# Crawford Gets Offer...From Bulls



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Crawford's been offered a contract by the Bulls that he's turned down, according to agent Aaron Goodwin. It's believed the contract offer was in the six-year, $38 million range.*

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/18001.htm

OK, _according to Goodwin_, Crawford got a six year offer from Chicago. In other words, he got an offer equal to the full MLE. They want more. That's fine. Go out and find more. But don't expect the Bulls to grab their ankles and take one between the cheeks just to accomodate Jamal. As Mike McGraw said recently, "If Crawford can't get a better starting salary than $5 million from another team, the Bulls shouldn't have to top it."

An offer that exceeds the full MLE but is contingent on Chicago assuming bad contracts really isn't an offer at all. Paxson summed it up accurately when he said, "To move Jamal, we are moving the best player in that (NY) deal. For that to happen, we have to have some advantage ... especially since Jamal is a base-year-compensation player." In other words, if Jamal is the centerpiece of a S&T, the presumption is that he's the single most valuable asset being moved by either team. If, between the two teams, the Bulls are giving up the best player, _what's in it for them?_

The Bulls have already agreed to take on the long term contract of Shandon Anderson. To include Norris' contract as well negates any benefit to the Bulls. Its a dealbreaker and Isiah Thomas knows it. 

And as long as Thomas insists on Norris' inclusion, then the reality of the situation is that the best offer (and the _only_ offer) Crawford has received so far is the Bulls offer that Goodwin claims he and Crawford turned down.

So we're back to square one. If Crawford thinks the Bulls are lowballing him with their offer, then go out and find a better one. So far, in 16 days of free agency, that hasn't happened. If the Bulls are actually bidding against themselves, maybe they should consider pulling their offer or at least adjust it downward. Afterall, as they say, "It ain't personal...it's just business."


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Well, we offered Crawford what he deserved, and we offered it over 6 years. Crawford turned it down, and thats that.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Well, Pax has put his money on the table. He thinks he's worth the MLE and he's offered it. He's not sitting around waiting to match. He's not pursuing the S & T first now. He's saying, we think this is a fair offer and it's yours for the taking. 

If Jamal is underwhelmed, well, fair enough. The QO is still there for the taking. The Bulls have given Jamal a chance to establish a market value and so far one has not. 

Before we hastily chide the Bulls for not bidding against themselves, showing Jamal mo' money, etc. perhaps Jamal should chide his agent for not finding a more suitable deal for his client. It does not matter if Paxson wants to hang a JYD or ERob around somebodies neck. This is what agent's are supposed to do for a living. The sports agent is suppose to help facilitate deals. He's supposed to help make it happen. So far, its been Goodwin who has been ineffective in this process. 

I don't know if I'm reading different stuff from the other posters here, but the Bulls always seem to be talking about the backcourt of Hinrich and Gordon. If I were Jamal, I'd have my foot up Goodwin's butt to do his job. Get Thomas to do a deal. Get some other team involved. The writing for Jamal seems to be on the wall. He just needs to make his agent read it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i love how 2 days into the free agent period people are already claiming its a wrap on JC's market value...talk about premature...what happens in a day or a a week when the clips or hawks get involved....what will the great pronosticators say then?


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Well, we offered Crawford what he deserved, and we offered it over 6 years. Crawford turned it down, and thats that.


I agree.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i love how 2 days into the free agent period people are already claiming its a wrap on JC's market value...talk about premature...what happens in a day or a a week when the clips or hawks get involved....what will the great pronosticators say then?


Whose claiming it's a wrap? I know I specifically said "so far". I also pointed the blame at Goodwin. And if this is the case, Goodwin should be getting the Hawks or Clips involved now since they struck out in the Bryant/Martin sweepstakes.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Whose claiming it's a wrap? I know I specifically said "so far". I also pointed the blame at Goodwin. And if this is the case, Goodwin should be getting the Hawks or Clips involved now since they struck out in the Bryant/Martin sweepstakes.


so if crawford gets his deal with either team ...will it still be goodwin's fault?


its been 2 days, far to soon to be "gloating" over a still member of the chicago bulls.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> so if crawford gets his deal with either team ...will it still be goodwin's fault?
> 
> its been 2 days, far to soon to be "gloating" over a still member of the chicago bulls.


...2 days? What were Goodwin and Crawford up to between the 1st and 14th? 

I don't see anyone gloating, grinch. In fact I think most Bulls fans would like to see a trio of Hinrich, Gordon and Crawford become a reality. And by making him a six year offer I think Paxson and Skiles would like to see it happen, too. In the more than two weeks that teams have been allowed to court free agents its apparent that Crawford is nobody's first choice...except for the Bulls.

All this talk about no one being willing to offer the MLE to Crawford because they think the Bulls will match it is BS. First of all, if there's truth to that presumption then its proof the Bulls want to keep Crawford. But if there's any doubt about the Bulls intentions, why wouldn't a team approach the Bulls and tell them they want to make Crawford an offer and in order to keep the Bulls from matching they're willing to do it as a S&T to make it worthwhile for the Bulls to let him go? It doesn't have to be a nine player blockbuster deal to get a S&T done. If someone came forward with a proposal that allowed the Bulls to trade either Williams or Robinson with Crawford but not both, I'm betting the Bulls would be willing to listen.

None of this appears to have happened. The Bulls aren't negotiating a S&T with anyone besides NY, and that's going nowhere because Thomas appears more intent on using the process to dump contracts rather than to acquire Crawford.

No one's gloating, grinch. But give me one good reason why the Bulls should do anymore to retain Crawford than they already have. They've made him a six year offer. Crawford turned it down. What'll make you happy? Should the Bulls raise their offer and bid against themselves? Would you?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think that the Bulls should show Jamal some loyalty and offer him a more realistic offer. Sure, MLE MAY be what the market dictates because so few teams are under the cap and the ones that are don't (yet) appear to have any interest in Jamal. Still, that shouldn't affect the fact that Jamal has been a valuable piece to the Bulls and could continue to be going forward. I think a deal slightly over the MLE would be in order and allow Jamal and his agent to save face and keep Jamal as a Bull at a reasonable rate for a long time.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*The Warriors have given off vibes they'd sooner let Dampier walk as a free agent then take back Knick contracts in a sign-and-trade.*

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/knicks.htm

Sound familiar?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> *The Warriors have given off vibes they'd sooner let Dampier walk as a free agent then take back Knick contracts in a sign-and-trade.*
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/knicks.htm
> ...


The Knicks just have crap to offer with the exception of expiring contracts.

Count me as one fan who's happy Paxson hasn't signed a player to a bad contract this summer.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think that the Bulls should show Jamal some loyalty and offer him a more realistic offer. Sure, MLE MAY be what the market dictates because so few teams are under the cap and the ones that are don't (yet) appear to have any interest in Jamal. Still, that shouldn't affect the fact that Jamal has been a valuable piece to the Bulls and could continue to be going forward. I think a deal slightly over the MLE would be in order and allow Jamal and his agent to save face and keep Jamal as a Bull at a reasonable rate for a long time.


And I think the Bulls should also reduce ticket prices because of the loyalty their fan base has shown them through seven incredibly lean years.

Yeah, right.  Philanthropy does have its limits.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Afterall, as they say, "It ain't personal...it's just business."


Except for you.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Yep just what you want...to have your team associated with the worse organization in all of pro sports...the Golden State Warriors.

How can a GM justify low balling JC but trading for JYD?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Yep just what you want...to have your team associated with the worse organization in all of pro sports...the Golden State Warriors.
> 
> How can a GM justify low balling JC but trading for JYD?


And AD, and signing Pip.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Crawford Gets Offer...From Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Except for you.


...cheap shot...unnecessary, too.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

My question is that WHY BID AGAINST YOURSELF? It's just pointless, especially for a player who doesn't seem like he wants to return. I'd give him 7 mil a year. I realize that people like Foyle and Skinner and others have been getting sweet deals, but nobody has even approached JC with a deal. Pax is saying, this is what we are prepared to offer you right now. It's called bargaining...i.e., Pax maybe realizes that nobody is gonna offer JC a better deal than that. 

For all the people who've blasted Pax so far...if Pax signed JC to something along the lines of 5 for 45, and then JC shot 36 percent and averaged 12 a game, would you blast Pax or JC. I think I know who'd you blast, and that is why your opinions mean less than nothing.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think that the Bulls should show Jamal some loyalty and offer him a more realistic offer. Sure, MLE MAY be what the market dictates because so few teams are under the cap and the ones that are don't (yet) appear to have any interest in Jamal. Still, that shouldn't affect the fact that Jamal has been a valuable piece to the Bulls and could continue to be going forward. I think a deal slightly over the MLE would be in order and allow Jamal and his agent to save face and keep Jamal as a Bull at a reasonable rate for a long time.


This is exactly what I've been saying. Emphasis on slightly. But toss the kid some kind of a bone so that he doesn't just say screw it and take the QO until next season's UFA year.

Frankly, I think a contract that averages 6.3M over 6 years isn't so bad. Apparently, Goodwin believes otherwise.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I've been saying. Emphasis on slightly. But toss the kid some kind of a bone so that he doesn't just say screw it and take the QO until next season's UFA year.


Yep! Thats the way professional orginizations get thinsg done IMHO.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I've been saying. Emphasis on slightly. But toss the kid some kind of a bone so that he doesn't just say screw it and take the QO until next season's UFA year.


And yet you can't be too "generous" with the current CBA in place.

I've always thought Crawford deserves a similar contract to Q, who more recent estimates have shown to be offered 6 years and mid 40's. I think Ginobili is a better player, who is being paid low 50's.


----------



## life_after_23 (Jul 24, 2002)

This just suggests that the Bulls feel he is a role player off the bench for this team and not a starter. If they had surmised that he was a starter, they would have put together a deal that was more than the MLE.

With Gordon continuing to impress the brass during training camp, I wonder if they are more likely to not move at all on this deal....

Tossing the kid a bone will set the standard for how the Bulls are going to negotiate with Chandler, Hinrich, etc, etc. Role players who don't deserve huge contracts....

The worst thing the Bulls can do right now is to bid against the market and set a precedent for all agents to use against them...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I suspect that Crawford wanted a very big bone over the MLE 2 weeks ago. Still does today.

But that bone is going to get smaller and smaller.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Why is is considered to be bidding against a yourself to offer a young player a deal that is a decent balance of what you think hes worth and what he thinks hes worth ?

No matter how many times this is said people still will ignore it .

The Bulls have said they will match any MLE offer so to bring up players like Hedo and GS and say look how fast they signed why is Crawford still not signed is not he misjudged the market is not accurate at all.

The teams like GS and Orlando only had the Mle to offer no matter how much they wanted to pay a player and so they acted fast and got the guy they wanted .

The Bulls can pay anything they wish and so they lowball knowing they would match any Mle offer the moment he signed it .

Any sign and traded offers are met with you have to take JYD and AD so no one takes them seriously.

Also no team almost ever offers a RFA whose team has full birds rights an offer unlesss they knew the team was not going to match or are gambling on the team being preoccupied with another FA.


The hypocrisy of some of whats going around here is pretty funny though .

If Jamal doesnt get an offer youre saying hes worth the mle and Pax is doing the right thing .

Now if he gets an offer for 55mil does he then become worth 55million and Pax should match him or does he then become overpaid ?

It seems to me that some of you are sticking with this let the market dictate philosphy because it holds Crawford to a number that goes with your beliefs on what kind a player he is but would have an entirely different tune if the markets went away from that .


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Personally it really doesn't matter to me whether they offer Jamal 37 or 45 like Q. I'm all for keeping Jamal as part of a 3 guard rotation so long as he's willing to play whatever role management thinks he's best suited for as part of that rotation.

But, Ace - throw the ladd a bone? I'd wish somebody'd throw me a 37M bone! At least we're advancing in the process. I remember when folks were disgruntled because Paxson hadn't made an offer. Well, now we have an offer. Maybe Jamal and Goodwin should come back with a 3 yr plan that nets them a little more each year instead. Something of a compromise. Bulls don't have to commit long term, he makes more each year and both parties are more ready in 3 years to look at the long term deal. Whats wrong with Jamal and Goodwin coming back with that plan - similar to FJ's post? 

Will there ever be a time during negotiations that anything is Jamal or Goodwin's fault or will it always be Paxson's and the Bulls?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*EROB 2?*

This seems foolish to me.

You offer the guy a deal that he's not going to like. 

You are souring the relationship. Then you make the deal for 6 years. These are guaranteed deals as we all know.

Jamal seems like a guy that if you slight him.... he'll retract. Can he retract to a "EBOB" level of not caring? Why take the risk?

I'd let him sign the QO.... or sign him to a 3-4 year deal for a little more money than the MLE. Play the hell out of him in the first half of the season. Let him shine. If he still is not buying into the system.... you trade him then. And get an asset. There are not assets to be had right now for Jamal. 

Do what it takes to make him a star or do what it takes to trade him for an asset.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Why is is considered to be bidding against a yourself to offer a young player a deal that is a decent balance of what you think hes worth and what he thinks hes worth ?
> 
> No matter how many times this is said people still will ignore it .
> ...


If I'm going to wade into these particular waters Truth, all I can say is step back for a minute and replace Jamal with your least favorite Bull whether it be Chandler, Hinrich, Deng, Curry, Gordon. Whoever.  Imagine that player and his agent in this exact spot. Management is taking the same exact position on them. You agree with management that the player is not exactly everything you want, but the player is an asset. He's worth keeping at the right price. Are you still going to be saying that THIS player needs to be paid more than is necessary? If your least favorite player can find a flawed S & T that will pay him between 55-70M, about 18-25 more than you think he's worth do you argue for him to get some sort of amount in between? Are you really suggesting the Bulls shouldn't be trying to get rid of their garbage contracts in a S & T? In a S & T of your least favorite player, you'd rather we take on crap contracts or let the guy go for essentially nothing in return so he's taken care of? Really?

You're accusing the board of hypocrisy, but would you be participating in the same thought process of it wasn't Jamal? Honestly? 

Personally, I don't think there is a hypocrisy. I think we're supposed to get better as a team first and foremost whether our interests are best served by re-signing Jamal or packaging him in a S & T.


----------



## willieblack (Jun 5, 2002)

*Re: EROB 2?*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> This seems foolish to me.
> 
> You offer the guy a deal that he's not going to like.
> ...


I think that's the point here...Pax didn't have to make an offer that was going to sour the kid in the first place.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: EROB 2?*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> This seems foolish to me.
> 
> You offer the guy a deal that he's not going to like.
> ...


If you sign him for the QO you can't trade him. The 3-4 year deal is a good compromise in my opinion. If Goodwin was worth his salt, perhaps he'd be proposing this to Jamal and bringing an offer back to management. 

Again, its fairly obvious that the NBA is only a business when the player is the one benefitting ala Boozer.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I believe Crawford has a high value for the Bulls for at least a year or two, but probably much longer as well. I have stated repeatedly that even if he does not improve, his value over the next six years probably is in the range of $45 and $60 million. That is what his "comparables" make.

That said, I do not fault Paxson's negotiations with Crawford. Let someone else set his market price and then make a decision on whether to match it. Crawford is a restricted free agent, and there is nothing wrong with Paxson taking advantage of that.

What worries me about the Bulls and Crawford the most is that because of personal feelings, the Bulls might not be evaluating him and his value objectively. I worry that their opinions have hardened about Crawford. And when happens with me, I tend to devour information that validates my view and discount information that doesn't, causing futhering hardening.

I ride Kismet pretty hard, because I think he typifies this behavior and has a bit of influence either directly or indirectly with the Bulls. Also, things said on this message board (or at least some of the people on this message board) do matter in ways many of us do not realize. 

It would be great for the Bulls to get Crawford at the MLE or slightly above it. And even retaining him on a one-year qualifying offer would be a good thing, since it would give Gordon and Deng (and Curry) time to mature into their roles. However, if I was the Bulls I would tell Crawford that a one-year contract for slightly more than the QO is available at any point. Such an offer would make Crawford a BYC player, but would allow the Bulls to trade him later on in the season. Leaving open the possibility of a trade might even be attractive to Crawford.

And one final thing. The Clippers and Bobcats are probably the only teams left with enough money to bid on Crawford. Atlanta has $10 million left, but they need to spend a good chunk of that on another big man. Charlotte also is getting close to running out of money.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Organizations do not bid against themselves. So far no one has offered Jamal a contract. Not really. NY wants to get rid of crap for Jamal and John is doing right by saying no. We hold out for Mutombo. If not, no deal. 

Remember, this is not just about Jamal. It is about the Chicago Bulls. The NBA used to be about teams and not players. 

If I am getting some of the vibe correct that I am reading on here, we should throw a bone to a SG that shot 35% and 32% for the season and many times was benched because of poor decision making? Not a good business decision for an organization if you ask me. 

That being said, I think John and many of us, including me, want to keep Jamal. But not at Jon Koncac prices. We wait and see what the real value is for Jamal. Zeke's offer was insulting. Remember we do not HAVE to trade him. 

So far, I do not see many teams busting down the door to get him. True, FA is just 48 hrs old, but teams could talk since July 1.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Re: EROB 2?*



> Originally posted by <b>willieblack</b>!
> I think that's the point here...Pax didn't have to make an offer that was going to sour the kid in the first place.


And Pax was ridiculed for not making any offer previously. Can't win I guess. 

In my opinion, I thought there was significance to an offer being made regardless of whether it underwhelmed Jamal or not. He's being offered a contract that will give him lifetime security whether it's 8M less than Q's deal or not. He's being told here is the full MLE basically as promised, there for the taking. If some feel including Jamal that it's not enough then be a big boy. Work a better deal, find another team to get in the bidding or take the QO. If he's going to be "soured" or become a cancer because we didn't "throw him a bone", then Paxson ought to rescind the offer and get him out of town.

I'm sorry for my mood especially on a TGIF day, but I guess I'm just not sympathetic to the cause of lets make sure we've given him enough to be a happy camper today. I guess its too easy to recall all the other calls over the last four years for what we should be doing to make Jamal happy whether it be starting, playing time, position, blah, blah, blah. 

Again, for all those who think Curry is fat and lazy? Lets make sure he's got his bone and he's happy too. Same with brittle boy Chandler, right? And how 'bout when Hinrich comes up. I'm sure everybodies gonna be right there making sure he's gettin' his just like we're talking about Jamal. Right? 

C'mon, lets make sure the team takes care of it's business first and worry about making our underachieving players happy second.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I believe Crawford has a high value for the Bulls for at least a year or two, but probably much longer as well. I have stated repeatedly that even if he does not improve, his value over the next six years probably is in the range of $45 and $60 million. That is what his "comparables" make.
> 
> That said, I do not fault Paxson's negotiations with Crawford. Let someone else set his market price and then make a decision on whether to match it. Crawford is a restricted free agent, and there is nothing wrong with Paxson taking advantage of that.
> ...


I agree with your post Dan about the part of hurting Jamals feelings. You always run the risk of that when dealing with younger players. The NBA used to be a mans game. It is not that way any longer. However, Jamal has to wonder why teams are not lining up for him? That has to hurt hus psychi(sp) a little don't you think? 

As for Kismet, He can speak for himself, but I think he is a bulls fan first and what he writes about is from the heart and not from the organization. I am not associated with the organization yet I find myself siding with the bulls many times. Does not mean I am using any alleged association with the organization as propagana.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> I agree with your post Dan about the part of hurting Jamals feelings. You always run the risk of that when dealing with younger players. The NBA used to be a mans game. It is not that way any longer. However, Jamal has to wonder why teams are not lining up for him? That has to hurt hus psychi(sp) a little don't you think?


I don't think I mentioned anything about Jamal's feelings in my post, but I could be mistaken. This process probably is painful for Crawford, but it is good nonetheless. He might start to realize that the Bulls are not picking on him, that he needs to make better decisions and be more physical. The lack of love from around the League may make him question any conspiracy theories he may harbor about the Bulls' organization, which in the long run would be a good thing.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> If I'm going to wade into these particular waters Truth, all I can say is step back for a minute and replace Jamal with your least favorite Bull whether it be Chandler, Hinrich, Deng, Curry, Gordon. Whoever. Imagine that player and his agent in this exact spot. Management is taking the same exact position on them. You agree with management that the player is not exactly everything you want, but the player is an asset. He's worth keeping at the right price. Are you still going to be saying that THIS player needs to be paid more than is necessary? If your least favorite player can find a flawed S & T that will pay him between 55-70M, about 18-25 more than you think he's worth do you argue for him to get some sort of amount in between? Are you really suggesting the Bulls shouldn't be trying to get rid of their garbage contracts in a S & T? In a S & T of your least favorite player, you'd rather we take on crap contracts or let the guy go for essentially nothing in return so he's taken care of? Really?
> ...


I wouldnt be saying pay him more than neccessary.I would be saying pay him his fair market value and so in the future i we decided to trade him we could get fair value in return .

By doing what Pax is doing now he has essentially lowered Crawfords value .Once he saw that 7-10 teams have contacted Goodwin or him about jamal he shouldve immediately changed his stance and while he didnt have to offer 60 million you imediately try to work him in to something around what Q and the other young players have gotten 46-50 million .

If that many teams interested in him now and hes only 24 so he will improve they will be interested in him next summer .Who know we may end up dealing another young player next summer .

Who has more value jamal at 7 mil and player like Tyson or Deng or Deng and AD?Its about maximizing the players value .

If you wanna see a good example of this just look at what west is doing he just signed Battier to a 6 yr deal so by next sumnmer he is tradeable without BYC coming into play .He has set it up where 2 of his young player equal a max deal in terms of salary .

Pax is new at this hes never done this before and I get the feeling he went this route because he doesnt have a clue about Jamals worth even to his own team.

I can tell you one thing Jk wouldve signed him to a decent deal already if only to move him later .


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I don't think I mentioned anything about Jamal's feelings in my post, but I could be mistaken. This process probably is painful for Crawford, but it is good nonetheless. <b>He might start to realize that the Bulls are not picking on him, that he needs to make better decisions and be more physical. The lack of love from around the League may make him question any conspiracy theories he may harbor about the Bulls' organization, which in the long run would be a good thing. </b>


Only if some of Jamal supporters learn something from this too.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i am of the mind that pax is playing this very carefully and very shrewdly and is not about to give away the most talented player in the deal (jamal) for junk from the knicks. 

ultimately he does have the best interest of the bulls in mind. 

i am of a firm belief that he should not compromise simply to mollify jamal or to shut up his agent. 

i disagree that Pax's actions have lowered jamal's value. it is not up to Pax to "throw jamal a bone" 

at the end of the day, does it really matter that _according to goodwin_ more than seven teams have "contacted" jamal if none of them have made him an actual offer? 

jamal's market value is what he, _jamal crawford_ is offered, not what manu is offered, or jason richardson et al. is offered. 

just because someone thinks that jamal is a better player than some of the guys getting overpaid this summer is a subjective opinion. it is about what jamal can get, not what the others can get. 

aaron goodwin took it upon himself to negotiate this in public in the media. that pax should compromise in this "much publicized" deal when it was goodwin himself who was doing the all the posturing is BAD BUSINESS.

oh, and Pax? please just say no to moochie.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> I don't think I mentioned anything about Jamal's feelings in my post, but I could be mistaken. This process probably is painful for Crawford, but it is good nonetheless. He might start to realize that the Bulls are not picking on him, that he needs to make better decisions and be more physical. The lack of love from around the League may make him question any conspiracy theories he may harbor about the Bulls' organization, which in the long run would be a good thing.


I agree. He needs to realize this.

Something tells me he'll take it as the Bulls "screwing" him over by not putting together a sign and trade.

This is a tough situation for the Bulls to come out winners... given Jamal's personality and the stance they adopted. Jamal needs to start acting like a man. I guess that's a requirement in any scenario for him/us to succeed.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

If Jamal were to accept this deal, does that mean the Nocioni deal is out the door?

I haven't read up on the CBA in about 5 years, and my recollection of it is getting less and less.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Is Derek Fisher a more valuable basketball player than Jamal Crawford?


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

Well, no one knows whether Pax has said that this is his "final" offer or anything. What his offer does is simplify the process. No team without cap space or sign-and-trade aspirations are going to go after Jamal now, because he's cleared up any confusion over whether he'll match at the mid-level: he will, because he already _offered_ the mid-level.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> If Jamal were to accept this deal, does that mean the Nocioni deal is out the door?
> 
> I haven't read up on the CBA in about 5 years, and my recollection of it is getting less and less.


One has little to do with the other. Because of salary matching requirements, the Jamal S&T will not have much affect on where we are in terms of cap space.

We still have the full MLE, of which we have offered Nocioni a portion.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Is Derek Fisher a more valuable basketball player than Jamal Crawford?


Apparently to Golden State he is. Point?

While it's fair for an agent and player to contend that they are worth more than another signing, you still need to bring that offer forward. Wouldn't a better question be, why wasn't Goodwin trying to create a deal with Golden State?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> Well, no one knows whether Pax has said that this is his "final" offer or anything. What his offer does is simplify the process. No team without cap space or sign-and-trade aspirations are going to go after Jamal now, because he's cleared up any confusion over whether he'll match at the mid-level: he will, because he already _offered_ the mid-level.


This is my thinking as well. Good move.

The interesting thing is how little is said about the fact that Jamal is the one who is (apparently) not negotiating. We have heard that Paxson extended an offer, which Jamal rejected. I have heard nothing about any counter-offer or counter-demand proposed by Jamal.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> One has little to do with the other. Because of salary matching requirements, the Jamal S&T will not have much affect on where we are in terms of cap space.
> ...


Thank you much. I know you can go over the cap to sign your own FAs, but I was not remembering how it affected cap space if you were under the cap.

Good to know and thanks for the info.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> This is my thinking as well. Good move.
> ...


This also establishes to other teams that the Bulls want to retain Crawford. This means that another team will have outbid any reasonable deal that the Bulls would match.

As in any negotiation, you don't start out high (unless you are in Crawford's position). Goodwin indicated that he wanted 6 years starting at $7mil (or whatever the exact numbers are), but that doesn't mean that Crawford won't settle for 6 years starting at $6mil.

I think that the Bulls made an excellent play here.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> This also establishes to other teams that the Bulls want to retain Crawford. This means that another team will have outbid any reasonable deal that the Bulls would match.
> ...



A Classic Flank Move.

Its really negotiation 101, what Pax just did was seal the parimeter. And in doing so cut his competition by roughly 80%. Now there are only a couple of teams left;
the Bobcat - Bernie is not spending $$$, and has said so publically.
the Clips - Betting against the Donald seems to be a very high percentage play indeed.

Our GM may not be a rookie anymore!!!!
And if all this hurts Jamals feelings, maybe he should buy a puppy. His agent (who he fired and then re-hired) is playing his situation foolishly, look for the cycle to repeat again.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

One other thing to consider.

With the CBA up at the conclusion of the 2004-05 season, Crawford would have to negotiate his contract under a new deal and probably in a shortened window of time if there is a lockout.

The teams with money under the salary cap (if the cap stays the same) is maybe Atlanta, Charlotte, Cleveland, maybe Golden State, maybe the Clippers, maybe Milwaukee, Portland, Seattle, and maybe Washington.

With the possible exception of Seattle and Portland, all of these are teams that seem to be passing up on him this summer and/or likely will be looking for bigs next summer (or fall or winter whenever the new CBA is signed). Seattle is hurting financially and could S&T for him this summer if they really wanted him. After locking up Randolph and a center, I am not sure Portland really will have that much space left, especially if they sign up Miles this summer.

If Paxson can get Crawford for a little more than the MLE, that would be a fabulous outcome for the Bulls. It is looking more and more possible.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Golden State GM Chris Mullin may be willing to take just Nazr Mohamed but the Warriors would need more contracts back to make the math work. *If Thomas can't get Walker or Dampier, he may just as well throw Dikembe Mutombo back into the package and take out Moochie Norris to accede to the Bulls' wishes in the Crawford negotiations, especially with Allan Houston's arthritic knees still a question mark nearly four months after his last game. *


NY POST


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

why dont the Bulls just offer him 6-7 million. No big deal. 

its basically 9 million difference overall from starting at 5 million or 6 million for Crawford. Thats what he wants over his career. Just give him the extra million jeesh.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I asked elsewhere:

Can anyone think of a plausible 3-way deal between NY GS and the Bulls?

I've thought about it and can't. But if Zeke wants Dampier and Crawford, I'd love to find a way to dump bad contracts _and_ get someone useful to us in return -- like Pietris.

Like I said, I can't think of a deal that works that all three teams would agree to. But if someone else can, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> Can anyone think of a plausible 3-way deal between NY GS and the Bulls?


Sounds like a mission for *FJ!*


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Yep just what you want...to have your team associated with the worse organization in all of pro sports...the Golden State Warriors.
> 
> How can a GM justify low balling JC but trading for JYD?


Because JC hasn't done squat...like lead his team to the playoffs ...consistently. NewsFlash....6 years of losing..I think we are right there with the warriors.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> I wouldnt be saying pay him more than neccessary.I would be saying pay him his fair market value and so in the future i we decided to trade him we could get fair value in return .
> ...


Do we really want to be doing what JK would've done? Need I remind you he's a baseball scout now?


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> i am of the mind that pax is playing this very carefully and very shrewdly and is not about to give away the most talented player in the deal (jamal) for junk from the knicks.
> 
> ultimately he does have the best interest of the bulls in mind.
> ...


Well said! JC's value IS what the market dictates. Maybe those others that put up comparable stats have much, much better intangibles. Manu, for instance, is a champion from a winning team. He's what the 3rd option? JC's at least our 2nd option to score. And as we all know the Bull's are losers right now.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> 
> Because JC hasn't done squat...like lead his team to the playoffs ...consistently. NewsFlash....6 years of losing..I think we are right there with the warriors.


Umm dude. . .neither did Ron Artest, Elton Brand, or Brad Miller. 

BTW, who exactly is in free agency next year that makes us so eager to trade Jamal just to clear cap space ?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, ok, I'm back from "scenic" Mississippi, so here's some thoughts:

I think Kukoc4Ever is on to something about Jamal feeling slighted, and I'm not sure I understand why they Bulls felt it necessary to offer $37M when other teams are offering $39 in their MLE style deals. That would seem to be due to different raises in the out years, but it's one of those kind of eyebrow raising things to me. It keeps me thinking that although the Bulls made the offer, they really don't want Jamal to accept it- so they slipped him just a little bit of the bird in the form of shaving a million or two off the deal.

I want to be clear that I don't think the Bulls should overpay for him (like, I don't see the logic in giving him $7M if the most anyone else will pay is $5M), but when I see something like this I sense a lot of hesitation and I sense that the Bulls are doing their best to do the absolute minimum that they can. 

It still seems like a dysfunctional relationship on both sides. I agree that Jamal is going to have to come to grips with the fact that he's overestimated what he'd get. He's walked himself right up to a cliff Stephen Jackson or Michael Olowokandi style. It's not too late for him to walk back down, but it's going to take some calm reasoning on his part.

For the Bulls' part, they could ease that growth process by doing something, however slight it might be, to push Jamal in the right direction and not over the edge. Give him an extra 500k over the MLE, or give him a 7th year (if you'd give him a 6 year deal, it makes little sense to not offer him a 7th... if you truly believe he will be an effective player at age 30, then the 7th year, at age 31, doesn't seem a stretch). Give him a face-saving option, but don't go nuts with it.

My worry is that the Bulls are actually on the opposite end of things... they want to push Jamal as hard as they can... and I think there are some folks in the organization, John Paxson notably , who have mixed feelings about getting him back with that kind of deal. While I do want him back, I think making that kind of deal with mixed feelings is pretty dangerous and I don't understand the rationale behind it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Well, ok, I'm back from "scenic" Mississippi, so here's some thoughts:
> 
> I think Kukoc4Ever is on to something about Jamal feeling slighted, and I'm not sure I understand why they Bulls felt it necessary to offer $37M when other teams are offering $39 in their MLE style deals. That would seem to be due to different raises in the out years, but it's one of those kind of eyebrow raising things to me. It keeps me thinking that although the Bulls made the offer, they really don't want Jamal to accept it- so they slipped him just a little bit of the bird in the form of shaving a million or two off the deal.
> ...


Great post. 

I have actually wrote a post that some Jamal haters, Kismet most notably agreed with. Why not give Jamal the market value, say 7 million, but keep the years down? So for instance. a 21 million, 3 year contract. Why does this work, it brings Jamal back and he feels that he got fair value. For the Bulls, it means he is happy but if it doesnt work, the number of years are relatively low. And while he will be hard to deal for 2 years, BYC issues, in the 3rd year, he will have a nice fat contract that teams might find valuable to clear contract space. So if it works, the Bulls have paid market value for a guy. If it doesnt work, its not a particularly long contract and probably a relatively easy one to move in 2 seasons


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Fearless defense, aggressive attack the basket, hustler not whining - all these features became extremely popular in NBA, after the Piston's victory. 

And every team in the league is looking for the players who have that characteristics, unfortunately Jamal is not one of them or never tried to be.

IMO , Pax is trying to do the same things that IT wants. Use Jamal to unload the "garbage".


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>E L D R U H M A I</b>!
> 
> Umm dude. . .neither did Ron Artest, Elton Brand, or Brad Miller.
> 
> BTW, who exactly is in free agency next year that makes us so eager to trade Jamal just to clear cap space ?


Elton Brand did 20/10 and was very consistent. These guys were given 2 whole seasons. How many seasons has JC had to prove his worth? Look it up!

And who said anything about FA next year?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I love the Jamal bashing. Some people have taken it to a new low

Jamal was probably the Bulls best player last season. People can say Kirk all they want, but it was Jamal who led us to the wins we did have

Jamal missed a year 2 years ago due to a knee injury. He worked hard to get back early from the injury. Then had to platoon with Jay Williams. Even then, in the second half of 2 years ago, he put in a display that was truly special. he was probably as effective over a 30 game stint for us as Artest was over any 30 game stint in his Bulls career. Yet he is still a bum

people have said Jamal is a lazy whiner, or maybe thats how I read it. Last year, he and Trent came to the Berto center more then anyone else. 2 years ago, he worked out with Jordan every day before blowing out his knee. And then busted his butt to come back 2 months earlier then expected. 

So basically, in alot of ways, last year was Jamals second year in the NBA with any level of PT. All he did was score 18 ppg and being the focus of the others teams D. He poured in 50 one night. ANd he was basically playing out of position

I hope Jamal gets an offer from someone like Denver or Atlanta. It would be fun watching our 4th allstar go somewhere else. We are playing hardball with a kid who has shown more committment to this team then anyone else over the last 4 years. I dont agree with it. Give him his value, just keep the # of years low


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!Give him his value, just keep the # of years low


I think Pax would love this. And I think Craw wants a 6 or 7 year contract.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Pax would love this. And I think Craw wants a 6 or 7 year contract.


Its give and take

Jamal, in this market is worth 7 mil per. If Paxson really wants to keep him, he ought to pay him that. 

If Jamal really wants his market value, he ought to come down on the number of years he wants. 

I think a peferctly reasonable deal is 21 mil over 3 years. If it works out, then Jamal is paid what he is worth. If it doesnt work out, the marriage will end in a reasonably short period of time and with a reasonably easy to move contract


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I think the Bulls should offer Jamal a 6 year 45 million dollar contract. He balks at that, then he's out of his mind.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> It still seems like a dysfunctional relationship on both sides. I agree that Jamal is going to have to come to grips with the fact that he's overestimated what he'd get. He's walked himself right up to a cliff Stephen Jackson or Michael Olowokandi style. It's not too late for him to walk back down, but it's going to take some calm reasoning on his part.


There was an interview with Stephen Jackson a few days ago, but I can't find the article probably since I'm not sure which site I read it on. In it, Jackson said he was scared to death that he blew it when he passed up the Spurs *3 year, 9 million dollar offer*. He accepted the 2 year 2 million dollar deal from the Hawks, but thought he may have blown his chance at lifetime security. This was *9 million dollars*. 

Now, I'm not a Jamal hater or lover, but I'd probably have Goodwin in there getting that 7/45 deal or maybe the 3/21 deal instead of sitting on the sidelines holding out for a ficticious 6/60 deal. Don't let your feelings get in the way. It's a business. Set yourself up for life either way. The QO is the absolute worst choice you can probably make. High risk, high reward - but maybe you won't be as lucky as Stephen Jackson.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> There was an interview with Stephen Jackson a few days ago, but I can't find the article probably since I'm not sure which site I read it on. In it, Jackson said he was scared to death that he blew it when he passed up the Spurs *3 year, 9 million dollar offer*. He accepted the 2 year 2 million dollar deal from the Hawks, but thought he may have blown his chance at lifetime security. This was *9 million dollars*.
> ...


I agree 100%! The Kandi scenario (hell, maybe even worse) looks just as likely. And honestly, if Jamal signs the QO, I don't see it working out well for him with the Bulls. I know I'm more of a pessimist than most about Paxson and Skiles, but I don't think you have to be a pessimist to see that. It's not about liking Jamal or not, it's about planning for the future. If Jamal signs the QO, then it makes the Bulls a better team this year, but it also means he's most definitely one and done.

And superficially that's fine for the Bulls. It means that the Bulls get a very strong guard rotation for the year, and they are better off having him than not having him.

But from Jamal's perspective I think that's an even worse scenario than taking Jackson's type of deal. Although, if they keep Jamal, add Noicini, and then keep Chandler healthy I expect them to be in the mid 30s in wins (which will represent real improvement), I still don't see us playoff bound. And with Jamal as a short-termer, the logical thing for the Bulls to do, regardless of how good he is, will be to limit his minutes down the stretch and look at/develop guys they think _will_ be here next year.

Hence, there's a real prospect that even if Jamal is doing pretty well, he'll find himself between Kirk, Ben, and hell, maybe even a guy like Duhon or Pargo down the stretch. When you consider the ramifications of that going into free agency, it's can't be a very appetizing prospect for Jamal. If he signs a multi-year deal, even if it's only a 2 or 3 year deal, he avoids this pitfall because 1) he gets more money and 2) the Bulls know they have him for another year so there's no reason to cut bait so we can "develop" Chris Duhon to take his place when he's gone.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Hence, there's a real prospect that even if Jamal is doing pretty well, he'll find himself between Kirk, Ben, and hell, maybe even a guy like Duhon or Pargo down the stretch. When you consider the ramifications of that going into free agency, it's can't be a very appetizing prospect for Jamal. If he signs a multi-year deal, even if it's only a 2 or 3 year deal, he avoids this pitfall because 1) he gets more money and 2) the Bulls know they have him for another year so there's no reason to cut bait so we can "develop" Chris Duhon to take his place when he's gone.


This just makes so much sense...even coming from cynic like you, Mike! Give him a three year "Jason Terry" deal, get him into Berto with everyone else and start moving forward as a tight knit, single-minded group. :greatjob:


----------



## shlomo (Dec 8, 2002)

Tom Boerwinkle,

A knick's poster at realgm thought of the trade you desire with NY/Chi/GS

Regards,
Shlomo

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=256982&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 




This pretty much gives everyone what they want: 
Knicks TRADE: Harrington(3.15M), Trybanski(1.76M), Anderson(7.3M), Deke(4.5M), and Nazr(5.25M). Total = 21.96M 
AQUIRE: JYD(5.6M), Crawford(7M), Damp(9.2M) and Eschmeyer(3.1M). 
Total=24.9M 
BULLS TRADE: JYD(5.6M), ERob(6.7M), Crawford(7M). Total=19.3M (can receive 18.27 because of BYC issues). 
AQUIRE: Harrington(3.15M), Trybanski(1.76M) ,Anderson(7.3M), Deke(4.5M). Total=16.71M 
WARRIORS TRADE: Dampier(9.2M), Eschmeyer(3.1M) Total=12.3M 
AQUIRE: Nazr(5.25M), ERob(6.7M), CASH Total=11.95M 
RATIONAL FOR GS: ERobs' contract is one year shorter than big stiff Eschmeyer. Plus get cash to make up difference between Erobs' and Eschmeyer salary. Knicks could also throw in Frank Williams (to GS), if necessary


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Also, things said on this message board (or at least some of the people on this message board) do matter in ways many of us do not realize.
> 
> ...


First quote: Would you care to comment further on how you came to this opinion and/or how the posts of some "matter in ways many of us do not realize"?

Second quote: That's not the way I read it.

S&T deals must be for 3 years minimum although only the 1st year need be guaranteed.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#75


A player on a 1 year deal who will have Bird rights can't be traded.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#79

Also, now he has say over where he goes in a S&T because he's a FA(restricted). If he were under contract, (& the trade didn't happen as part of the signing), he wouldn't.

If a 3 year deal were made with only the 1st guaranteed, why make the 1st year salary lower than that which has apparently been offered by the Bull? It would make trading him easier since his 2003/2004 salary would be used instead of 1/2 his new deal. Last years salary would represent more than 50% of his new salary and the dollar difference between the salary and trade value would be less as well and if that's the reason then OK I guess but otherwise...?


Contracts of less than 4 years can't be renegotiated. 

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#50

If the Knick didn't pick up a non-guaranteed year in order to shorten the low pay period of JC, I'm of the opinion that it would be akin to renouncing him. 

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#31

The FAQ's are not clear on this IMO but it seems like circumvention to me. If I'm right, then the Knick would be kissing the Bird rights away and thus the ability to re-sign him at more than the average salary. 

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#24

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#86

He can't opt out after the 1st year:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#48

so he's in at a low salary for at least 2 years. What then; hope he's healthy and playing well and rely on the virtue of Isiah/other GM to "make it right"? S&T would still probably be affected by BYC since he came in at a low salary.

I don't get it.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Well, we offered Crawford what he deserved, and we offered it over 6 years. Crawford turned it down, and thats that.


I think Crawford deserve more 

He was the best player fot the Bulls in the last yrs.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> 
> First quote: Would you care to comment further on how you came to this opinion and/or how the posts of some "matter in ways many of us do not realize"?
> 
> ...


On the first quote, please allow me to keep that deliberately vague. But don't make too much out of the quote.

Nice find on the second point. I didn't know about this. The tricky part here is that the NBA has a tendency to think of any re-signing as an extension of the original contract, in which case Crawford would be in the fifth year of a multi-year contract and could be traded (although with BYC status, it would not be easy). But I suspect you are right and Crawford could not be traded.

Note, however, that there was talk last season about Corie Blount being traded even though he was on a second one-year contract that would have given him Early Bird rights.

Another option might be to sign Crawford to a 2-year deal starting at just above his QO with the second year being a PO. But again there may be something that I am missing that would forbid this.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> On the first quote, please allow me to keep that deliberately vague. But don't make too much out of the quote.
> 
> ...


Can I ask one question, do I have any effect? 

J/K, I am sure Pax and Skiles have a hitman looking for me now


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

He'll be in NY next season, count on it....


----------

