wasted pick for the bulls. Doesn't matter if he was not given a chance as some posters say he wasn't! It is still a wasted pick anyway you look at it.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I would be interested in seeing what that kind of package brings I must admit. But if we are in position for Luol Deng we have to take him.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> I would be interested in seeing what that kind of package brings I must admit. But if we are in position for Luol Deng we have to take him.


He would be the only one I would consider not doing a trade with.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Glad to hear that TBF. Now let's hope it works out that way and we are in position to grab him.


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

Yep definitely, I want to keep JC, he's playing really good ball, and his shooting % is getting better also. 
If we need to trade away one of the 3-C's it's gonna be Tyson for me too. PF's are a lot easier to come by then C's or PG's. (And yes for me JC is still a PG, he plays a lot with the ball in his hands and Kirk is a pretty good off-the-ball-mover. 

And see how it is. JC has taking over being the go-to-guy from Jalen very suddenly, now he's performing like one and he can do it, if his teammates don't let him down. 
Keep JC, don't start it all over again Pax!


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

DEFININTELY keep JC....


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i am a believer. we should resign jamal. but we can't get taken to the cleaners either. a fine line.

that said, at one point during last nights game i thought "man, we have the ALL-SCRAWNY team out there right now" Tyson, Jamal, Kirk, E-rob and, well ok, not EC. but you know what i mean. I thought there was something wrong with my TV.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Available assets:

1.Jamal
2.Chandler
3.Jerome W.
4.Draft Pick 
5.The reason I did not include EC because I would miss the story on his basketball progress and daily details of his life.:grinning: 
6.And some available money for the FA.

Needs to be filled: SF or SG 

Pax invested a lot of money in Pip, exclusively for the propaganda purposes, so we have a good “shot” for KB or TM


IMO, Pax will proper utilize all Bulls resources putting a better team next season, unless JR decides, “play ch…p” . 

P.S. I am just wondering what kind of player Marcus could be, have we invested same time on him as we did with Jamal. 
Or, another question: ” If we see positive changes in Erob, could we expect changes from Marcus?”


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

nah...marcus gotta go fam..he NEVER fit on this team


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

The fact that Paxson did not trade Crawford this week indicates that we will consider resigning him, and realistically speaking, Pax should know at this point that some team will offer Jamal more than the MLE. I have to believe that since Pax did not trade him despite the possibility of losing him, he will continue to evaluate his progress through the rest of the season.

I for one am glad we did not sign Jamal in the offseason last year. I can see why it might not have made sense. For one, he hadn't moved to the shooting guard position, which I think does work on our team next to Hinrich who can also play like a combo guard. I also think that while Jamal played effective ball at the end of last year, it is due to the progress that he has made with Skiles that I am being won over. It's this Jamal Crawford that I want to resign, and I was not sure about last year's version, so I respect Paxson's vision in not doing it last year.

Obviously it's a question of $ as much as anthing else. I hope that Jamal will work out a contract with us before. As time passes and Crawford's play has improved, I am willing to pay him more or match him for more than I was before. I still do not think he deserves Arenas money, but I say I am willing to sign him for 6 years, $50, much like the 6/51 contract that Andre Miller got last year. Assuming Jamal's continued strong play and maybe some improvement as the year comes to a close, I hope Pax will come to see things my way.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

How can we possibly give money to a guy who refuses to play defense and avoids contact at all costs?

The entire notion is beyond ridiculous to me. These are the EXACT type of signings that mire teams in financial problems, because they oversign a player based on his "potential".

See Antoine Walker, Jalen Rose, Antawn Jamison, Glenn Robinson, Allen Houston, just to name a few. Where have these signings gotten their respective teams? Nowhere fast.

Despite every one of these players ability to pour in points, their complete inabilities to play on the other end of the court has made them some of the biggest albatross contracts in the league.

Again, WHY OH WHY OH WHY would we even consider inviting this by signing Crawford? He's had four years to prove he could be tough, and he simply can't do it. Paxson is completely on the money in wanting to get rid of him.

Now with this history in mind, someone PLEASE tell me what possibly makes Crawford any different from the aforementioned albatrosses?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> How can we possibly give money to a guy who refuses to play defense and avoids contact at all costs?
> 
> The entire notion is beyond ridiculous to me. These are the EXACT type of signings that mire teams in financial problems, because they oversign a player based on his "potential".
> ...


If you have not noticed Crawford's notable improvement as a defender this year, I'm not sure if we're watching the same games. He's no Artest, but the way he shut down Pierce was something he never could have done last year.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I think we should re-sign him.

He doesn't affect winning or losing, but perhaps with a difference-maker he'll finally be oif somereal value.

If not...he'll still be good tradebait...contenders will always trade for a 6'5" deadeye shooter.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

Notable improvement as a defender? What does that mean when he's still EASILY one of the worst defending starters in the league?

Giving Jamal props for defensive improvement is like giving a 400 lb man a pat on the back for losing five pounds.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> How can we possibly give money to a guy who refuses to play defense and avoids contact at all costs?
> 
> The entire notion is beyond ridiculous to me. These are the EXACT type of signings that mire teams in financial problems, because they oversign a player based on his "potential".
> ...


This is an outstanding post. In fact, it is so good that it should be stickied at the top of every thread on the Bulls forum.

When a smart GM looks at a guy like Jamal Crawford, he's not just thinking about Jamal Crawford, he's thinking about TRENDS, and whether in the past, re-signing guys like Jamal Crawford to long-term, lucrative contracts was a good move or a bad move. As ChiBullsFan rightly points out, it is almost universally bad. Two more guys who belong on your list of failures are Maurice Taylor and Isaac Austin.

People get so caught up in the "potential" of their young players that they don't recognize how many teams have ruined their long-term financial future by signing "potential" players to lucrative, long-term contracts.

If you haven't earned your payday by the end of your rookie contract, more than likely you never will.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> Notable improvement as a defender? What does that mean when he's still EASILY one of the worst defending starters in the league?
> 
> Giving Jamal props for defensive improvement is like giving a 400 lb man a pat on the back for losing five pounds.


I think the same could be said about your objectivity when it comes to Jamal Crawford as well .


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> I think the same could be said about your objectivity when it comes to Jamal Crawford as well .


The "same" can be said? The same what exactly -- that doesn't even make sense.

I've given JC more than a fair shake, I've rooted for him to do well and improve. I expected big things from him this year and all he's done is disappointed me.

Just because I don't favor a guy doesn't mean I'm not being objective. In fact, there's a greater likelihood that those who do like Crawford are the ones in the biased jury pool.

I'll make my opinion on JC very plain, and this opinion applies to all NBA players. If you aren't willing to be tough, if you aren't willing to do dirty work, if you don't play defense, I DON'T WANT YOU REPRESENTING MY TEAM. I don't care how "talented" a player is, I care about how they contribute to winning, and players who don't defend don't win. Period.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

Sign and trade. I don't want to see him in Bulls uniform any more. Unlike some of you, I dont' have any more patience towrd him. 

As of now sign and trade is only thing that we can get something out of him barring resgining flat out.

I am tired of him and tired of this debate whether he is good or great or allsatr material or so much of potential, bull****.

Sign and trade.

Sign and trade.

Sign and trade.

Sign and trade.

Sign and trade.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> The "same" can be said? The same what exactly -- that doesn't even make sense.
> ...


You are not alone here. I am agree with you 100 % on JC. I am sick of him and the talk of potential.

Because of JC and other 2Cs, even word "potential" become a curse word to me.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> The "same" can be said? The same what exactly -- that doesn't even make sense.
> ...


You are not alone here. I agree with you 100 % on JC. I am sick of him and the talk of potential.

Because of JC and other 2Cs, even word "potential" become a curse word to me.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> The "same" can be said? The same what exactly -- that doesn't even make sense.
> ...


Anyone who watches the Bulls on a consistent basis since Skiles has taken over will easily say that Jamal has improved greatly on defense .Hes not gonna be mistaken for a all defensive team guy but that doesnt mean he cant be a great player .Not all great players are defensive dynamos .

Since when have you given Jamal a fair shake ? If someone says whats Jamal ceiling you say "lets just face it Jamal Crawford sucks ".If someone says lets resign him you say we cant possibly sign anyone who 



> How can we possibly give money to a guy who refuses to play defense and avoids contact at all costs?


which is a flat out lie .By your defintion of what "your" team should be like you would take a team full of Dicky Simpkins and Randy Browns and get spanked by 20 every night .

The nba is combination of talent and hardworking players the superstars are players who usually have both but you dont go very far having ateam of too much of either extreme.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Not to but into the thread too conspicuously, but Jamal got completely destroyed trying to defend Posey and Battier tonight. He has improved his D, and he has shown a marked effort at improving his game, but he's still wildly inconsistent and his D is still at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to NBA guards.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Not to but into the thread too conspicuously, but Jamal got completely destroyed trying to defend Posey and Battier tonight. He has improved his D, and he has shown a marked effort at improving his game, but he's still wildly inconsistent and his D is still at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to NBA guards.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Not to but into the thread too conspicuously, but Jamal got completely destroyed trying to defend Posey and Battier tonight. He has improved his D, and he has shown a marked effort at improving his game, but he's still wildly inconsistent and his D is still at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to NBA guards.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Not to but into the thread too conspicuously, but Jamal got completely destroyed trying to defend Posey and Battier tonight. He has improved his D, and he has shown a marked effort at improving his game, but he's still wildly inconsistent and his D is still at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to NBA guards.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> which is a flat out lie .By your defintion of what "your" team should be like you would take a team full of Dicky Simpkins and Randy Browns and get spanked by 20 every night


Nope, "my team" would consist of reasonably talented players who play tough. Hinrich, Chandler, JYD and ADavis can play for my team anyday. Now is that enough? No. We need to add more talent to the mix, but it must be the right type of talent. A guy like Iguodola, Deng or Julius Hodge would all be welcome additions.

Crawford is, more or less, dead weight. A guy who won't defend but demands minutes is the quickest way to the league cellar. Time and time again this has been proven.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I guess I entered the thread conspicuously.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I guess I entered the thread conspicuously.


:laugh: 

Yes, almost didn't know you were there.

Almost didn't know you were there.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope, "my team" would consist of reasonably talented players who play tough. Hinrich, Chandler, JYD and ADavis can play for my team anyday. Now is that enough? No. We need to add more talent to the mix, but it must be the right type of talent. A guy like Iguodola, Deng or Julius Hodge would all be welcome additions.
> ...


Im sure those 4 can play for your team anyday but how many wins are they gonna get you ?NOT MANY and thats the problem while they play hard only Hinrichs skills level matches his effort the other 3 are bench rotation guys .


Now Crawfords dead weight ? :laugh: 



> VincentVega
> 
> Not to but into the thread too conspicuously, but Jamal got completely destroyed trying to defend Posey and Battier tonight. He has improved his D, and he has shown a marked effort at improving his game, but he's still wildly inconsistent and his D is still at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to NBA guards


Posey,Bonzi and Battier are all sf's .No way he had a chance one on one on the block against all 3.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

On second thought. Trade 3Cs.

As someone jokingly pointed out, we are not wining with them, what about losing without them for a change.

I am in.

Seriosly, I don't think any of 3C will be a so-called cornerstone of the championship. 

Jamal: One can't talk about his skill or talent without reminding equally insurmountable flaws in his game, offensively and defensivley.

Chandler: total lack of basic skill or talent. I admire his energy and efforts, but those two factor alone just can't cut it in NBA. Sorry fella. I liked you but it's tiem to move you too. Brand for you turned out to be the dumbest move ever. I know, it's a hindsight. But the fact is the fact.

Curry: what a waste. 

The problem with both Curry and Chandler is that they didn't have a chance to master the basic skills in basketball during their early career. Their game up until the high school days solely depends on theri physical dominance over kids (most of them only tehir shoulder high). They entered into NBA without any basketball ABC. 

Then what about other high schooler? IF you look back their high school games, their dominance over kids were based on skills at their level, not based on physical dominance. They already have mastered the basketball ABC to be dominant over peers. Curry and Chandler basically didn't need to. Look at theri clips from old days, all 2C did is grap a ball , and dunk over player a foot shorter.

That is why there is huge difference drafting PG or SG or SF from Centers. 

In that sense, both Curry and Chandler will never be what we envision them to be. 



I won't be a sorry fan even if Paxon trade all 3C. In fact, please trade them all. Whoever he can get for 3C, we can;t get any worse than now. And that is another sorry, yet FACT.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Anyone who watches the Bulls on a consistent basis since Skiles has taken over will easily say that *Jamal has improved greatly on defense* .


Anyone who watches the Bulls on a consistent basis since Skiles has taken over will easily say that Jamal* is in his contract year trying to get another contract*.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Not to but into the thread too conspicuously, but Jamal got completely destroyed trying to defend Posey and Battier tonight. He has improved his D, and he has shown a marked effort at improving his game, but he's still wildly inconsistent and his D is still at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to NBA guards.


So good it should be said 4 times. 



Oh...it was.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Anyone who watches the Bulls on a consistent basis since Skiles has taken over will easily say that Jamal* is in his contract year trying to get another contract*.


I guess this explains why Kobe and Rasheed Wallace are playing so well, right?

They are all just playing for thier next contract. Has nothing to do with actual skills or anything like that.

Just the paycheck.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess this explains why Kobe and Rasheed Wallace are playing so well, right?
> ...


You comparing a guy who just made 17 million a year with Jamal?


Shame, *SHAME* on you...


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You comparing a guy who just made 17 million a year with Jamal?
> ...


I don't know what Ritzy digs you come from, but Jamals 3mil+ salary ain't nothing to scoff at.

At least where I'm from....


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

There needs to be some kind of moratorium on Jamal Crawford threads. Maybe place a sticky and title it "The official Jamal Crawford thread: Love him, hate him, whatever, speak on it here". Then people can have these same old arguments there, and then Jamal threads can be made only when there is some actual news to speak on in regards to him.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> There needs to be some kind of moratorium on Jamal Crawford threads. Maybe place a sticky and title it "The official Jamal Crawford thread: Love him, hate him, whatever, speak on it here". Then people can have these same old arguments there, and then Jamal threads can be made only when there is some actual news to speak on in regards to him.


We may still have the same arguements but I have changed my opinion from what it was before. I was for trading Jamal. I see improvements. Obviously he has a way to go before he is the effective player we need night in and night out. But I base my change of opinion on the fact that he is coachable. He can learn better defense, He has learned to take it to the basket. He is trying to take better shots. He will work on his shooting in the summer months. 

I will criticize when he deserves it. 

We need to keep him at 7 mill a year and add someone to go with him at SF.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

it's funny...when crawford is TORCHING opposing sg's and pg's...you guys are like : KEEP HIM, RESIGN HIM, DON'T LET HIM GET AWAYYYY

but once he gets TORCHED...it's like : forget his potential, sign and trade, he doesn't have what it takes..blah blah

it's just a game..and when he gets 27, 7, and 5 the next game it'll be the same ol' SH*T from you people


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

For the record, even after Jamal's good performances I still want his butt out of town. Even with his "good" performances I find myself unimpressed by his play -- it usually just means he hit a few shots that he would normally miss.

My opinion will not change on him until he gets up in his opponent's mug on defense and stops with his prissy floaters and starts drawing contact. I just fail to see how Jamal helps this team consistently be a better team. It basically seems like he fills a scoring void, and in a not-so-efficient fashion.

At least with Curry, who shares some of Jamal's pitfalls, I see how when he's on his game we are a significantly better and more dangerous team. He puts pressure on the defense. Crawford, on his best days, doesn't force the defense out of their comfort zone.

So, no thanks, I'd rather keep 7 million dollars unspent than WASTE it on Jamal. And I know that Paxson isn't going to. Jamal will get a $4.5 million offer at best.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I only have one question ...when was this ? You seem to be a guy who had "his guy" and that guy got beaten out after a while and instead of being a person that can clearly see it was best for both players at the time (since both players played alot better in different roles) you have chosen to begrudge a player for playing better than you thought he could(by beating out "your guy") and pick apart his game although if "your guy" had shown absolutely to be no better. If it were "your guy " you would make excuses for him and praise his goid points this everyone who reads this board knows it to be true.

Your going to have at least show a little fairness before i take anything you say seriously on the matter.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> Your going to have at least show a little fairness before i take anything you say seriously on the matter.


Weren't you the guy who said that Hinrich only passed the ball once to Jamal in an entire game, when in fact that was quite clearly not the case, as he had two freaking assists in the first quarter alone to Jamal and several more for the game?


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> I only have one question ...when was this ? You seem to be a guy who had "his guy" and that guy got beaten out after a while and instead of being a person that can clearly see it was best for both players at the time (since both players played alot better in different roles) you have chosen to begrudge a player for playing better than you thought he could(by beating out "your guy") and pick apart his game although if "your guy" had shown absolutely to be no better. If it were "your guy " you would make excuses for him and praise his goid points this everyone who reads this board knows it to be true.
> 
> Your going to have at least show a little fairness before i take anything you say seriously on the matter.


First off, I'm not really looking for your approval in this debate. I'm just stating my piece and supporting it with a reasonable argument. Feel free to agree or disagree. I don't see why you have the need to politick against other posters and try to discredit them.

Secondly, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Jay-Jamal debate, so get over it already. I preferred Jay to Jamal, there's no question about that. But I was rooting for both of them to be successful once they started playing together in the same backcourt at the end of last year.

After Jay's accident, I wanted nothing more than for Jamal to be the quality PG I actually thought he could be. I was talking him up in the preseason right along with everyone else and you can go back and check the old threads if you don't believe me.

Ultimately, Jamal's play has just flat out disgusted me this year. Since his move to SG, he's been jacking up 25 shots a game, and I have zero respect for players who love to shoot this much who don't put up on the other end of the court. It's pure self-aggrandizement on the backs of others who are willing to do the dirty work. I frankly don't know how anyone can respect that kind of game.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> Ultimately, Jamal's play has just flat out disgusted me this year. Since his move to SG, he's been jacking up 25 shots a game, and I have zero respect for players who love to shoot this much who don't put up on the other end of the court. It's pure self-aggrandizement on the backs of others who are willing to do the dirty work. I frankly don't know how anyone can respect that kind of game.



Jamal Crawford is averaging 16 ppg he has at no time this year been averaging 25 shots per game .He has taken 20 or more shots 16 times in 54 games.Most of the time its been when he has been the ONLY scoring option the Bulls had.

Anyone with common basketball sense would see that as well as any objective person will admit to Jamal playing both ends while not as much as everyone would like it doesnt mean he never plays it as you claim .Only someone who is not interested in given any objective critcism would continue to mistate facts as you seem to do more often than not .

Is Jamal defensive stopper ?No !! Is he starting to put forth a defensive effort on a game to game basis ? Yes . Remember this is not Jamal the pg we are talking about its Jamal the sg.And while you continue to try and discount any improvements he has made this season you only need to look at his performances against VC,Pierce,lebron in his short 30+ game sg career to his improvements . Thats if facts even really mattered to you .


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Weren't you the guy who said that Hinrich only passed the ball once to Jamal in an entire game, when in fact that was quite clearly not the case, as he had two freaking assists in the first quarter alone to Jamal and several more for the game?


aren't you the same guy that said if kirk hadn't been humble he couldn't have "survived" at kansas


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> aren't you the same guy that said if kirk hadn't been humble he couldn't have "survived" at kansas


Yes, but not in those exact words. I said he had to be unselfish to make it in Roy Williams' system. What part of that is untrue? Watch much college basketball?

Also, you never answered my question.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


fyi he has had 25 plus shots in a game 4 times this season(54 games) ....they are 2-2 in those games ...if the goal is to win it seems better than the alterantive(14-36).Also 3 of those 4 games most people would consider at least good games , the last time he did it he also went to the line 11 times and grabbed 11 boards the time before that he had 42 points to go with 4 steals and 2 blocks...it would seem when he puts up so many shots he has learned to do more than wait for it to be his turn to play offense, and he only actually shot well in one of those games but because of his growth as a player the bulls were able to win both, but we are all bulls fans right, so the question is why would you say things that according to reality(since he was actually doing more than his share of the "dirty work" in both) aren't true?


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> fyi he has had 25 plus shots in a game 4 times this season(54 games) ....they are 2-2 in those games ...if the goal is to win it seems better than the alterantive(14-36).Also 3 of those 4 games most people would consider at least good games , the last time he did it he also went to the line 11 times and grabbed 11 boards the time before that he had 42 points to go with 4 steals and 2 blocks...it would seem when he puts up so many shots he has learned to do more than wait for it to be his turn to play offense, and he only actually shot well in one of those games but because of his growth as a player the bulls were able to win both, but we are all bulls fans right, so the question is why would you say things that according to reality(since he was actually doing more than his share of the "dirty work" in both) aren't true?



Excellent post.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> we are all bulls fans right, so the question is why would you say things that according to reality(since he was actually doing more than his share of the "dirty work" in both) aren't true?


You and I both know the answer to that one....:yes:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> ...why would you say things that according to reality(since he was actually doing more than his share of the "dirty work" in both) aren't true?


Why won't you answer my question?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, but not in those exact words. I said he had to be unselfish to make it in Roy Williams' system. What part of that is untrue? Watch much college basketball?
> ...


actually i answered when originally asked it 2 almost months ago when i said i miscounted and that i actually remember the pass in question but though it came from gill(i still dont know how i made that mistake)but you also did say something of very questionable credibility of which i've provided a link to. 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=859352#post859352

is kansas (no mention of any system) that tough ?,I've seen many primadonnas play college basketball I've seen whole programs change because of a player ,i've seen primadonnas prosper and fail and usually it more to do with their talent and application of it by the system they were in and their coaches ego more than their own mindset .


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

I have serious doubts that the Bulls will resign Jamal Crawford. Jamal doesn't have the body to play the two guard position. He's not tall enough and he's not strong enough. He'll always be a liability on defense if he were to play the two. However, his body and skill-set would excel at the point guard position, and the bulls have commited to Kirk Hinrich as their future one. That's why I don't see Crawford in bulls' future plans.

I can't believe people are starting to saying trading Chandler again. That would be another trade that the team would regreat for years to come. I have no doubt that a healthy Tyson Chandler will give you a double double next season.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> I have serious doubts that the Bulls will resign Jamal Crawford. Jamal doesn't have the body to play the two guard position. He's not tall enough and he's not strong enough. He'll always be a liability on defense if he were to play the two. However, his body and skill-set would excel at the point guard position, and the bulls have commited to Kirk Hinrich as their future one. That's why I don't see Crawford in bulls' future plans.
> 
> I can't believe people are starting to saying trading Chandler again. That would be another trade that the team would regreat for years to come. I have no doubt that a healthy Tyson Chandler will give you a double double next season.


JC is a good 6'6...so there goes the he's not tall enough argument...

I think he can guard SOME 2 guards, I mean hell we weren't having this argument when he was D'ing up Pierce, Carter, etc...

Then he can't cut it because we're throwing him on small forwards? 

Physically he's not there, I do agree with that...

I do think he's better suited playing PG and guarding PGs...

The reason why I would trade TC is because there are other TCs...

I said the other day if I could do a TC for Stro Show trade I'd do it without hesitation.

I've heard Varejao from Brazil is basically TC with a jumper...

I'll take that in the 2nd round and not pay TC a ton of money that really I'd pay to some other players before him..

One is Stro Show...


----------



## Crawscrew (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> I have serious doubts that the Bulls will resign Jamal Crawford. Jamal doesn't have the body to play the two guard position. He's not tall enough and he's not strong enough. He'll always be a liability on defense if he were to play the two. However, his body and skill-set would excel at the point guard position, and the bulls have commited to Kirk Hinrich as their future one. That's why I don't see Crawford in bulls' future plans.
> 
> I can't believe people are starting to saying trading Chandler again. That would be another trade that the team would regreat for years to come. I have no doubt that a healthy Tyson Chandler will give you a double double next season.


Good post! I was thinking if the Bulls would be better off had they drafted Hayes at 7 instead of Kirk. Not if Hayes is a better player, cause Kirk is, but would the team be better? I think so. A lot of people said Pax drafted Kirk because of Jay, but if Pax was poised to trade one of them, than he must have had is eye on Kirk all along. And, while he did draft the best player, we had other needs to be filled...Pax could also have traded JC to Washington and take Hayes there. Last night we saw the problem with JC, offensively he can play the 2, but is better at the 1. Deffensively, he has no chance against the 2...I don't think he'll resign, because his agent will convinve him that he is better suited at the 1 and he'll leave (Cleveland, LAC???)


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Nobody on our team is asked to do what Jamal has done--win the PG spot, spend a summer gearing up to be the PG, play PG and then have to shift to SG for the best of the team and play defense against much bigger and stronger players with little to no preparation.

You don't guard a SG the way you guard a PG. That is the bottom line, but Jamal has done pretty well.

However, he gets blasted for not guarding SFs well. Are you serious? I mean, come on. Nobody here would fault Curry for having a tough time guarding James Posey, but we'll fault Crawford. Why? Because he's the whipping boy, mostly.

That is completely Skiles' fault. When Memphis went big, we should have went big. Crawford, E-Rob, JYD, Davis, Curry. But we didn't in the first quarter, and everyone on the board whines about how Jamal is an awful defensive player because he can't guard SFs when he is a PG shifted to SG.

You know, you Crawford haters are starting to go way overboard looking for faults. Crawford is NOT a bottom of the barrel defensive guard. He is a mediocre defensive player, he was worse at the beginning of the season but he's much better now. That's complete propaganda. I'd prefer it if he was incredible, but he's mediocre, NOT one of the worst defensive guards in the league as many here love to believe.

It's really sad that the same people who villify Crawford typically posterize Hinrich. I almost feel like I have to hate Hinrich because I like Crawford. It's almost as if your pro-Hinrich agenda causes you to have to dislike Crawford. Why? I guess Crawford is kind of a threat to Kirk, if Kirk were to ever stop playing hard (doubtful) Crawford would step in without skipping a beat... and Crawford still initiates the offense about 40% of the time. But why the immense amount of hate?

Most overrated player (used to be Tyson Chandler) on this board is Kirk Hinrich. Most underrated (although he does have some fans which overrate him, that's for sure) is Jamal Crawford.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> 
> It's really sad that the same people who villify Crawford typically posterize Hinrich. I almost feel like I have to hate Hinrich because I like Crawford. It's almost as if your pro-Hinrich agenda causes you to have to dislike Crawford. Why? I guess Crawford is kind of a threat to Kirk, if Kirk were to ever stop playing hard (doubtful) Crawford would step in without skipping a beat... and Crawford still initiates the offense about 40% of the time. But why the immense amount of hate?
> 
> Most overrated player (used to be Tyson Chandler) on this board is Kirk Hinrich. Most underrated (*although he does have some fans which overrate him, that's for sure*) is Jamal Crawford.



NOW that is an understatement! Seriously, after the LOSS to Sacramento and JAMAL's game high 23 points it was all let's resign him and please Lord, don't let him walk. We still LOST the game. 

BUT, after the LOSS to the Grizzlies and KIRK's game high 25 points it was all AWWW how come JAMAL didn't play? We still LOST the game. Again. 

NOW, had both been in the game in the fourth quarter last night, after we we went on that tear MAYBE we would have won. MAYBE. But then again, maybe not. OK probably not. 

Bottom line: Bulls are 16-40. :| 

And I am on record saying we should try and resign Jamal.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> fyi he has had 25 plus shots in a game 4 times this season(54 games) ....they are 2-2 in those games ...if the goal is to win it seems better than the alterantive(14-36).Also 3 of those 4 games most people would consider at least good games , the last time he did it he also went to the line 11 times and grabbed 11 boards the time before that he had 42 points to go with 4 steals and 2 blocks...it would seem when he puts up so many shots he has learned to do more than wait for it to be his turn to play offense, and he only actually shot well in one of those games but because of his growth as a player the bulls were able to win both, but we are all bulls fans right, so the question is why would you say things that according to reality(since he was actually doing more than his share of the "dirty work" in both) aren't true?


I have to laugh that you guys get so caught up with my "25 shots a game" comment, like you feel good to prove me wrong or something. Were you completely oblivious to my use of hyperbole? Jamal shoots way too much. We all know this.

Your statistics are meaningless. You don't have to be a Stats major to know that a sample of 4 games does not a trend make. Why don't you check their record when he shoots 18+ times, because if he's shooting more than that many, it's way too much.

As for the one game you use as such 'convincing' evidence, what does that show? He had one good game where he got rebounds. How about the fact that he virtually NEVER gets double-digit rebounds. In fact, was that game his first time? So don't even try and play it like Jamal does the dirty work. He doesn't.

Take a look at his game log and tell me it doesn't read pathetically 4 out of every 5 games. Every dog has his day, but the reality is that most of Jamal's days are dogs.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I have to laugh that you guys get so caught up with my "25 shots a game" comment, like you feel good to prove me wrong or something. Were you completely oblivious to my use of hyperbole? Jamal shoots way too much. We all know this.
> ...


Whats funny is that you basically keep making up stats get caught but yet still brush them aside as you continue on with your nonsense .

Now its 18 :laugh: Oh wait I thought it was 25  now a shooting guard who takes more than 18 shots per game is shooting too much :rofl: 

Jamals shots per game is basically average for sg in the league and this isnt a 4 game sample this is the entire season .It seems like youve moved your I hate jamal the pg hate over to I hate jamal the sg but the stuff your shoveling doesnt really have a leg to stand on .

A sg who shoots 16 shots per game but he shoots too much   :laugh: Where do you get this stuff from ?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I have to laugh that you guys get so caught up with my "25 shots a game" comment, like you feel good to prove me wrong or something. Were you completely oblivious to my use of hyperbole? Jamal shoots way too much. We all know this.
> ...


You're hilarious...

Almost as funny as this Simpsons' Episode...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Most overrated player (used to be Tyson Chandler) on this board is Kirk Hinrich. Most underrated (although he does have some fans which overrate him, that's for sure) is Jamal Crawford.


Keep in mind that with the exception of the #1 overall pick in 1999 in Elton Brand, Kirk Hinrich has had the best rookie season of any Bull since Michael Jordan. That includes the rookie years of Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant. This is not to say Kirk will wind up as good as Scottie, but when you look at our general lack of good rookies (much of this is due to a bunch of weak draft picks due to strong teams), is it any wonder this board is pretty enamored with Kirk?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I think a lot of people are enamored because there weren't huge expectations...

He's clearly passed any "limits" that might have been set on him before the season started...

I think if those same expectations were set on other players, they wouldn't get as much flack as they do from people on this board.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> I have serious doubts that the Bulls will resign Jamal Crawford. Jamal doesn't have the body to play the two guard position. He's not tall enough and he's not strong enough. He'll always be a liability on defense if he were to play the two. However, his body and skill-set would excel at the point guard position, and the bulls have commited to Kirk Hinrich as their future one. That's why I don't see Crawford in bulls' future plans.


No one really mentions this, but I've always thought that Jamal's future with us, assuming that one day we actually become good, will be as a combo guard off the bench. 

To me, Jamal really is a hybrid player, and since management seems committed to Kirk, (and for good reason, IMO) it would make sense to eventually acquire a true off guard, who can adequately defend the Michael Finley's and Kobe Bryant's of the league night in and night out, and then slide Jamal in to replace one of the two guys, depending on what the matchups are. To me, that would be a knockout three guard rotation, and would help alleviate whatever shortcomings Jamal has at either position, and allow him to play more within his element.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rosenthall</b>!
> To me, Jamal really is a hybrid player, and since management seems committed to Kirk, (and for good reason, IMO) it would make sense to eventually acquire a true off guard


Management has been anything but commital towards Jamal...

Chances are he's gone...

In fact, if I were his agent, I'd get a team to load his contract up front and the Bulls won't match...

He can go start over somewhere else, start at PG...

And we can have Kendall Gill start at SG...

Or maybe we can sign Carl English!


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Management has been anything but commital towards Jamal...
> ...


Well, to a certain degree, I agree with management's lack of commitment towards Jamal. In his four years on our team, he's shown enough inconsistency and shortcomings defensively to warrant some hesitance towards giving him a 6 to 7 year contract in the 50-60 million dollar range, if that's what Jamal is really asking for. 

It's amazing how polar all of the opinions of Jamal on this board are. People either seem to think he's some ubertalented, superstar in the making, or he's this much maligned Jalen Rose lite, who's at the root of everything that's wrong with this team. Few people seem to have a middle of the road opinion on him, which I think is probably a lot more realistic, IMO.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*All right! You finally answered my question.*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> actually i answered when originally asked it 2 almost months ago when i said i miscounted and that i actually remember the pass in question but though it came from gill(i still dont know how i made that mistake)


Kendall Gill is a muscular 6'5" black man in his 30's. Kirk Hinrich is a lanky 6'3" white kid with a mop of coal-black hair visible from outer space. How you "confused" them is beyond me. Way, way beyond me. Do you also have problems telling Yao Ming and Kevin Garnett apart from each other?



> but you also did say something of very questionable credibility of which i've provided a link to.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=859352#post859352


"Questionable credibility"? I'll spell out what I said in your link in slow-mo:

1. In order to be a successful player -- especially a guard -- in Roy Williams' system, one cannot be a primadonna (ie, a selfish player). You play like you're better than everyone else, you play like you don't need your team, you ride the pine and you don't advance as a player. This is obvious.
2. The college Kirk went to has a lot to do with him not being a primadonna.
3. Tons of NBA players are primadonnas. I never said their being such excluded them from NBA viability. What I said in the link wasn't in regards to NBA players as a whole. It was in regards to Kirk Hinrich. _That_ is the context. If Kirk plays selfishly, if he doesn't hustle because he's too good to hustle, if he doesn't rub off on his teammates and lend them confidence and trust the way he has both at Kansas and in the pros, his effectiveness as a player goes down. And if he learns to play like that from a young age and through college, he almost certainly fails to become the player he is now. This is also obvious.



> is kansas (no mention of any system) that tough ?


Yes.



> ,I've seen many primadonnas play college basketball I've seen whole programs change because of a player


That will never happen at Kansas. The school and the tradition is just too big. No one player or coach is that important. Loyalty to the school comes first -- always.



> ,i've seen primadonnas prosper and fail and usually it more to do with their talent and application of it by the system they were in and their coaches ego more than their own mindset .


Agreed. That being said, I'm not sure KH would be an effective point guard if he wasn't respected by his teammates.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> 
> You know, you Crawford haters are starting to go way overboard looking for faults. Crawford is NOT a bottom of the barrel defensive guard.


In my opinion, he is. But he's getting better. He's in the bottom 20% or so of NBA guards in terms of overall defense -- aka the bottom of the barrel -- BUT he has the distinct potential to be in the top 30% or so due to his length and apparent willingness to learn.



> It's really sad that the same people who villify Crawford typically posterize Hinrich. I almost feel like I have to hate Hinrich because I like Crawford. It's almost as if your pro-Hinrich agenda causes you to have to dislike Crawford. Why? I guess Crawford is kind of a threat to Kirk, if Kirk were to ever stop playing hard (doubtful) Crawford would step in without skipping a beat... and Crawford still initiates the offense about 40% of the time. But why the immense amount of hate?


I call it like I see it. And I give props to Jamal all the time, especially recently with his apparent devotion to improving as a player (ie, shooting off screens, defensive intensity, hustle plays, getting to the line). I think he's a fantastic talent, albeit a wildly inconsistent and untamed one. And I've never called for his head or demanded he be traded. I've always expressed quite the opposite opinion.



> Most overrated player (used to be Tyson Chandler) on this board is Kirk Hinrich. Most underrated (although he does have some fans which overrate him, that's for sure) is Jamal Crawford.


I don't think KH is overrated. Look at all the garbage he's had to put up with, all the misconceptions, put downs and whatnot everyone said about him during the draft all the way up until the beginning of the season. I see no sense in calling him overrated as he continues to shove everything back in all the doubters' faces. Moreover, as DMD says above, Kirk is one of the most successful Bulls rookies in recent history.

Just calling 'em how I see 'em.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> Now its 18 Oh wait I thought it was 25 now a shooting guard who takes more than 18 shots per game is shooting too much


I said that 25 was an exaggeration, a hyperbole. Yes I do think that shooting 18 times is too much for the vast majority of players in the NBA, and especially if your name is Jamal Crawford. You forget that most starting SGs in this league are actually good players and some of the top scorers in the league who've earned the right to shoot. Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryand, AI, Vince -- these guys earn the right to shoot 18+ times a game because they are actually good players. Jamal isn't OWED these shots, he needs to earn them. And shooting below 40% from the field isn't earning it. Not getting to the line isn't earning it.

You like statistics? Well here's a statistic for you. Jamal's points-per-shot is a paltry 1.06, good for 34th among the 37 listed SGs on ESPN.com. That tellsme right there he should not be shooting a lot.

What I don't understand is why you are such an apologist for Crawford. As a Bulls fan you should hold him up to a higher standard. He's not getting it done, yet you wanna throw more money at him and make excuses for him. Do you really think he's that good, or will improve that much, or are you just a sucker for style over substance?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I said that 25 was an exaggeration, a hyperbole. Yes I do think that shooting 18 times is too much for the vast majority of players in the NBA, and especially if your name is Jamal Crawford. You forget that most starting SGs in this league are actually good players and some of the top scorers in the league who've earned the right to shoot. Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryand, AI, Vince -- these guys earn the right to shoot 18+ times a game because they are actually good players. Jamal isn't OWED these shots, he needs to earn them. And shooting below 40% from the field isn't earning it. Not getting to the line isn't earning it.
> ...


And it continues...

Kirk is playing real well and for this month he's shooting just under 40% from the field...

If we go by your logic, guess he shouldn't shoot either....

He needs to "earn" his shots...

Moving on..

1 quick question...

If JC stops shooting, how are we going to score?

Since you love looking up stats so much, why don't you look at how many points he scores in wins as opposed to losses.

Do that, THEN come back...


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> Do that, THEN come back...


:laugh: 

Yes, that's me laughing in your face.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> ...


I've been laughing at your posts...

You can keep laughing, but it will be at yourself...

Everyone here that has refuted the weak points you've tried to make, you haven't had an answer for...

Laugh at that.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I said that 25 was an exaggeration, a hyperbole. Yes I do think that shooting 18 times is too much for the vast majority of players in the NBA, and especially if your name is Jamal Crawford. You forget that most starting SGs in this league are actually good players and some of the top scorers in the league who've earned the right to shoot. Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryand, AI, Vince -- these guys earn the right to shoot 18+ times a game because they are actually good players. Jamal isn't OWED these shots, he needs to earn them. And shooting below 40% from the field isn't earning it. Not getting to the line isn't earning it.
> ...


EXAGGERTAION :laugh: You said it and 18 is a exaggeration because he doesnt shoot 18 times a game  .

This has nothing to do with facts or numbers you just dont like jamal .Your hate is really unwarranted and absurd . 

Ai has earned he right to average 25 shots per game and shoot 39% while Jamal is the scum of the earth for 10 less shots and 40+ games in a similar role .The fact that you say they earned it because they are good players just adds to the sillyness of your post .

Just top further the sillyness ill say this jamal is 35 on the list but AI is 34 ,Pierce is 33 and VC is 28 and the list is lead by Calbert Cheaney who is #1 :rofl: 

All this talk of getting to the line is just plain stupid at atimes because not many players get to the line a dominate numbers of times and the players that do are ALL NBA PIERCE,KOBE,TMAC who the hell is claiming Jamal is all league ?NO ONE thats the standards people who spew this crap like you set for him so that youy can always have areason to rip him . 

Jamal currently shoots as many if not more ft's than 

Posey
Bonzi
Q 
Ricky Davis 
Houston 
Spree
Finley 
Wesley 

I guess they suck as well the fact is jamal is not as bad as you and others claim him to be and that just eats you up .Hes not perfect and he has flaws in his game but you know what? their are not many players in the nba that dont .

I think with every post you add to this thread the sucker is clearly being proven. :laugh: 


Hopefully you will get something right before this thread gets a 100 pages :laugh:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Let's step back on the rhetoric a little bit and just be cool to each other.  

Regarding things as a whole, I blame TBF for Crawford's stinky game... he jinxed Jamal by starting this thread :laugh:

All that being said, we can't afford to let Jamal walk for nothing. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

if we let jamal walk, that would be a real tough challenge for my bulls loyalty. I'll never be a true fan of any other NBA team, but I highly doubt I'd stay the bulls fan I am today

IMO we're at a point and in a situation, where we should be prepared to overpay: from an economics standpoint it's possible, from a fan standpoint it's obligatory. I'll explain a lil, but I'm pretty :upset: right now so my debate might be a lil shaky

I think the city of chicago and his enormous fan base deserve a whole lot better than the cheapish management we had to endure the last several years. yes, JR was (and no doubt is) prepared to pay the best player to ever know the game, but that doesn't mean we should accept what's happened in the post-dynasty-years. the owner of the chicago bulls should be prepared to do more than that. this is one of the biggest markets, a franchise with an enormous attendance, and all they have to offer is a lousy team with a lowly payroll. I for one don't care for how much JR makes. obviously he should, and pax has to by definition, but by spending a very modest amount of money year after year, not producing any decent ball for your too loyal fan base, is nothing less than a slapp in the face of these fans

isiah thomas is showing us how much is possible in trades when you're prepared to spend some money in this league nowadays. we OTOH recently traded away our best player - yes, jalen rose was our best player - because he was overpaid. in the process we gave away our 2nd best player. for what purpose? for a little salary cap relief. not enough to make a lot of action possible in the future, just enough to save JR some more cash. jeez, we're not a small market team like the warriors, we're the ****ing chicago bulls, who unfortunately seem to be owned by a donald sterling intimate!! we deserve better than this mess!! give your gm some money to play with, JR!!

(btw, trading guys like brand, miller and artest "because they wouldn't resign" is a very efficient way to keep your costs low. almost as good as the sterling way)

for me, letting jamal - (one of) our best player(s) - walk (or any other unimpressive, cheap solution), would probably be too much


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that with the exception of the #1 overall pick in 1999 in Elton Brand, Kirk Hinrich has had the best rookie season of any Bull since Michael Jordan. That includes the rookie years of Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant. This is not to say Kirk will wind up as good as Scottie, but when you look at our general lack of good rookies (much of this is due to a bunch of weak draft picks due to strong teams), is it any wonder this board is pretty enamored with Kirk?


Ron Artest had arguably just as good, if not a better rookie season. Arguably. He scored more, shot the ball better, but averaged much less assists. But then again, if you think Kirk is a great defensive rookie you have to remember the beast that Artest was from Game 1 of his career.

But I kinda get your point. One could argue organizational decisions are what has held some of our draft picks back:

Fizer being asked to play SF 
Mihm traded immediately
Crawford never seeing the floor on an AWFUL team and constantly benched
Tyson and Eddy having three different coaches and nobody holding their hands/barking orders at them consistently
Jay was starting way too early

but you could also argue that:

Fizer has been in shape for maybe 3 months of his career (last season til ACL tear)
Mihm hasn't done much anyways
Crawford was an awful fundamental defensive player until this year
Tyson and Eddy are completely inconsistent because they don't put in enough effort
Jay had to have a motorcycle

Kirk has done well so far. Great. He could be our PG of the future if he continues on the path he is on now.

He's overrated by this board in particular. And Kirk's existence doesn't preclude Jamal's existence.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Lots of stuff...


You're an exception--- the level headed Hinrich fan. Which is surprising, because your current belongings would make it understandable for you not to be. I think on the pro level Hinrich hasn't gone through too much, but that has to do with how he has played. There was a small hoopla draft week, and it died. There was a small hoopla when he turned in an awful RMR, but it died. The majority of people looked from him to spell Jamal after he got back from the flu, he came back and played great on defense and pretty poorly on offense with a 10 (?) turnover game. 

But he continued playing and his stats of this month are a good indication of his progress. He still needs to work on his shooting---all his numbers are up except his shooting % which is under the magic 40% line. He's a good player, a good kid, very quiet too. A guy we should keep, and I'm sure we will minus some amazing trade opportunity. Future regular season MVP? Nah. Future All-Star? Decent chance. Future Finals MVP? I could see it... he's that kind of clutch player.

Anyways, back to Jamal, I'm going to now assume you mean in the bottom 20% of STARTING guards in the league right now. You cannot possibly mean 20% of every guard in the NBA. You are then saying that all the starters, all the backups and about 1/3rd of the 3rd string guards in this league are better defensive players than Jamal. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy that.

If you want to say he's in the bottom 20% of starting guards... ok. I'll buy it, I estimate him more around bottom 50%. And your feelings on potential are probably spot on... he has the talent and ability to be a top 5% defensive PG and top 20-30% defensive SG. Defense was always a fundamentals and effort thing. That's why I was so damn good at it when I played basketball, when I struggled on offense


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Here's something to chew on.

Let's say... Jamal has been offered about 7.5mil/year by some team, but he hasn't signed the sheet.

Now, we could always sign and trade. He'd be BYC meaning his cap value as I understand it would be about $4 mil in this situation... and we will likely be over the cap.

So we pursue a sign and trade, of course we have to involve a team with caproom likely. And of course, we'd look to bring back something worthwhile.

What would you do in this situation? We've established Jamal's worth to be around 7mil... some of you feel higher, some lower but that's what we've looked at. Would you just bite the bullet and resign him at that? Would you trade him to the highest bidder?











------------------
Personally, in this case I'd look to trade him, but with baggage. Meaning, for a team to get Jamal they'd have to take on JYD and give us back no overvalued players. If for some reason that works, it'd be great for summer of 2005 when we would be very flexible. Otherwise, I just resign him at 7.5mil/per... its a bullet, but a $7.5mil contract would still be very tradeable.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

It amazes me that people still "hate" on Jamal Crawford. He has been one of the few bright spots for this team this season. I just have to draw the conclusion that some people either just have no clue about basketball or make their arguments based solely on reading stat sheets. Hell if I know. I do know that Jamal leads the team in scoring. I also know he is second in assists per game and darn near being 1st. And his defense has improved markedly. Against the Griz he was asked to defend their sf, Posey & Battier, they are bigger and stronger than he is and of course he can't guard them. Skiles may as well asked he guard Lorenzen Wright. Thats the reason he had 4 fouls and was a "non factor" for the 1st time in quite a while actually. Some people apparently just have some seriously erroneous preconceived notions about Jamal and nothing anyone says or does is going to change that. Hopefully the Bulls will resign Jamal and he will prove his worth eventually.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You mentioned JC having trouble guarding Posey. The thing is he will have to learn to defend those kind of players if he is going to be fulltime SG. Posey is what 6'7 230. The league is going towards having big strong physical type SG's. Posey and Miller are the starting wings on that team. Both of those guys are much bigger than JC. I think JC being undersized at that position will ALWAYS be a problem on the defensive end.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>andras</b>!
> if we let jamal walk, that would be a real tough challenge for my bulls loyalty. I'll never be a true fan of any other NBA team, but I highly doubt I'd stay the bulls fan I am today


If you'd leave then, I'd question your loyalty today.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> It amazes me that people still "hate" on Jamal Crawford. He has been one of the few bright spots for this team this season. I just have to draw the conclusion that some people either just have no clue about basketball or make their arguments based solely on reading stat sheets. Hell if I know. I do know that Jamal leads the team in scoring. I also know he is second in assists per game and darn near being 1st. And his defense has improved markedly. Against the Griz he was asked to defend their sf, Posey & Battier, they are bigger and stronger than he is and of course he can't guard them. Skiles may as well asked he guard Lorenzen Wright. Thats the reason he had 4 fouls and was a "non factor" for the 1st time in quite a while actually. Some people apparently just have some seriously erroneous preconceived notions about Jamal and nothing anyone says or does is going to change that. Hopefully the Bulls will resign Jamal and he will prove his worth eventually.


i get a chuckle out of some of the things i read here ..how come no one ever asks ,Why dont they switch kirk and JC's defensive assignments if JC is having trouble ? they are about the same size but JC is only marginally bigger. 6'4 190 vs 6'5 195 is it that much of a difference? If JC is completely incompetent and kirk is some sort of defensive marvel why no switch ? They did it with LBJ to questionable results earlier but the precedent is there. 

But back to the original topic of the thread , of course they should resign crawford and try to keep this talented team intact ,young teams need stability and changing the focus and makeup of the team every 6 months will make sure it will never win, i say give them 2 years by then the youth excuses will be done and we'll see what we have.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> It amazes me that people still "hate" on Jamal Crawford.


I object to people being stigmatized for being disappointed by and critical of Jamal Crawford.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I object to people being stigmatized for being disappointed by and critical of Jamal Crawford.


I still don't understand why you would be dissappointed. There are things to be critical about and I have been critical about them as well. Sometimes it seems like JCstole your girl or something with the comments you make.


----------



## Justice (Nov 22, 2003)

Crawford is the "Steve Francis" of our bulls. They can do nothing right to some people and some "fans" secretly do not want them to do well.

You guys should go to Rockets forum and it is hilarious. Many of them are willing to trade Francis directly for Kirk, Eric Snow or whatever PG Rockets just played.

Anyway, people will probably start to appreciate Crawford once he is out of CHicago.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Justice</b>!
> Crawford is the "Steve Francis" of our bulls. They can do nothing right to some people and some "fans" secretly do not want them to do well.
> 
> You guys should go to Rockets forum and it is hilarious. Many of them are willing to trade Francis directly for Kirk, Eric Snow or whatever PG Rockets just played.
> ...


When are they (Van Gundy, or whoever Francis' coach is the near future) going to realize that the guy is a 6'2" shooting guard, and just like Iverson, you'd be much better off if ya just told the guy to go score?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> You mentioned JC having trouble guarding Posey. The thing is he will have to learn to defend those kind of players if he is going to be fulltime SG. Posey is what 6'7 230. The league is going towards having big strong physical type SG's. Posey and Miller are the starting wings on that team. Both of those guys are much bigger than JC. I think JC being undersized at that position will ALWAYS be a problem on the defensive end.


Agreed. I like Jamal, and I believe he'll play quite well. But for another team. Great defense helps teams to win, and Jamal doesn't have that. And we don't really need his PG skills when we have Hinrich. 

I wish Paxson had traded before the trade deadline, but apparently there just weren't any good offers. Hopefully we can sign and trade him; I can see Utah or Atlanta signing him. However, I am afraid that we will lose him for nothing. In my opinion, Jamal is gone after this season.


----------



## WXHOOPS (Jan 15, 2004)

Chandler, Crawford, Bulls#1 go to Boston for Paul Pierce & Jiri Welsh.

Pierce isn't happy in Boston, and this would be the rebuild that Ainge is looking for.

PG Hinrich
SG Welsh
SF Pierce
FC Davis
FC Curry


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Pierce is more than likely available this summer although I have no idea what it would take to get him since I have no idea what kind of team Ainge wants on the floor. One of our bigs,our first round pick, and a signed Crawford probably is what it would take if he is interested. As for Welsch from what I understand Ainge considers him untouchable.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> I object to people being stigmatized for being disappointed by and critical of Jamal Crawford.


I agree. Why is it that if we don't respect a players game, we are labeled "haters"? Is it inconceivable that we reach our conclusions based on what we see and how it coincides with our basketball values?

I have ALWAYS respected substance over style on the basketball court. There's nothing I hate more or disrespect more than a player who doesn't understand that the game is about winning.

I'll share a brief story to illustrate why I don't respect this "style over substance" brand of play. I played in a pickup basketball game this weekend in which my team consisted of 5 pretty fundamental players, with none of us being very athletic. Our opposition was a squad of mainly streetballers. They were all great athletes and did some things with the ball that blew me away. They all played well above the rim. During the course of the game one guy had a tip dunk and another guy had a breakaway dunk.

Final score: Fundamentals 11, Streetballers 7. We beat a much more talented team because (a) they cared more about how they looked dribbling the ball around the key than actually making a play that led to a basket (b) they were lazy, and therefore easily beaten on defense (c) they ultimately didn't care if they won the game.

Take this a step further and you can see why I have no respect for Jamal. Everybody who loves Jamal thinks its great that he can throw a dunk to himself off the backboard, or cross someone over, but the fact of the matter is that he just isn't helping the team win on the plays where he isn't doing something like that. He puts so much more energy into doing something that may look cool that I often find myself wondering why he can't put that same effort into doing the little things that help a team win.

I've put my time in with Jamal, given him a fair shake, but I just can't be on the bandwagon of a "style over substance" player. Is there honestly something wrong with sticking to that principle? Does this necessitate being called a hater?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> Does this necessitate being called a hater?



Apparently so...and it's not even a personal attack, whereas calling someone the opposite, a Crawford apologist is. I used the right word, provided a definition, and got an p-mail that I was going to be suspended for it.

Guess we know which camp the BBB government belongs to.

Good post.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Oh...and I agree with the subject of this thread. If he's not going to continue to better himself, he'd probably do better to resign from the Bulls, rather than the Bulls re-signing him.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Because a hater isnt someone who doesnt like a players game its someone who wont even admit that he has game.

That doesnt apply to everyone who doesnt like Jamal game but there are some here who think like that .



> ChiBullsFan
> 
> Take this a step further and you can see why I have no respect for Jamal. Everybody who loves Jamal thinks its great that he can throw a dunk to himself off the backboard, or cross someone over, but the fact of the matter is that he just isn't helping the team win on the plays where he isn't doing something like that. He puts so much more energy into doing something that may look cool that I often find myself wondering why he can't put that same effort into doing the little things that help a team win.
> 
> I've put my time in with Jamal, given him a fair shake, but I just can't be on the bandwagon of a "style over substance" player. Is there honestly something wrong with sticking to that principle? Does this necessitate being called a hater?



If I take a step back Ill see that you have no respect from Jamal because he doesnt play the way you like but that doesnt mean he cant play ,cant be a winner ,or cant be successful .

I dont care for the way Steve Francis plays but am I silly enough to claim he cant play because I dont like the way he plays . NO 


Style over substance ?What games are you watching ?The hotdog Jamal shows up every now and then but not nearly as much as when he was younger.Some of this stuff youre hung up on is old and hes making improvements now that hes getting coaching .

Right now hes basically being taught how to play sg something that if he had went to college he wouldve had more experience with because with his size he may even seen some time playing SF in college .

Skiles is trying to turn a shooter into a more well rounded offensive player and its working .

Some of your observations seems like your watching tapes of games from early last season .


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> ....If I take a step back Ill see that you have no respect from Jamal because he doesnt play the way you like but that doesnt mean he cant play ...


I like improvements Jamal is making. But it seams to me very often he doesn’t play the way ….the *team * likes him to play. And the reason I said that, because it doesn’t work and we are loosing. 

So right now, we are expecting from Jamal (and from Curry too) not less “heart and passion” than we getting from Kirk and Tyson (when he is healthy of course). And if, we not going to see that at the end of the season, IMO, he should be traded or contracted for not more than 18-19 M in three years. 

I hope Jamal will make us believe him !:yes:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, as of yet you obviously aren't suspended, so that should be some evidence of where the "BBB government" is.

This portion of the BBB government, however, finds it pretty classless to divulge private messages on public boards.

Regarding "haters" and "apologists", there are two problems with what you are saying. 

1) I didn't see anyone specifically call you a hater but I did see you specifically call a mod here an apologist. The difference between making a general comment about some undefined group of people and making a specific statement towards a specific person is a clear one. That being said, the general rule is to not personalize disagreements. You, GB, have been consistently doing that and you need to stop. I've tried to tell you this privately in the past, but since you insist on making things public, I'm saying it again.

2) I do personally find being called an apologist derogatory and offensive in its connotation, regardless of what textbook (devoid of context) you pull a definition from.

Thus, saying something derogatory about a specific person is clearly a personal attack.

Now you've had your say and I've had mine. Please do everyone the courtesy of continuing this via PM if you feel the need to continue it at all.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. Why is it that if we don't respect a players game, we are labeled "haters"? Is it inconceivable that we reach our conclusions based on what we see and how it coincides with our basketball values?
> ...


I think Jamal has an awful lot more substance than you give him credit for. Jamal is NOT a streetballer. He played a 2 week tournament in Ruckers and just last season got "street cred"being given a playground name. They JUST gave it to him. That, to me, tells me that he hasn't spent a lot of time playing on playgrounds. Jamal has a great crossover and thats a legit part of his game. You make it sound like crossover dribbles are the devils work. Seems to me that Pistol Pete Maravich used to cross guys over all the time and he was always considered a sound fundamental player. And Jamal has dome that bounce off of the backboard and dunk it move 4 times, 3 times he has been succesful. I will take a 75% success rate any time. Besides, it wasn't like he did it to hot dog, he did it withing the context of the game because at that particular moment it gave him the best opportunity to score. Basketball, by it's very nature demands some creativity. You seem to want to label a player who has some of that creativity as a streetballer for no apparent reason. Substance beats style every time, thats true I think, but Jamal has a lot more substance than your willing to give him credit for.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm starting a "Free Jamal" campaign...


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> If you'd leave then, I'd question your loyalty today.


I never said I'd leave, but I can't imagine me following Bulls games through the internet till the morning (in Europe) like I sometimes do nowadays. this team has been a disappointment in the W/L-column, but as a loyal fan I can live with that. if we don't resign jamal, I'm questioning this franchise will to win. it's hard to get equally excited about some incredibly rich guy making money on the back of our loyal fan base


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>andras</b>!
> 
> 
> I never said I'd leave, but I can't imagine me following Bulls games through the internet till the morning (in Europe) like I sometimes do nowadays. this team has been a disappointment in the W/L-column, but as a loyal fan I can live with that. if we don't resign jamal, I'm questioning this franchise will to win. it's hard to get equally excited about some incredibly rich guy making money on the back of our loyal fan base


after all my frustrated ranting in this thread I feel obligated to provide this quote from The Chicago Tribune (Q&A with KC Johnson)



> Could the real problem with the Bulls be the fans? The Bulls rank 28 out of 29 in the win/loss category, but rank third in attendance. If ownership is selling tickets and making money, is there really any incentive to make any improvements? --Muddy Grimes, Chicago
> 
> I will call you crazy. The Bulls are over the salary cap. It's not like this team is trying to be on the cheap and not win games. Granted, that was the plan in the first few years after the breakup of the dynasty. But this team is over the salary cap and chairman Jerry Reinsdorf authorized Paxson to sign Scottie Pippen to the full mid-level salary cap exception for two years despite his age and bad knees. You can rip the Bulls for a lot of things, but being cheap isn't one of them.


my theory in here was 'if they let jamal walk, the bulls are cheap'. that's a statement I'm not backing down from. this is also why I strongly believe it won't happen. I'm expecting us to resign jamal, otherwise we should get something nice back in a sign-and-trade. if pax can't get this done, I'll be pretty :upset:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Jamal has a great crossover and thats a legit part of his game. You make it sound like crossover dribbles are the devils work.


Nah. Even KH has a pretty legit cross-over than he pulls out of his bag from time to time.

The problem is that theres a sterotype of flashy players that they aren't aren't that basketball skilled or court-savvy.

And Jamal did fight his first two ro three coaches.

But to his credit, he's calmed down this (contract) season and has been pretty much coachable.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Jamal has an awful lot more substance than you give him credit for. Jamal is NOT a streetballer. He played a 2 week tournament in Ruckers and just last season got "street cred"being given a playground name. They JUST gave it to him. That, to me, tells me that he hasn't spent a lot of time playing on playgrounds. Jamal has a great crossover and thats a legit part of his game. You make it sound like crossover dribbles are the devils work. Seems to me that Pistol Pete Maravich used to cross guys over all the time and he was always considered a sound fundamental player. And Jamal has dome that bounce off of the backboard and dunk it move 4 times, 3 times he has been succesful. I will take a 75% success rate any time. Besides, it wasn't like he did it to hot dog, he did it withing the context of the game because at that particular moment it gave him the best opportunity to score. Basketball, by it's very nature demands some creativity. You seem to want to label a player who has some of that creativity as a streetballer for no apparent reason. Substance beats style every time, thats true I think, but Jamal has a lot more substance than your willing to give him credit for.


Theres nothing wrong with streetball, as long as it doesn't flow over into organized games at inopportune moments.


----------

