# Bulls Prepare for JC's Return



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Bulls management is preparing to possibly have Crawford return. Coach Scott Skiles recently talked with Crawford on the phone, sharing a story in which he returned to a team after a messy summer of contract negotiations.

And the Bulls are hopeful-if Crawford returns-that he can stay professional like Stephen Jackson did in Atlanta last season after getting burned in the free-agent market last summer.*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,7039113.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

I sure hope Isiah reads this. If Crawford re-signs with the Bulls I'll look forward to watching him torch the Knicks all season long.

It won't be long before we start to read about renewed talks between Paxson and Goodwin. If they can strike a deal we can start to plan for the upcoming season and put all this free agent crap behind us.

Speaking of free agency, sounds like Nocioni delivered this buyout money to Tau...in pennies!!!

*The Bulls remain confident Andres Nocioni will sign as soon as his buyout with Tau Ceramica is completed.*

one...two...three...four...


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

yeah,that is our biggest fear....having a sulking,pissed off Bull torch us....Somehow jamal Crawford doesnt strike fear into the hearts of Knick fans


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

ask toronto about him !


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> yeah,that is our biggest fear....having a sulking,pissed off Bull torch us....Somehow jamal Crawford doesnt strike fear into the hearts of Knick fans


Then why the hell do you guys want him?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> *Bulls management is preparing to possibly have Crawford return. Coach Scott Skiles recently talked with Crawford on the phone, sharing a story in which he returned to a team after a messy summer of contract negotiations.
> 
> And the Bulls are hopeful-if Crawford returns-that he can stay professional like Stephen Jackson did in Atlanta last season after getting burned in the free-agent market last summer.*
> ...


four hundred sixty three...four hundred sixty four....

Damnit Jorge, I told you not to talk to me while I'm doing this! I just ****ing lost my place! ****!

one...two...three...four...


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> yeah,that is our biggest fear....having a sulking,pissed off Bull torch us....Somehow jamal Crawford doesnt strike fear into the hearts of Knick fans


Pssst...our crappy little lotto team split the season series with your big, bad Knicks and JC averaged 22ppg for the 4 game series.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

The two teams are still talking. Thomas is trying but John is staying the course. 

I am surprised no one mentioned Hardaway. He now is being mentioned in a possible trade but the bulls do not want him. If we never drafted Gordon, I would think he might have been accepted in a possible trade.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> The two teams are still talking. Thomas is trying but John is staying the course.
> 
> I am surprised no one mentioned Hardaway. He now is being mentioned in a possible trade but the bulls do not want him. If we never drafted Gordon, I would think he might have been accepted in a possible trade.



I think a JC (7.5) ,Jeffries,Jyd,Erob for Penny and Mutumbo works under the checker .

I would see no reason why paxson wouldnt do this deal .He gets his big guard who deals expires at the same time AD's does and would remove 30 MILLION off our cap when they expire and he gets his big backup center with a expiring deal .


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

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


It's problematic because Penny's contract is so high. We get very very little cap relief.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> It's problematic because Penny's contract is so high. We get very very little cap relief.


in truth the bulls get that relief in 2 years ...15 mil. worth , unless of course they trade it for a max contract before that.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> in truth the bulls get that relief in 2 years ...15 mil. worth , unless of course they trade it for a max contract before that.


Yes, but we would get half of that relief when ERob's contract is up two years anyway. And JYD's + ERob's contract don't quite equal Penny's, so we'd be paying a bit more for Penny vs. those two for the next two years. Plus Penny is going to be absolutly untradeable for the next year, whereas ERob and JYD may be moveable because of their contracts.

I don't want any part of Penny. Sorry.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, but we would get half of that relief when ERob's contract is up two years anyway. And JYD's + ERob's contract don't quite equal Penny's, so we'd be paying a bit more for Penny vs. those two for the next two years. Plus Penny is going to be absolutly untradeable for the next year, whereas ERob and JYD may be moveable because of their contracts.
> ...


who cares if you cant trade penny for a year , (in truth you can since the knicks did trade for him 7 months ago) the bulls would have him for a year anyway to plug a hole and in his last year he is extremely tradable (the goal would be to keep him anyway until his deal runs out and get the cap space)after a certain point you have to just say screw the cap situation and ride things out ( the bulls aren't poor i dont know why so many people are trying to save them money , they should be making the money we spend on them well spent by putting out a better product imo.) , and if the need is to get rid of 2 bad deals , take out JYD and insert antonio davis who has a worse contract. his 13 mil and robinsons 7 allow for trybanski and deke to be included which are ending deals anyway


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Well, news that GS has accepted the Knicks offer of Mohammed and Harrington for Dampier increases the odds of Crawford's return. The Bulls and Knicks could still do something. But with one less contract in the NY package (Harrington), Crawford's NY contract would likely shrink proportionately.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> *Bulls management is preparing to possibly have Crawford return. Coach Scott Skiles recently talked with Crawford on the phone, sharing a story in which he returned to a team after a messy summer of contract negotiations.
> 
> And the Bulls are hopeful-if Crawford returns-that he can stay professional like Stephen Jackson did in Atlanta last season after getting burned in the free-agent market last summer.*
> ...


Thats great to hear about Nocioni. That would be a heck of a lot of Euros for him to deliver!

I agree 100% about Jamal. Lets iron something out. Pax should pay the fair market value (somewhere between 6.5-7.5) and Jamal needs to back off on the years (3 years tops). Its the right thing to do


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, but we would get half of that relief when ERob's contract is up two years anyway. And JYD's + ERob's contract don't quite equal Penny's, so we'd be paying a bit more for Penny vs. those two for the next two years. Plus Penny is going to be absolutly untradeable for the next year, whereas ERob and JYD may be moveable because of their contracts.
> ...


Not sure I agree there.

ERob and JYD are guaranteed about $34M. Part of that is what JYD gets in three years.

Penny is guaranteed something like $30.5M, and we get all of that off the books in two years.

I agree that it's not a great move, but it's not a bad one either. If they Knicks offered independently to swap JYD and ERob for Penny, I'd do it no questions asked.

As it stands, I think Crawford, ERob, JYD, Pippen for Penny, Mutombo, Trybanski, and Frank Williams would work under the CBA, but I'm not all that enthusiastic about it.

Honestly, I'd rather keep Jamal and try to do the ERob+JYD for Penny thing to get us a 4th guard and ok vet and then a bit of cap relief (and oh yeah, we get rid of ERob too).


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Not sure I agree there.
> ...


Do you think the Knicks would be interested in getting Robinson/JYD independently, without Crawford?
I figured they were willing to take on those two only on the side of getting Crawford.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> I agree that it's not a great move, but it's not a bad one either. If they Knicks offered independently to swap JYD and ERob for Penny, I'd do it no questions asked.
> 
> ...


Not to quote myself, but I'd just like to point out that I think JYD+ERob for Penny is a fair move for both sides.

If you think about it that way, what trading Jamal would really mean is trading him for Mutombo, Trybanski, and Frank Williams!

:krazy:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Besides which you have to factor in that as a basketball player and not just some number on a teams payroll Hardaway is pretty much done. Jamal has plenty of potential and I think the Bulls would be best served just keeping him if all they get back is a brokedown Penny/Mutombo and a tiny bit of cap relief.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Then why the hell do you guys want him?


We want him,because he would make our backcout a heck of alot better.But,last I looked he was 6'5" 190 pounds soakin wet and not to be confused with Shaq...

I somehow doubt JC is gonna torch us all year long....Its more likely if he doesnt get traded,hes gonna torch the Bulls all year long:yes:


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

ugh, he was torching NY all last year...part of the reason ISIAH was such a big fan of him


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you think the Knicks would be interested in getting Robinson/JYD independently, without Crawford?
> I figured they were willing to take on those two only on the side of getting Crawford.


Well, if I were the Knicks I'd think it made some sense. I'd look at ERob as a guy who was misused and under-used by the Bulls, and I'd look at JYD as a guy who can fill a role for them at the 3 and 4. I'd look at the fact that they're both younger than Penny and that they have a glut at Penny's position anyway, and then I'd do the trade:

Penny for ERob and JYD would still give them

Marbury, Williams
Houston, Anderson
T. Thomas, ERob, JYD
K. Thomas, Sweetney
Dampier, Mutombo

ERob can get some minutes at the 2 when Houston is hurt and since Mutombo is pretty done, I'd expect to see him at the 4 as well with K. Thomas logging some backup C minutes. In short, both guys would fit in pretty well to what the Knicks need and what they're trying to do (as far as being an athletic team that runs the court).


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, if I were the Knicks I'd think it made some sense. I'd look at ERob as a guy who was misused and under-used by the Bulls, and I'd look at JYD as a guy who can fill a role for them at the 3 and 4. I'd look at the fact that they're both younger than Penny and that they have a glut at Penny's position anyway, and then I'd do the trade:
> ...


Good post, if the Knicks would agree to that trade, I'd do it. 
I agree that ERob can actually be a factor, but the way things are going, both parties are too stubborn to make anything work in Chicago, so he's going to do nothing for us. JYD, we already know he did nothing for us, but he strikes me as a NY type of player.

I'm a fan of Penny's, and I wouldn't mind seeing him here if he could contribute a little bit, which is something we're not going to get from E-Rob and JYD at this time.

It kind of sucks because I think the two of them could be solid off the bench, but E-Rob and Skiles seem to be on horrible terms, and JYD disappeared after a week of the trade.
Might as well turn them into something useful.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

"I agree 100% about Jamal. Lets iron something out. Pax should pay the fair market value (somewhere between 6.5-7.5) and Jamal needs to back off on the years (3 years tops). Its the right thing to do."

Why is Jamal's fair market value $6.5 to $7.5MM? Because his agent says it is? Jamal has not received an offer from anybody but the Bulls, so the fair market has determined that JC is not worth $6.5MM to $7.5MM yet.

I hope we can resign Jamal, because a three guard rotation of Hinrich, Gordon, and Crawford is intriguing, but we should not overpay the kid, especially at 50% above the MLE (7.5 versus the 5.0). Plus, if we fear he will be a cancer at $5.0MM starting, he could be the same cancer at $6.5MM. Instead of money, he could be a cancer because of playing time or shot quantities, etc.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

HoopsHype has a report claiming the Clippers are going to match Quentin Richardson's offer from Phoenix. That would seem to eliminate them as a potential bidder for Crawford's services.

The Nugz, Clips, and Knicks look less and less like suitors for Jamal. Charlotte isn't going to sign anyone to a long term contract this year. They want to be big FA players within 2 years. Atlanta could still come after Jamal, but does he really want to play for them?

Though nothing's ever a sure thing, it's beginning to look like Chicago is Crawford's best option. Skiles has reached out to him over the phone to assure him he's still wanted here. Pax has stated that Jamal has been accounted for in the Bulls budget. I think it's time the two sides start talking.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> HoopsHype has a report claiming the Clippers are going to match Quentin Richardson's offer from Phoenix. That would seem to eliminate them as a potential bidder for Crawford's services.
> 
> The Nugz, Clips, and Knicks look less and less like suitors for Jamal. Charlotte isn't going to sign anyone to a long term contract this year. They want to be big FA players within 2 years. Atlanta could still come after Jamal, but does he really want to play for them?
> ...


I agree. I think if Paxson can sweeten the pot just a bit, maybe bring that 38 mil 6 year offer up to say 42-43 mil maybe they can get something done.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. I think if Paxson can sweeten the pot just a bit, maybe bring that 38 mil 6 year offer up to say 42-43 mil maybe they can get something done.


I can't imagine any team willing to hand over their team to a rookie point guard not named LeBron. The Clippers still need a point guard, and they've got 8 million or so in cap room left even if they do match QRich's offer -- more than enough to sign Jamal and someone else. 

Don't count out the Clippers yet.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Id much rather us do the Knicks trade for Penny .Why keep dragging this dead horse around ?

Penny gives us a big guard and in 2 seasons even if we sign Chandler and Curry to nice size contracts we would still have enough cap to offer someone almost a full max deal while still keeping Deng,Kirk,Gordon .

At this point in time its almost like why keep him around ?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I have been highly critical of Jamal (past, present, and likely near future ) but at this point I want him back. Something over the MLE but less years than six. Seeing GM's sign crap for long term this summer...hmmph its time to show Crawford some love. He has said from the beginning that Chicago is the first choice and with Isiah playing Goodwin like a fool.. its time for Chicago to step up their offer.

A three guard rotation of Kirk, Crawford, and Gordon would be pretty damn exciting. Our best games last season were when Kirk and Jamal were playing full tilt, scoring, defending and passing the rock. Granted those games were few and far between but still the potential was there. The Bulls added another dynamo in Gordon, two SF (finally!) in Deng and hopefuly Nocioni, etc, etc.

Bring Crawford back. NY is probably only offering us garbage at this point.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> I have been highly critical of Jamal (past, present, and likely near future ) but at this point I want him back. Something over the MLE but less years than six. Seeing GM's sign crap for long term this summer...hmmph its time to show Crawford some love. He has said from the beginning that Chicago is the first choice and with Isiah playing Goodwin like a fool.. its time for Chicago to step up their offer.
> 
> A three guard rotation of Kirk, Crawford, and Gordon would be pretty damn exciting. Our best games last season were when Kirk and Jamal were playing full tilt, scoring, defending and passing the rock. Granted those games were few and far between but still the potential was there. The Bulls added another dynamo in Gordon, two SF (finally!) in Deng and hopefuly Nocioni, etc, etc.
> ...


Good post, I don't want to overpay for Crawford or get stuck in a long deal, but I do want to see him back.
I just want it to get wrapped up so they can move on and get it over with.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> I have been highly critical of Jamal (past, present, and likely near future ) but at this point I want him back. Something over the MLE but less years than six. Seeing GM's sign crap for long term this summer...hmmph its time to show Crawford some love. He has said from the beginning that Chicago is the first choice and with Isiah playing Goodwin like a fool.. its time for Chicago to step up their offer.
> 
> A three guard rotation of Kirk, Crawford, and Gordon would be pretty damn exciting. Our best games last season were when Kirk and Jamal were playing full tilt, scoring, defending and passing the rock. Granted those games were few and far between but still the potential was there. The Bulls added another dynamo in Gordon, two SF (finally!) in Deng and hopefuly Nocioni, etc, etc.
> ...


Yeah but how much can the Bulls pay Crawford without going over the luxury tax because I dont think there is anyway they are gonna pay that .I think there 4.9 million dollar first year salary is set in stone .


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I would still like for someone to explain to me why exactly the Bulls should increase their offer at this point. Pax has been very up-front with Crawford all through this process, and I see no reason to get all soft about it now.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Because it allows JC and Goodwin to save face and shows to the rest of the league that Pax is hard nosed but still has a heart.

david


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> I would still like for someone to explain to me why exactly the Bulls should increase their offer at this point. Pax has been very up-front with Crawford all through this process, and I see no reason to get all soft about it now.


I think many believe that Pax was teaching Crawford a lesson about the nba and free agency and was using him as a example for the Bigs who will be going through the same thing next year .Now that that lesson is apparently over some may feel you step in make a offer that ends it give the mob like impresion of you do business with us or you do business with nobody  just my :twocents:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Because it allows JC and Goodwin to save face and shows to the rest of the league that Pax is hard nosed but still has a heart.
> 
> david


But the CBA doesn't care if you have a heart. A few dollars one way or another has a huge effect if the luxury tax is triggered. Having this "heart" locks us in to more money towards the salary cap for years down the line.

Guys, when is the announcement as to whether there is a salary cap or not for this year? Does Paxson have enough time to wait for that when determining whether or not to sign Crawford/how much to sign him for?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> But the CBA doesn't care if you have a heart. A few dollars one way or another has a huge effect if the luxury tax is triggered. Having this "heart" locks us in to more money towards the salary cap for years down the line.
> ...


_July 14, 2004:

The National Basketball Association today announced that the Salary Cap for the 2004-05 season will be $43.87 million. The new Cap goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday, July 14, when the league's "moratorium period" ends and teams can begin signing free agents and making trades.

The Salary Cap has increased during the current collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association from $26.9 million in 1997-98 to the new level of $43.87 million, the highest amount since the Salary Cap was established in 1984. Last season's Cap was $43.84 million. _



http://www.insidehoops.com/salary-cap-071404.shtml


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> I think many believe that Pax was teaching Crawford a lesson about the nba and free agency and was using him as a example for the Bigs who will be going through the same thing next year .Now that that lesson is apparently over some may feel you step in make a offer that ends it give the mob like impresion of you do business with us or you do business with nobody  just my :twocents:


That's bull[edit]. Give Paxson credit for reading the market properly with regards to Crawford. He's shown him nothing but respect so far. Most FA's (restricted or otherwise) look forward to shopping themselves in an open market. Jamal has had that opportunity, and its one of his own choosing. To suggest Paxson was trying to "teach him (and the other young players) a lesson" is a slap in the face of a man who's treated everyone of his players fairly and with respect. Your bias is really showing now.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Because it allows JC and Goodwin to save face and shows to the rest of the league that Pax is hard nosed but still has a heart.
> 
> david



i think the way the bulls dealt with the jaywill incident shows the league that they have "heart".

in no way shape or form should the bulls do anything that allows aaron goodwin to "save face"...he's the one who insisted jamal wouldn't accept what the bulls were offering. in fact, jamal and goodwin turned the bulls down. lesson learned i guess. 

pax has played this well, imo.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> _July 14, 2004:
> ...


Dah!I meant luxury tax. Whoops.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Dah! I meant luxury tax. Whoops.


ok - _nevermind_. i didn't think you, *DMD*, missed the cap news.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Amazing that we can pay Jwill, what, like 3mil a year? to do nothing but we can't afford to pay our leading scorer and second leading assist man a contract starting at 6mil a year.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> At this point in time its almost like why keep him around


He will be a Knick before all is said and done.IT has been waiting to get the final word from Damp and his agent.That is priority number 1.We need a big man who can play D.If the trade goes thru (Damp for Othello and Naz) IT will give in to Pax.

The problem is,until we get the final word from Damp,we dont know who we have to offer


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Amazing that we can pay Jwill, what, like 3mil a year? to do nothing but we can't afford to pay our leading scorer and second leading assist man a contract starting at 6mil a year.


Try 3 million over three years.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Amazing that we can pay Jwill, what, like 3mil a year? to do nothing but we can't afford to pay our leading scorer and second leading assist man a contract starting at 6mil a year.


Well, Pax decided he couldn't pay Williams his full contract. And he is no longer on the roster b/c of that.

I am pretty sure that pax would give Craw a 3 year - $18 to $20M contract. Are you sure that Craw would sign that?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Penny and Deke for JC,ER and JW....


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

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


Not to mention any embarassment is directly due to Goodwin attempting to manipulate the situation through the media. It's very doubtful that there would be any hard feelings had these contract demands remained behind closed doors.

Who else does Goodwin represent?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to mention any embarassment is directly due to Goodwin attempting to manipulate the situation through the media. It's very doubtful that there would be any hard feelings had these contract demands remained behind closed doors.
> ...


totally agree

i know goodwin reps LeBron James. and Vin Baker, not sure who else.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> That's [email protected]#*&@. Give Paxson credit for reading the market properly with regards to Crawford. He's shown him nothing but respect so far. Most FA's (restricted or otherwise) look forward to shopping themselves in an open market. Jamal has had that opportunity, and its one of his own choosing. To suggest Paxson was trying to "teach him (and the other young players) a lesson" is a slap in the face of a man who's treated everyone of his players fairly and with respect. Your bias is really showing now.


Are you Paxson or are you every player on the Bulls ?because if you are neither how can you say what he has done ?

It was jamal choice to test the market ? jamal wanted to sign last year but the Bulls didnt put a decent offer on the table then and they didnt do it now .

Mot restricted fa's DONT look forward to shopping themselves on the market as they doint hold much leverage on where they want to go but they will test it to see where they stand when they become unrestricted fa's .

Arent you the same one claiming its business nothing personal but dont think Pax would do anything with jamal to set the stage for Tysons and Currys negotiations ?:laugh:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to mention any embarassment is directly due to Goodwin attempting to manipulate the situation through the media. It's very doubtful that there would be any hard feelings had these contract demands remained behind closed doors.
> ...


gary payton , lebron james , damon stoudamire , vin baker...a lot of well paid guys.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> gary payton , lebron james , damon stoudamire , vin baker...a lot of well paid guys.


OT: happyG, I paid for your SM today so you should be good to go soon. Please pick a cool avatar


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

We all have no idea what paxson has offered JC but my guess it is in the area of 6 million a year starting the first year or close to that. My guess is JC want to start at 7 or 8 million a year and frankly, no one seems to be willing to offer that except for IT and he is hiding the weeny. He will pay JC 8 million a year if the bulls take all his bs long term contracts and get zero back in exchange.

The real problem is JC worth on the FREE market is not what JC thinks it is.

david


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> OT: happyG, I paid for your SM today so you should be good to go soon. Please pick a cool avatar


Ok thanks , on the avatar, i'll try to pick something good.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> We all have no idea what paxson has offered JC but my guess it is in the area of 6 million a year starting the first year or close to that. My guess is JC want to start at 7 or 8 million a year and frankly, no one seems to be willing to offer that except for IT and he is hiding the weeny. He will pay JC 8 million a year if the bulls take all his bs long term contracts and get zero back in exchange.
> 
> The real problem is JC worth on the FREE market is not what JC thinks it is.
> ...


 it think the fact that JC is a free agent and not an unrestricted has alot to do with it. How many teams would take e-rob and JYD for anything less than Shaq or T-mac...and not even T-mac came with such an albatross as a eddie robinson and jerome williams.

if Jc were an unrestricted free agent something would have already happened for him ...and new york would not even be in the equation.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

IF JC was and un-RFA how would that change anything. NY is still over the cap so they only way they could sign JC to a contract above the MLE would be a sign and trade. And the teams under the cap could offer JC 8 million a year and pax would be unlikely to match. I just don't see how JC being a RFA or un-RFA really makes a difference. But maybe i am mistaken here.

david


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you Paxson or are you every player on the Bulls ?because if you are neither how can you say what he has done ?
> ...


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you Paxson or are you every player on the Bulls ?because if you are neither how can you say what he has done ?
> ...


Hey fellas

I have to side with Kismet on this. It is Jamal's choice to test the market. Decent offer? Pax has offered more years and more $$ than any other team has in free agency this year. New York? Isiah is offering contracts that are contingent upon Isiah pawning off bad contracts on the Bulls. Decent offer accoriding to who? So Pax should blow his budget for a combo guard who doesnt play defense. Pax knows that competition would be stiff if Chandler and Curry go on the market as UFAs. As such, he is coordinating his cap space to keep these players. What is wrong with that? Combo guards are a dime a dozen. Dont beleive me, GMs from LAC, PNX, DNV, IND and UTH all offered contracts to players for the kind of $$ Crawford is looking for. No one has offered it to Crawford. That is the bottom line. NY and Chicago are not sweating this. Goodwin and Crawford are.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> IF JC was and un-RFA how would that change anything. NY is still over the cap so they only way they could sign JC to a contract above the MLE would be a sign and trade. And the teams under the cap could offer JC 8 million a year and pax would be unlikely to match. I just don't see how JC being a RFA or un-RFA really makes a difference. But maybe i am mistaken here.
> 
> david


there have been articles linking up to 9 teams with deals for the bulls regarding crawford , without the notion that one would have to take both JYD and robinson something could much more easily be worked out...it would make pax lower his asking price is how things would be different , something of the nature of a single ending contract would probably be enough to pry JC away...but almost no one is willing to be saddled with both williams and robinson for any non superstar.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

I gotta tell ya. Some of the conversation here is almost amazing. Are we Bulls fans OR Jamal fans? If Paxson is moving the best player in the deal, shouldn't we expect the other team to take on our bad contract(s)?

If not, I guess we could go this way.

Hey Isaah, we'll trade you Crawford, Gordon and Chandler for Kurt Thomas, Moochie Norris and Shandon Anderson SO LONG AS you give Jamal a 6/60 deal. OK? Is the pot sweet enough for you Isaah? Are you good with it Jamal, Aaron? Is 60M enough? Does the big payday satisfy your ego? I know about 40M satisfies your lifetime security requirement, but I just want to make sure we're structuring this thing to your complete satisfaction. I mean, theres no point in us trying to get a deal thats GOOD FOR THE CHICAGO BULLS and God forbid we try to do a deal that doesn't work out for Jamal FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Now applying this same logic will the same folks making the argument about us trying to "unload" players like JYD and ERob do so when the player we're trying to deal isn't their favorite player? There are plenty of folks who would like to deal Chandler on this board. When that time comes, are you going to argue that he's not going to get a good enough contract deal if we try to get a deal that's GOOD FOR THE CHICAGO BULLS? My intuition tells me that these same posters won't give 2 licks what that player is getting paid, but will care an awful lot about what's in it for the Bulls. And if Paxson doesn't make a very advantageous deal for the team THEN Paxson will get crucified for not making the other team take on this bad contract or that bad contract. 

This just reeks of hypocrisy and unclear thinking. *It's become an argument by Jamal supporters who much like Jamal have a need for him to get the big $ contract to prove that both he and they were right all along.* Frankly, it's all getting a little silly. 

Bulls fans, isn't the goal here for the Bulls to get better? I think Paxson is clearly saying he'll either take Jamal or a package that makes us better. Ultimately I don't think Paxson is too worried about what Jamal makes and I'm not too worried either. And the end of the day, if we're better, I don't care how we accomplish it.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> I gotta tell ya. Some of the conversation here is almost amazing. Are we Bulls fans OR Jamal fans?


Oddly enough. Not mutually exclusive. I am a Bulls fan, and will be a Jamal Crawford fan probably for the rest of his career. Even if he leaves the Bulls. I like a lot of our former players. It's always fun to see them progress, since we knew we had them first. It's like watching your kids go off to college or something and become adults...or something.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> I gotta tell ya. Some of the conversation here is almost amazing. Are we Bulls fans OR Jamal fans? If Paxson is moving the best player in the deal, shouldn't we expect the other team to take on our bad contract(s)?
> 
> If not, I guess we could go this way.
> ...


:clap:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The issues aren't that anyone wants Jamal to get some big contract for the sake of a big contract...

1) He's our leading scorer and #2 assist man from last season
2) We're tired of seeing our better draft picks walk for nothing or be traded away.
3) We're tired of having most of our contract $$$ tied up in guys like AD, JYD, and ERob - guys who aren't the future of this team.
4) We're tired of the invisible dog house syndrome where our players who are playing their best end up on the bench for extended periods and for reasons that can't possibly make sense.
5) If the guy is stuck coming back to play for us, we'd like to see him a happy guy rather than a bitter one.
6) Smaller contracts aren't as tradable as bigger ones, unless we find some fool GM who's willing to take our garbage contracts to even out the salaries for CBA purposes.

My $.02


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 3) We're tired of having most of our contract $$$ tied up in guys like AD, JYD, and ERob - guys who aren't the future of this team.


Pax is tired of having no tradeable assets too. That's why he will be careful with his $$$$.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 6) Smaller contracts aren't as tradable as bigger ones, unless we find some fool GM who's willing to take our garbage contracts to even out the salaries for CBA purposes.


The same player is far more tradable the shorter and the smaller his contract his.

This is indisputable.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The issues aren't that anyone wants Jamal to get some big contract for the sake of a big contract...
> 
> 1) He's our leading scorer and #2 assist man from last season
> ...


DaBullz, I disagree on a few points. First off, I think this statement if very true.



> It's become an argument by Jamal supporters who much like Jamal have a need for him to get the big $ contract to prove that both he and they were right all along.


I think it's a natural inclination to want to see your favorite player vindicated as a nice fat contract would suggest, but that should only go so far. If the market forces take care of that then great. If they don't well they don't. At some point it ought to be ALL about making us better. The posts on this board show we're still not there.



> 1) He's our leading scorer and #2 assist man from last season


For evey positive statement it can easily enough be spun into a negative. He's not an efficient scorer and Kobe Bryant could be assumed to be a decent assist man based on his numbers as well. I'm not trying to minimize your statement just pointing out that it's not quite that easy to accept them at face value.



> 3) We're tired of having most of our contract $$$ tied up in guys like AD, JYD, and ERob - guys who aren't the future of this team.


Well, even when Paxson was handing out the franchise tags Jamal wasn't included. Nothing has changed as far as Paxsons concerned. If anyone thinks Paxson really sees Jamal as the future of this team I think they're fooling themselves. We'll see how Paxson ponies up with the future when the Curry negotiations begin.



> 5) If the guy is stuck coming back to play for us, we'd like to see him a happy guy rather than a bitter one.


I'd like to think they'd all be professionals. Lets face it, if Jamal comes back on the QO and acts like a cancer this years market is gonna look like Christmas compared to next years. He'll be in the doghouse you mentioned above and find himself with ERob like playing time. So if its kiss his backside or expect him to act like a professional, I'm expecting the latter regardless of the absence of the former.



> 6) Smaller contracts aren't as tradable as bigger ones, unless we find some fool GM who's willing to take our garbage contracts to even out the salaries for CBA purposes.


It sounds good, but thats just one of those facts of NBA life. If a team wants the young player with the lower salary, they've got to take on the garbage contract to get him. Can you give some examples where teams couldn't put together a deal because the young talent didn't have a big fat salary? If I want the young talent, I'm taking the garbage. It sets me back an extra roster spot unless I work it out. Don't see it as that big a deal, but I'm open to explanation.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> It sounds good, but thats just one of those facts of NBA life. If a team wants the young player with the lower salary, they've got to take on the garbage contract to get him. Can you give some examples where teams couldn't put together a deal because the young talent didn't have a big fat salary? If I want the young talent, I'm taking the garbage. It sets me back an extra roster spot unless I work it out. Don't see it as that big a deal, but I'm open to explanation.


I've done so many times. The cost of trading a re-signed Jamal for Vince Carter as a hypothetical. They're NOT going to just want Jamal and Erob and JYD or AD. They're going to want EC or TC or Hinrich or some combination, and _then_ they might take on a big contract to make the deal work. The problem for us is that EC, TC, and Hinrich have tiny contracts...

Try working something out on the trade checker and post what you think Toronto would deal. Realistically. Forget about any errors in the trade checker due to the flux in signings and FAs and so on.

Peace!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> ...The problem for us is that EC, TC, and Hinrich have tiny contracts...
> 
> Try working something out on the trade checker and post what you think Toronto would deal. Realistically. Forget about any errors in the trade checker due to the flux in signings and FAs and so on.


The anwser is not signing JC to some multi-year contract.

It's using the MLE to sign a marginal player (Bobby Simmons for example) for $5M for one year.

Then, the Bulls will have $12M in expiring contracts in Pippen, the MLE signing and Jeffries.

Some scrubs like Linton and Pargo will have one year deals as well.

Thrown in one of our assets (a Curry or a Gordon) and you can take back $18M in salary.

No problem.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I've done so many times. The cost of trading a re-signed Jamal for Vince Carter as a hypothetical. They're NOT going to just want Jamal and Erob and JYD or AD. They're going to want EC or TC or Hinrich or some combination, and _then_ they might take on a big contract to make the deal work. The problem for us is that EC, TC, and Hinrich have tiny contracts...
> ...


Your point is noted, and I have read your thoughts on this matter before, but still I think the best way to do it is to give a player what he is worth market value wise and no more. We should not max out Jamal for trading purposes or any other player. Sooner or later, we will sign one of our rookies to a second contract (amazingly, we have not yet done this with any rookie from the Brand draft forward). Jamal may or may not be one of those players.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> The anwser is not signing JC to some multi-year contract.
> ...


I'd think a 2 year contract would be ideal for Jamal if we don't want to keep him for a long time. He'd be BYC this season and next season he'd be both an expiring contract and a pretty valuable player to boot.  Keep him one year, then trade him.

As to the rest of your post, I do not believe Toronto would trade Carter for a bunch of crap. Our non-crap requires a lot of players to be included to match salary.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Your point is noted, and I have read your thoughts on this matter before, but still I think the best way to do it is to give a player what he is worth market value wise and no more. We should not max out Jamal for trading purposes or any other player. Sooner or later, we will sign one of our rookies to a second contract (amazingly, we have not yet done this with any rookie from the Brand draft forward). Jamal may or may not be one of those players.


Forget about max deal for Jamal. He'd probably be quite happy at 1/2 max.

It isn't too hard to figure out that Jamal is and will be far more valuable to the team than AD, JYD, ERob, or Pip who have inflated salaries compared to what they contribute.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Forget about max deal for Jamal. He'd probably be quite happy at 1/2 max.
> ...


That is done now though. It's pretty obvious this administration wants Hinrich here long term, but they can't do it yet unless they try a Boozergate. We have to commit to some of our good young players long term. Crawford may or may not go, but I expect one of our twin towers to be extended for next year, maybe both.

Sooner than later, I expect some good players on this team to be making 6-12 million per year.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Sooner than later, I expect some good players on this team to be making 6-12 million per year.


Agreed. And it will either be Curry or Curry and Chandler starting that parade. I just don't think it will be Jamal (unless its for about 3 years).


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Forget about max deal for Jamal. He'd probably be quite happy at 1/2 max.


According to NBA.com, the max salary for an NBA player of 6 or fewer years is "Greater of 25 percent of the salary cap (*$10.968 million this season*) or 105 percent of the player's salary in the last season of his prior contract". The New York Post , meanwhile, has noted that "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*."

38/6 = $6.33 million/year > $10.98million/2/year

I'm no mathematician, hell, I had trouble coming up with the formula! Also doesn't include the annual raises. It does appear, though, that Pax has already offered 1/2 max.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Ok, why exactly wouldn't Houston be interested in working out some sort of deal for Jamal? I for one think this would be an ideal situation for him and the point is wide open. Yet, he doesn't even draw a mention in this article.

Full Story 



> They had free agents and their representatives interested in a team on the upswing keeping their phones ringing and fax machines humming.
> 
> Brent Barry, Derek Fisher, Troy Hudson and Rafer Alston have been signed, some to contracts that could be featured in an NBA GMs Gone Wild video.
> 
> The Rockets apparently decided the free agents available were not enough of an upgrade from Lue to be worth the $37 million Fisher received for seven years or the $28 million Alston got for five years.


Shouldn't Goodwin and Paxson be pursuing something here or have they already been dismissed, the above quotes saying it all?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> According to NBA.com, the max salary for an NBA player of 6 or fewer years is "Greater of 25 percent of the salary cap (*$10.968 million this season*) or 105 percent of the player's salary in the last season of his prior contract". The New York Post , meanwhile, has noted that "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*."
> ...


The article didnt say Goodwin says the Bulls offered that much though .It states that it is "believed " the offer was for the Mle so its more what a Ny writer thought the Bulls offered as opposed to having the actual number .


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Ok, why exactly wouldn't Houston be interested in working out some sort of deal for Jamal? I for one think this would be an ideal situation for him and the point is wide open. Yet, he doesn't even draw a mention in this article.
> 
> Full Story
> ...


the rockets cap is at 49 million amd to add a big contract could send them into the luxury tax and they let Posey walk to avoid it last year why would they go into it this year .

They could try a trade but would Pax take Spoon or Taylor back ?

Jamal and Erob for Taylor and Piatkowski ?


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I've done so many times. The cost of trading a re-signed Jamal for Vince Carter as a hypothetical. They're NOT going to just want Jamal and Erob and JYD or AD. They're going to want EC or TC or Hinrich or some combination, and _then_ they might take on a big contract to make the deal work. The problem for us is that EC, TC, and Hinrich have tiny contracts...
> ...


I'm leaving JC out of it.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/toronto.htm

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm

The deal is(works on the trade checker):

JYD, ER, SP, KH, a future 1st

for

Vinsanity, Alvin the Chipmunk, Lamond don't call me Tracy Murray

In terms of $:
JYD's deal is 1 year shorter than Alvin's.

SP's deal is 1 year shorter than Lamond's.

KH is the cheap young meat.
A positive thing.

The pick is in recognition that Vince ?is/was/maybe? close to superstar material and KH will never be that.

ER just fills in the financial gap to match salaries and on the court for Murray.

Since the Raptor give the best player, they get the advantages elsewhere(other contracts, pick).

The loose end is of course JC. Maybe he stays for a year and then when his BYC is over he gets dealt with the expiring contract of AD for depth/picks.

Where do I sign?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sorry, but no way does Toronto come anywhere near that deal. They're not going to come close to matching Vince's production, nor are they filling any of their needs.

Look at the Shaq deal... LA at least got three quality players in return; guys who are going to start for them right away and contribute.

My point is that a $9M Jamal and a $9M Curry is a LOT closer to the $18M that Toronto would be happier with.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

As for Houston, if Dan Rosenbaum is correct in his estimate of about $59 mil. for the luxury tax then the Rocket could do this and not cross that level of spending.

JYD for C-Spoon exchange
JC for 2005 pick & or Gaines(this part of the deal is accomplished with the trade exception of the Rocket)

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/houston.htm


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> But in the case of Crawford, the young restricted free agent, he's finding the market for his talent isn't exactly what he had hoped for -- which is more than the mid-level exception. The Bulls aren't too keen on keeping him around anyway, but they certainly aren't going to match any major multiyear deal starting at that mid-level figure. In fact, some of his fellow young restricted free agents, like Stromile Swift in Memphis and Darius Miles in Portland, are finding bushels of cash aren't going to be heaped upon them regardless of their status in the upper echelon of the lottery when they were drafted.
> 
> What they are experiencing is the backlash from poor and very young drafts that brought young talent into free agency before anyone is sold on their heads for the game. Are they willing to work hard to improve, or are they still legends in their own minds, lost in little worlds of entitlement?
> 
> Those are key factors that have become more significant as the league gets younger.


Sportsline


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Are you Paxson or are you every player on the Bulls ?because if you are neither how can you say what he has done ?
> 
> It was jamal choice to test the market ? jamal wanted to sign last year but the Bulls didnt put a decent offer on the table then and they didnt do it now.


to use your own logic and rhetoric: just because _you_ don't think the Bulls made a decent offer -- and apparently JC agrees with you, though it appears the market says otherwise -- doesn't mean a decent offer wasn't made.

look, i'm perfectly willing for JC to be a Bull next year, but i sure don't want Pax to over-pay for him either. point out that JC was our leading scorer and #2 assist guy to your heart's content; the fact remains that he did all that for a 23-win team, showed questionable shot selection, and plays spotty (at best) defense.

the rest of the NBA has noticed, and has placed his value accordingly. if that doesn't jive with what you think he's worth, i'm sorry, but those are the facts of the situation. Paxson isn't out to screw you or any other fan of Jamal, regardless of your consistent bashing.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> The article didnt say Goodwin says the Bulls offered that much though .It states that it is "believed " the offer was for the Mle so its more what a Ny writer thought the Bulls offered as opposed to having the actual number .


True enough. Goodwin is on record saying the MLE is not enough. Isn't MLE roughly half MAX?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

If jamal was worth more than the MLE, then wouldnt at LEAST ONE TEAM offer him that??


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

There are probably 20 teams that would be more than happy to offer JC the MLE, my question is why? They know Paxson will match it so why tie up their MLE for 2 weeks by making an offer they KNOW will be matched? THAT is the reason no one is offering their MLE. And noone is lining up to do a sign & trade because they know Paxsonwill only do a deal if he gets rid of big contracts taking not much back. This isn't rocket science. To claim their isn't leaguewide interest in Jamal because the very few teams that can offer him more than the MLE haven't is pretty silly IMO.


----------

