# SunTimes: Pax Patient as Goodwin FUMES...



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> With the NBA free-agent market producing surprisingly lucrative deals almost daily, Jamal Crawford and his agent, Aaron Goodwin, have grown impatient with the philosophy of Bulls operations chief John Paxson.
> 
> Paxson said the market still is in its early stages, and he wants everyone to be patient while weighing sign-and-trade scenarios. The New York Knicks are offering Shandon Anderson, Othella Harrington and Frank Williams for Crawford, Eddie Robinson and Jerome Williams, according to a league source, who said the deal was close as of late Wednesday night. The Bulls also are talking to the Miami Heat, likely for Caron Butler, a source said.
> 
> ...




sounds like Goodwin is losing it. What other teams have "shown by their offers" that they want Jamal more than we do? Where is his signed offer sheet? 

Love the part about having to "explain it to the fans".... 


STAY THE COURSE PAX!!! 






http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull091.html


----------



## play hard (Jul 10, 2002)

This is plain and simple. JC is just not garnering the interest of other teams. Goodwin can say all day long that 8 teams have shown interest but how many visits has JC gone on - ZERO. Teams are not interested (major interest that is) up to this point and I think Pax is playing this perfectly.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Haha, good for Paxson. 
Its easy to see what he's doing in holding out so that he doesn't have to pay more then he should.
The only risk he's running I think is either losing Crawford if some team comes out of nowhere and offers him a huge deal, or resigning a pissed off Crawford and having him pout and play poorly. I would hope Jamal is more professional then that, but it sounds like himself and his agent are already beginning to pout.

I really don't blame them for being upset, because its not a very welcoming maneuver by Paxson, but I think its a fairly intelligent business move.

What do people think about that NY deal that they detailed?
_"New York Knicks are offering Shandon Anderson, Othella Harrington and Frank Williams for Crawford, Eddie Robinson and Jerome Williams"_

I honestly don't know anything about any of them except that Frank was an Illini. Would that give us some cap relief? Are their deals expiring?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I hate to say this but i am aleady sick of goodwin and JC. Rather than talk about how good JC is he should be working his butt off to improve his game. manu, q, boozer, ect all these players, IMO are much better than JC. They play D, hustle, and do the little things that win games. JC still can't play defensive to save his soul, is soft, and relies mostly on his jump shot. And he only hit 38% of his shots last year and 30% from 3. I mean how much money does that get you. After 4 years in the league potential just does not cut it anymore. He was benched like 10 times last year by two different coaches, period.

As far as i am concerned he is a combo guard best suited to come off the bench and imo in a year or two that is what he will be doning. Mind you i would like to see him doing that on the bulls but i also think JC will never come to that conclusion and still thinks he is a superstar to be.

When you are sick do you want to go to a physician who knows what he doesn't know or one who thinks he is a star doc and knows it all. If JC would admit his shortcomings he could address them and really improve his game and team play. But he thinks he is a superstar when he is only ever going to be the 3rd best player on the team.

david


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

This is a very, very good sign.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

LOL Mr. Goodwin. Lon Babby did his job this summer, leaving you in the dust


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Good job, Pax. You've done in one season what it took Krause a decade to do - earn the reputation of being a GM nobody wants to sign with.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> ''The Bulls have to explain all this to their fans. We feel the market is already starting to dictate itself by what other players are getting from other teams. So I don't think it's a question anymore of what Jamal is worth, but whether the Bulls want Jamal. *And we have gotten past just offering him the mid-level exception [of $5 million per season].*''


have we? it isn't about what Nash, Q or Manu or what anybody is worth, it's about *what Jamal is worth.*

and what _exactly_ will we have have to explain to the fans?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Good job, Pax. You've done in one season what it took Krause a decade to do - earn the reputation of being a GM nobody wants to sign with.


I don't see this at all. As I've said, Jamal wanted to test the market, and that is exactly what he's been doing. He shouldn't be boo-hooing just because Pax isn't working fast enough for him to consummate a sign and trade or make a fresh offer. We are at the very beginning of the FA signing period. Saying PAx is dragging his heels unfairly is just a bunch of agent malarcky.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't see this at all. As I've said, Jamal wanted to test the market. He shouldn't be boo-hooing just because Pax isn't working fast enough for him to consummate a sign and trade or make a fresh offer. We are at the very beginning of the FA signing period. Saying PAx is dragging his heels unfairly is just a bunch of agent malarcky.


Pax may be right, but he's not making a good reputation among players by playing hardball, or by cutting Corie Blount 1 day too late so he couldn't hook up with a playoff team.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Pax may be right, but he's not making a good reputation among players by playing hardball, or by cutting Corie Blount 1 day too late so he couldn't hook up with a playoff team.


see i don't think he's playing hardball. he's being smart. the agent is being a baby. 

and the whole corie thing...what playoff team did he end up with? oh that's right, the raptors. 

dabullz, i thought you were showing pax some love on draft night. whahappen'd?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Pax may be right, but he's not making a good reputation among players by playing hardball, or by cutting Corie Blount 1 day too late so he couldn't hook up with a playoff team.


I'm with TB#1... I really don't see it, DB. I don't see Pax as playing hardball at all. It's pretty clear he doesn't want to overpay Crawford. It's not like Jamal is the first RFA to not be immediately resigned by his team. And, as Carlos Boozer has reminded us all, hardball is part of the business of the NBA.

Pax has done plenty on the other side of the ledger (signing former Bull Pip for full MLE, handling of JWill, to name two that immediately spring to mind) to more than balance things out. If a GM cow-towed to every players wishes, his team would be a financial mess before he knew what hit him.

Oh, and I seriously doubt a single player in the league outside of Corie Blount himself cares a rats *** whether Bount had a chance to sign with a playoff team.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Pax may be right, but he's not making a good reputation among players by playing hardball, or by cutting Corie Blount 1 day too late so he couldn't hook up with a playoff team.


Agreed with the Corie fiasco. Whether he actually had an opportunity to sign with a playoff team or not, it was a move that didn't look good. 

But at this point, its not exactly hardball with Crawford -- he isn't screwing Jamal in any way, shape or form. He is trying to look out for the Bulls best interests. And despite Aaron's posturing, he knows it. Pax is the key to a good deal for Jamal, and one way or another its most likely going to happen, through an offer or a S&T. It might not be 9M/year, but it will be what the market dictates, just as everyone wanted.

Anyone who wants to see that Pax is not all about hardball need look no further than JWill.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> see i don't think he's playing hardball. he's being smart. the agent is being a baby.
> ...


Actually no playoff team would sign him because he wouldnt have been able to play in the playoffs anyway hence the comments about him letting him go one day too late to hook up with a playoff team :whofarted


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Could this sound any more disingenuous?



> ''The ball is in the Bulls' court,'' Goodwin said. ''But I remain aggressive, calling Paxson every day because Chicago remains his first choice.''


I'll bet Pax really looks forward to those chats too!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Is it possible that the way Jamal was used last season has anything to do with his current value? 

To me it's obvious that the Bulls deliberately drove down Jamal's value by not playing him in Q4 of games, by moving him to SG, by talking him down, by talking up Hinrich (who wasn't better than Jamal), and perhaps indirectly by hiring Skiles (who did the dirty work)?

It's also obvious to me that Jamal pretty much did what was asked of him, in spite of the team going in absolutely the wrong direction.

We had a poor record, which I attribute to the Rose/Marshall trade, the firing of Cartwright, the influx of NBDL (lack of) "talent" to the roster, the awful offensive scheme Skiles implemented, etc. Crawford should have scored 50+ on many nights simply because the rest of the team stunk it up. But it's hard to do so when you're sitting on the bench so an NBDL guy can play to "prove" something (that we can lose with or without Jamal Crawford).

Jim Paxson was on the up-and-up with Boozer, it appears from published quotes. It seems to me that to NOT play hardball, Pax would at least make Jamal an offer close to what he's willing to pay and force other teams to beat it. Making the offer, keeping open the lines of communication, saying "We want Jamal back as much as any other player we have" and similar things to butter up the guy's ego couldn't hurt.

Suppose Jamal does end up signing a 1 year deal. I expect him to have reason to be a real cancer in the locker room.

If I were GM, I'd have offered MLE already and said he's the starter until he's beaten out by another player. 

It is my opinion that if Pax had cut Blount a day earlier, he would have been picked up by the Lakers or Mavericks. Blount did have his best (or 2nd best) season as a pro last year (what more could Pax want of the guy he chose to resign?), and both those teams could have used him, even if for just a few minutes per game. Certainly Blount would have played a lot in the finals for the Lakers, given Malone's injury.

As for Pippen, I would NOT chalk that up as one for Pax. It was a waste of money and it was generally a foolish idea to bring in Pip to play anything but PG.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Is it possible that the way Jamal was used last season has anything to do with his current value?
> 
> To me it's obvious that the Bulls deliberately drove down Jamal's value by not playing him in Q4 of games, by moving him to SG, by talking him down, by talking up Hinrich (who wasn't better than Jamal), and perhaps indirectly by hiring Skiles (who did the dirty work)?


Too much conspiracy theory DaBullz. I think the Bulls management believes Jamal doesn't play the right way and its as simple as that.



> It's also obvious to me that Jamal pretty much did what was asked of him, in spite of the team going in absolutely the wrong direction.


Except playing the way they wanted him to.



> It seems to me that to NOT play hardball, Pax would at least make Jamal an offer close to what he's willing to pay and force other teams to beat it. Making the offer, keeping open the lines of communication, saying "We want Jamal back as much as any other player we have" and similar things to butter up the guy's ego couldn't hurt.


Both sides agreed to let the market determine his value. Right now, the market looks pretty thin for Jamal. Rather than cry over spilled milk at this point, Goodwin ought to be concentrating on orchestrating a worthwhile deal. Jamal still may get that big payday before its all over.




> Suppose Jamal does end up signing a 1 year deal. I expect him to have reason to be a real cancer in the locker room.


I don't expect anybody to be a cancer in the locker room. They ought to be professional. And 3.5 million for a few months of playing basketball isn't exactly indentured servant wages.



> If I were GM, I'd have offered MLE already and said he's the starter until he's beaten out by another player.


I'd agree with this except I don't think the Bulls really want him anyway.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Is it possible that the way Jamal was used last season has anything to do with his current value?
> 
> To me it's obvious that the Bulls deliberately drove down Jamal's value by not playing him in Q4 of games, by moving him to SG, by talking him down, by talking up Hinrich (who wasn't better than Jamal), and perhaps indirectly by hiring Skiles (who did the dirty work)?


And why would they do that? You're seriously suggesting Paxson and Skiles conspired to lose games simply to improve their negotiating position with a future RFA? Seems a bit of a stretch.



> It's also obvious to me that Jamal pretty much did what was asked of him, in spite of the team going in absolutely the wrong direction.


He may have. So did Dickey Simpkins by all accounts. Doesn't mean he deserves the money he and his agent are asking for.



> We had a poor record, which I attribute to the Rose/Marshall trade, the firing of Cartwright, the influx of NBDL (lack of) "talent" to the roster, the awful offensive scheme Skiles implemented, etc. Crawford should have scored 50+ on many nights simply because the rest of the team stunk it up. But it's hard to do so when you're sitting on the bench so an NBDL guy can play to "prove" something (that we can lose with or without Jamal Crawford).


I don't think Crawford was removed from any games for reasons you state.



> Jim Paxson was on the up-and-up with Boozer, it appears from published quotes. It seems to me that to NOT play hardball, Pax would at least make Jamal an offer close to what he's willing to pay and force other teams to beat it. Making the offer, keeping open the lines of communication, saying "We want Jamal back as much as any other player we have" and similar things to butter up the guy's ego couldn't hurt.


This is assuming the Bulls want him back. I don't believe they do unless it is at a price that makes him attractive trade bait. In any case, I believe Pax is on the record publicly as saying they want him back. I don't believe he needs to keep up with JC's agent in the public spin derby.



> Suppose Jamal does end up signing a 1 year deal. I expect him to have reason to be a real cancer in the locker room.


Then he is traded or joins E-Rob on the end of the bench.



> If I were GM, I'd have offered MLE already and said he's the starter until he's beaten out by another player.


I believe that offer was made last year around this time. Jamal declined it.



> It is my opinion that if Pax had cut Blount a day earlier, he would have been picked up by the Lakers or Mavericks. Blount did have his best (or 2nd best) season as a pro last year (what more could Pax want of the guy he chose to resign?), and both those teams could have used him, even if for just a few minutes per game. Certainly Blount would have played a lot in the finals for the Lakers, given Malone's injury.


All true. Doesn't mean any other players in the league are giving it a second thought. I can see it now... "That's a great contract offer, Mr. Paxson-- by far the largest I've received from any other team. But I just can't sign with you given the way you treated Corie Blount last spring..."



> As for Pippen, I would NOT chalk that up as one for Pax. It was a waste of money and it was generally a foolish idea to bring in Pip to play anything but PG.


So overpaying for Pip is foolish but overpaying for Crawford is not?

Pip was signed at least in part to repair old wounds with key Bulls players and send a message to other veteran players in the league that the Bulls were under new management and old grudges were no longer an issue. I don't believe Pax would have offered what he did to Pippen if those issues were not there to be dealth with.


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*"dont you know Im LOCO?"*

I dont get some of you guys,

Why should Pax bid against himself at this point?

Q, Manu, Daniels, hell even Alston all signed for more $$ with other teams than Pax was willing to pay Crawford. Yet those teams made NO OFFERS TO CRAWFORD!!! Why? Either Goodwin is asking for the moon, Crawford is (GASP!) overrated in some people's eyes, or Goodwin is a fiend and teams don't like dealing with him if they do not have to. 

How is any of this Paxson's fault? In the end, if no sign and trade is consumated, Crawford will play his final year at $3.5 million and be a UFA in 2005. CANCER in 2004? Not if Pax signs Curry to big $$$ deal in 2004. Even if Crawford goes UFA in 2005, Bulls can still offer more $$ and more years than any other team can if Pax wants to!!

The only thing that is obvious to me in this free agency season is that teams like Phoenix, Utah, and Denver dont think much of Crawford compared to the players they have signed. This is in line with Paxson's tempered approach to what Crawford truly brings to a team. 
BOOYA!!
Salutations


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What you two and I agree on is that Paxson doesn't want Jamal Crawford as a Bull.

And I am saying that once the season was a wash, Skiles and Paxson conspired to both get Crawford back at as low a price as they could AND to tank to get a good draft pick.

FWIW, I've been called a Jamal Hater a number of times, so you can figure it out from there.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

I think most teams just aren't interested in Crawford. How come he's not getting any offers? He may end up like Stephen Jackson last year.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Crawford should have scored 50+ on many nights simply because the rest of the team stunk it up. But it's hard to do so when you're sitting on the bench so an NBDL guy can play to "prove" something (that we can lose with or without Jamal Crawford).
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, here's some things I think:

1) Pax has never wanted Jamal on the team next year. He wants to get a *good* sign and trade offer most of all. He'd rather have Jamal than nothing, but he'd rather have a decent sign and trade than Jamal.

2) The trade offered by New York doesn't save us any money at all when you really run the numbers, except the money we're paying Jamal. It somewhat reduces our salary against the cap for next summer, but we're giving up our best player for schlock.

3) The acceptable trade for the Bulls is to get the Knicks to send Kurt Thomas and change and redirect someone like Allen or Walker while we dump bad contracts.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I would love jc to sign and play next year for us but the bottom line here is he still has a long way to go to be a complete basketball player. This is not only true on defensive but it is also true on the offensive end as well. Bad shot selection, poor movement off the ball, and slow recognition of changing defenses.

Now when any of us pointed this out during the season we all got yelled down by the JC is the greatest player on earth crowd, who seem to be very absence lately.

I still think JC can be quite a player in the league but his current situation shown be a eye opener for him. He over values his potential contract as IMO he over values his game.

What he should do is sign a short MLE contract with the bulls, really consider the shortcomings in his game and starting kicking butt to be the player he should be. IMO.

david


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!FWIW, I've been called a Jamal Hater a number of times, so you can figure it out from there.


I think the hating accusations have subsided and given way to reality for many here. The rumors were that the young Bulls weren't highly prized around the league and I think we're seeing some tangible evidence of this now. 

I don't really see any benefit to Jamal signing the QO and becoming a cancer either. We pay ERob double that to look stupid and disinterested at the end of the bench. Barring injury to other players, Jamal could pout his way into stats that would make the MLE look like winning the lotto. He would HAVE to be a professional about it because he'd in effect be losing multi-millions to hold a grudge.

BTW DaBullz, nobody could accuse you of being a Jamal hater with that conspiracy theory. You did the camp proud.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I love Hinrich as a player as much as the next guy but doesn't a Crawford/Gordon backcourt make a hell of a lot of sense much like a Crawford/Wade backcourt made sense. On the offensive end Crawford plays the 1 (his natural position) and Gordon plays the 2 (his nat pos), and then on defense they guard the opposite position. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Still to blast Pax for not bidding against himself is foolish. If a team wants Jamal they can offer him a deal and Pax can match, he doesn't have to bid against himself for Jamal and against Aaron Goodwin. Both Jamal and Goodwin have been less than adults in this whole situation...


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> 
> What he should do is sign a short MLE contract with the bulls, really consider the shortcomings in his game and starting kicking butt to be the player he should be. IMO.
> 
> david


Right on. I'll be the first to say that the NBA is a business and that players should try to get all the $$$ they can. BUT...it seems like Crawford is only interested in the money - not in becoming a better player. He's been at odds with every coach he's had and has consistently refused to adjust his game.

I'm sure someone will bash me for saying this (i.e. "Crawford was always at the Berto last summer" and "the Bulls haven't had a decent coach in years"), but the bottom line is that Crawford thinks the big contract makes him an NBA star.

It's supposed to be the other way around. He needs to improve and become a star to get the big contract.

I like Crawford (for the record) and I think he's worth the full MLE on a long term deal. But he hasn't shown anything to make me believe that he's worth more or that he'll be a star at shooting guard down the road (which is where he's gonna play as long as he's in Chicago).


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Well, here's some things I think:
> 
> 1) Pax has never wanted Jamal on the team next year. He wants to get a *good* sign and trade offer most of all. He'd rather have Jamal than nothing, but he'd rather have a decent sign and trade than Jamal.


Truer words were never spoken.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

If they don't want him then why didn't they trade him BEFORE the deadline and avoid this drama/BYC? OK the offers weren't great but it's hard to imagine they were worse than what's being discussed in the press.

I have mixed feelings. I'm getting sick pleasure imagining JC/current agent(3rd or 4th but different than the one last summer right?) squirm. If the Bull don't re-sign him and he walks after a year then the Fizz/Craw draft will have been a complete waste.

Could someone help me with this list:

sub 40% career shooters who play poor defense but are worth alot:

1. JC "star in the making"
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

I have a simple question,


Wouldnt it make Paxson look better if he offered Crawford a deal slightly lower than the MLE and then let Goodwin look for a better deal if he cant finde one they can work out a sign and trade or if he does get something better why, sign him to a deal within reason. They havent even offered him anything, I would find this disconcerting if i was a player, at least let him know your slightly interested it also would help Paxson save face with future FA's.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Is it possible that the way Jamal was used last season has anything to do with his current value?
> 
> To me it's obvious that the Bulls deliberately drove down Jamal's value by not playing him in Q4 of games, by moving him to SG, by talking him down, by talking up Hinrich (who wasn't better than Jamal), and perhaps indirectly by hiring Skiles (who did the dirty work)?
> ...


Thank you, Aaron Goodwin. You can reach Lacy Banks at [email protected] or at (312) 321-3000.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> I love Hinrich as a player as much as the next guy but doesn't a Crawford/Gordon backcourt make a hell of a lot of sense much like a Crawford/Wade backcourt made sense. On the offensive end Crawford plays the 1 (his natural position) and Gordon plays the 2 (his nat pos), and then on defense they guard the opposite position. Seems like a no-brainer to me.


IMO - Paxson, Skiles and Armstrong appear to be in agreement that they'd rather take the 2-inch hit on Hinrich and have the guy who plays the game they want it to be played. 

It certainly seems clear - the Bulls only want value on their investment. Even if they sign Crawford its only to a tradeable contract --- one that WILL be traded next year.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> I have a simple question,
> 
> 
> Wouldnt it make Paxson look better if he offered Crawford a deal slightly lower than the MLE and then let Goodwin look for a better deal if he cant finde one they can work out a sign and trade or if he does get something better why, sign him to a deal within reason. They havent even offered him anything, I would find this disconcerting if i was a player, at least let him know your slightly interested it also would help Paxson save face with future FA's.


Well for now he has the QO at 3.5 million. Rumors on this board are Jamal rejected a MLE-style extension last year. So it would seem that sort of offer would be both redundant and likely used by Goodwin in the press in an attempt to further embarrass the Bulls.

It is rather amusing though with all of this talk by fans of showing players some love, etc. while players like Benedict Boozer can shove it up the teams arse and its "all about business".

Just a thought but tomorrows 60 million dollar Jamal Crawford could be todays Penny Hardaway.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Obviously I am a Crawford fan, regardless of whether noone in the NBA is interested in him or everyone is interested in him. Honestly I think a lot of teams would probably be interested in picking him up as a pg but those teams, for the most part, are capped out and only have the MLE to offer which Pax will match so why bother? Still, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Jamal get a decent offer once all of the Kobe drama is settled and once we have an idea who is going where. Still, it's way too early to be saying GM's don't have any interest in Jamal because everyone isn't throwing money at him yet. There are players you like and realities of how you have to do business.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Anyone think Jim and John got together, smoked a little dope and then came up with this moronic idea that the market was weak?

Got me... but Carlos Boozer thinks so. Jamal Crawford will soon too. Crawford and K-Mart to Atlanta. ATL is back on the map.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> I have a simple question,
> 
> 
> Wouldnt it make Paxson look better if he offered Crawford a deal slightly lower than the MLE and then let Goodwin look for a better deal if he cant finde one they can work out a sign and trade or if he does get something better why, sign him to a deal within reason. They havent even offered him anything, I would find this disconcerting if i was a player, at least let him know your slightly interested it also would help Paxson save face with future FA's.


Well, I kind of agree, but I think there are downsides too. First, a sub-MLE offer (even if it's justified) will antagonize Crawford, especially if Isaiah Thomas is saying 6/60. 

Second, I don't think Pax really *wants* Jamal back, so making this kind of offer could blow up in his face. Jamal could sign it, and then there'd be no trading him for a year or so and they're stuck with each other. As his brother is finding out, such assumptions are dangerous. Maybe it's better to let him go solicit offer and sell sign and trade ideas to other teams, since that's what Pax really wants.

The only real problem is that, if we get to a point where it's clear no S&T is going to work, Jamal will likely just sign the QO, which means he goes nowhere for a year. This is, I'm guessing, about the last thing Paxson wants, because it means he'll be a UFA next year and ultimately walk for nothing, it means he can't be traded, and it means everyone is unhappy and there's the spectre of Jamal just "playing for his contract".

Personally, I don't think that situation helps anyone. If *I* were the Bulls, I would at that point probably make a real offer to Jamal. I'll say look, I'll give you a 2-3 year MLE level deal, with the full raises, and that makes you a lot of money in the short term. It doesn't make you the $60M that Thomas is offering, but it's a nice balance of security and money.

That is, Jamal's choices will be:
1) Take the QO, in which case he's a UFA next year and could potentially sign for more money - maybe someone else will offer the kind of 6/60 deal Thomas supposedly offered. However, if he has a poor season, or gets hurt, then he only gets $3.5M for 04/05 and nothing afterwards. That's a big (and in Jamal's case real risk).

2) Take the MLE level offer from the Bulls. The Bulls will guarantee him 18.5M for 04/05 and the two years beyond that. By taking that offer, Jamal guarantees himself a nice chunk of change, but he's not locked into a long-term six year deal... the three years, I think, is just what you have to sign with the MLE to get your Bird Rights. Anyway, then he can play the market again and it's not like he's locked into a long-term deal. For their part, the Bulls at least get some longer term return on him even if he walks for nothing in two years.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Anyone think Jim and John got together, smoked a little dope and then came up with this moronic idea that the market was weak?
> 
> Got me... but Carlos Boozer thinks so. Jamal Crawford will soon too. Crawford and K-Mart to Atlanta. ATL is back on the map.


One would get that impression


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Anyone think Jim and John got together, smoked a little dope and then came up with this moronic idea that the market was weak?
> 
> Got me... but Carlos Boozer thinks so. Jamal Crawford will soon too. Crawford and K-Mart to Atlanta. ATL is back on the map.


The Hawks roster and management for that matter are a complete mess. I don't see them making any major splashes this summer IMO.

As for the Paxsons, the big difference was Boozer's early Bird rights versus Crawfords full Bird rights. Huugge difference. Just ask Arenas and GSW.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Anyone think Jim and John got together, smoked a little dope and then came up with this moronic idea that the market was weak?
> 
> Got me... but Carlos Boozer thinks so. Jamal Crawford will soon too. Crawford and K-Mart to Atlanta. ATL is back on the map.


Are you suggest that the Bulls should be the one offering the $60M?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> The Hawks roster and management for that matter are a complete mess. I don't see them making any major splashes this summer IMO.
> ...


Actually, quite the contrary.

The Hawks have done GREAT this offseason with Billy Knight and now the hiring of Mike Woodson, who is a real players coach.

While I didn't particularly care for the Childress pick, I think Smith will turn out to be a steal. If they land K-Mart, Crawford would be an excellent pickup as Terry's days are numbered.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you suggest that the Bulls should be the one offering the $60M?


Sure, if that is what he's worth.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, quite the contrary.
> ...


Martin is just using Atlanta as leverage. In fact, Insider is pretty clear that Martin wasn't even inclined to outright sign the offer sheet. Why? He's waiting on Denver to extend a max offer so he has the chance to play w/ buddy Anthony. And KMart has always said that returning to NJ is his first choice. I fail to see how Atlanta stands a chance in any scenario here.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Martin is just using Atlanta as leverage. In fact, Insider is pretty clear that Martin wasn't even inclined to outright sign the offer sheet. Why? He's waiting on Denver to extend a max offer so he has the chance to play w/ buddy Anthony. And KMart has always said that returning to NJ is his first choice. I fail to see how Atlanta stands a chance in any scenario here.


But with Denver resigning Camby and having Nene, what sense does that make to get K-Mart? They obviously need a better SG and a true center before Kenyon, No?

Kiki is a good GM. I don't see him signing Kenyon just to pal around with Carmelo.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> But with Denver resigning Camby and having Nene, what sense does that make to get K-Mart? They obviously need a better SG and a true center before Kenyon, No?
> ...


Even if Denver doesn't offer anything and KMart signs the offer sheet from Atlanta, New Jersey will match it. Why? Because they save 20M in matching another team's max deal versus offering their own. KMart has said all along that he wanted max dollars from NJ (or any other team for that matter)

NJ is being wise here. No need to commit 100M to guy when you can get him for 20M less.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Even if Denver doesn't offer anything and KMart signs the offer sheet from Atlanta, New Jersey will match it. Why? Because they save 20M in matching another team's max deal versus offering their own. KMart has said all along that he wanted max dollars from NJ (or any other team for that matter)
> ...


Yes, this is true, but Thorn has said a couple times that he can only keep Kenyon or Kidd, but most likely not both.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*O.T. hey SD,*

with the market going crazy you getting nervous about our bet on stephen jackson ?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*The Atlanta Hawks on Thursday night extended a six-year maximum contract offer to restricted free agent Kenyon Martin, ESPN.com has learned.

Martin has not yet told the Hawks he'll sign their offer sheet on July 14, which gives the Denver Nuggets a small window to make a similar offer to Martin.

League sources told ESPN.com that the Nuggets plan to decide by Friday or Saturday whether to extend a rich offer sheet to Martin or pass on the All-Star forward and keep their name in the Kobe Bryant sweepstakes. *


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=1836768 

and now back to *all jamal all the time. *

:grinning:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, this is true, but Thorn has said a couple times that he can only keep Kenyon or Kidd, but most likely not both.


Thorn wants both. He has been trying to trade Kittles for weeks to free up some salary for KMart. New Jersey will match all offers.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: O.T. hey SD,*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> with the market going crazy you getting nervous about our bet on stephen jackson ?


Not really.

Because nobody is crazy about Stephen Jackson. What teams will offer him more than the MLE?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Thorn wants both. He has been trying to trade Kittles for weeks to free up some salary for KMart. New Jersey will match all offers.


i read somewhere that they were trying to trade kittles for kendrick brown a resigned eric williams and wagner...great deal for the nets if they can make it.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i read somewhere that they were trying to trade kittles for kendrick brown a resigned eric williams and wagner...great deal for the nets if they can make it.


Agreed. happyG, you're an East coast guy.... any inclination that Thorn wouldn't match a max deal from Denver/Atlanta for KMart?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: O.T. hey SD,*



> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Not really.
> ...


darn , 

well i think in the end the hawks will in spite of all the swingman draft picks because only one of them is a viable option for starters minutes next year(childress)...with the recent rumored signings the spurs dont look like they are in the running anymore.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

trade 

crawford
robinson
williams

for

mutombo
harrington
amaechi
trybanski
williams
(draft pick/if needed to fit the cap)


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: O.T. hey SD,*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> darn ,
> ...


Yup. Atlanta could be looking at 19M to spend and some of that might get thrown at SJax. Ron Mercer part 2?  Spurs got Ginobili. Utah went crazy. Denver will look at Kobe, Barry and Hassell (in that order) for their guards.

If he gets more than the MLE, I'm good for the offer happyG. Heck I spend $10 on a watered down drink at craphole drinking spots in the city. No biggie. Just be ready to choose a super cool avatar.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

I agree pax is doing his job as a GM..What I dont understand is why he doesnt put his best offer to Jamal on the table.

Clearly Pax has given every indication that he would match any MLE offers.But that is vastly different than voluntarily offering JC the MLE on your own doing,as opposed to matching

Or does Pax feel JC isnt worth that kind of money,which is what it appears


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Agreed. happyG, you're an East coast guy.... any inclination that Thorn wouldn't match a max deal from Denver/Atlanta for KMart?


supposedly thorn pulled a mini power play with all the talk of fiscal restraint that if he wasn't going to be able to field a good team he was just going to fulfill his contract and not come back for the 2005-06 season because he has 1 year remaining on his deal.

personally i love the job thorn has done there and since all he wants is to keep the core intact or at the worst keep RJ and martin i dont see why they wont let him.so i say yeah he'll match any max dea lfrom another team and then probably try to trade kidd before the season , if they get the prroposed kittles deal they may not though, because you need a big pg to play alongside wagner and let him defend pgs , of which kidd has a lot of trouble doing nowadays anyway.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>toros_locos</b>!
> trade
> 
> crawford
> ...


amaechi was waived in jan.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Good job, Pax. You've done in one season what it took Krause a decade to do - earn the reputation of being a GM nobody wants to sign with.


Pax is doing exactly what he shoud do. Test the market. It appears nobody in this league desires a one-sided combo guard. 

There's a big difference between JK and Pax. JK chased away the greatest and Pax is testing the market. What has JC accomplished in this league??? Do you really think that the superstars in this league care about sniveling JC and his agent? Who has said they wouldn't sign with Bulls b/c of Pax. They don't come b/c of the crap team here. In time, Pax will remedy this. You will eat your words.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

hot off the hot list..


mr. goodwin, with his latest musings, has taken Jamal's case to the airwaves...just saw a bit about it on espn - so they picked it up.

mentioned knicks and MIAMI as possible trade partners.

dialing it up to ELEVEN. this is the first time i've seen it on tv.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

There's a topic on Realgm (haven't seen one here yet) about Insider's rumors from today, which included:
JC/JYD for C. Butler/Jones

Hinging on the Shaq deal.


Personally I don't know if Miami would do it, but I have heard they've wanted to get rid of Jones' contract.
I'd do it from the Bulls stand point.
Jones has a big contract, but he's at least still contributing.


Edit: Whoops, I see Superdave ran down the Insider news in the other thread. It also includes E-Rob, so better still.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> There's a topic on Realgm (haven't seen one here yet) about Insider's rumors from today, which included:
> JC/JYD for C. Butler/Jones
> 
> ...


Man, Jones has an absolutely horrendous countract. I think they'd have to take more than just JYD and ERob for me to consider it.

Throw Davis in there instead of JYD. Although JYD sucks, Davis is older and makes another $7M or so. I'm not sure the Heat can send enough salary back to make it work though... maybe as part of the Shaq deal?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> There's a topic on Realgm (haven't seen one here yet) about Insider's rumors from today, which included:
> JC/JYD for C. Butler/Jones
> 
> ...


Jones is a big contract with 3?? years left - but I'd still do it.

we might even make the playoffs with that deal (and make the Suns pick lower than 7th )

Kirk/Pargo/Duhon
Jones/Gordon
Caron/Deng
TC/Austin
EC/AD

kinda deep imo


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I do this in a heartbeat. Jones was still able to put up 17 ppg, play defense, and drain the three ball at a 37% clip. Not to mention he was able to play 30+ mpg and 81 games last season.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>play hard</b>!
> This is plain and simple. JC is just not garnering the interest of other teams. Goodwin can say all day long that 8 teams have shown interest but how many visits has JC gone on - ZERO. Teams are not interested (major interest that is) up to this point and I think Pax is playing this perfectly.


That's because Jamal......isn't that good lol. Who the hell wants a gunner who shoots 38% and plays little defense for a team that can't win 30 games.

And btw if Pax does that deal with the Knicks he's GM of the year. He'd be trading:

1. The biggest cancer in the universe
2. A guy with 89 years left on his contract who would rather be in Toronto
3. A 38% SG who plays little D and who would jet faster than you could spell "jet" if he got an offer for 8 million

FOR

1. A solid college PG on a rookie contract who could basically park it on the bench for that money
2. A younger backup PF with one year left on his contract
3. A guy in Anderson who, while he may have three years left, and while he isn't who he once was, is WAY better than Williams or Robinson at this point


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Bulls Trade* Crawford, ERob, JYD, Pippen
*Bulls Get* Deavean George, Eddie Jones, Udonis Haslem

*Heat Trade* Jones Grant, Odom, Butler, Haslem
*Heat Get* Shaq, Crawford, JYD

*Lakers Trade* Shaq, George
*Lakers Get* Odom, Butler, Grant, ERob, Pippen

That trade should work under the rules, and I'd probably accept it if I was the Bulls, although I full expect Eddie Jones to completely fall apart before his contract is up


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Good job, Pax. You've done in one season what it took Krause a decade to do - earn the reputation of being a GM nobody wants to sign with.


Dabullz...consult Chi SunTimes 7-10-04....I guess your eating crow now. I'd leave a link, but you prolly already know the Truth.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> 
> Dabullz...consult Chi SunTimes 7-10-04....I guess your eating crow now. I'd leave a link, but you prolly already know the Truth.


Right. And Brutus was Caesar's best friend, too.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Right. And Brutus was Caesar's best friend, too.


LOL

Zing!


----------

