# Crawford's camp has rejected the trade - for now



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

This is from KC Johnson of the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/9312536.htm

CHICAGO - (KRT) - General managers Isiah Thomas and John Paxson have agreed in principle to a six-player trade that would send Bulls Jamal Crawford and Jerome Williams to the Knicks for Dikembe Mutombo, Othella Harrington, Frank Williams and Cezary Trybanski, league sources said.

There's one small problem: Crawford's camp has rejected the trade - for now.

The streamlined version of the trade talks, which have lasted for five weeks and featured countless combinations, calls for Crawford to sign a seven-year, $55 million deal.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Yes, at least we're getting all of the expiring contracts in the deal and NO MOOCHIE!  

Goodwin is probably holding out for a few more million since he probably thought he was getting that 55 million over 6 years, and not 7.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> The streamlined version of the trade talks, which have lasted for five weeks and featured countless combinations, calls for Crawford to sign a seven-year, $55 million deal.
> 
> In previously discussed scenarios, Crawford stood to make that amount in six years and possibly $70 million in seven years. The new figures have given Crawford's camp pause, sources said.



For the record, I didn't read the article before I posted what I just wrote above.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

It appears that if this deal falls through, Crawford will sign for the qualifying offer.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/9312536.htm

A league source said Thomas rejected a proposal to sign an unwanted free agent and include him in the deal as salary-cap ballast so that Crawford's salary could go higher.

There is still guarded optimism on all sides that a deal will get done. The only concern is that Thomas will be put off by Crawford's camp rejecting a nearly done deal.

If the trade collapses, it's almost certain Crawford will play next season for the Bulls at a qualifying offer of $3.5 million and then become an unrestricted free agent.

The Bulls' pitch to re-sign Crawford for six years at $39 million is no longer an option.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> It appears that if this deal falls through, Crawford will sign for the qualifying offer.
> 
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/9312536.htm
> ...


So in Paxson's book, Crawford would become a $3.5M expiring contract (that I don't think he can trade).


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> So in Paxson's book, Crawford would become a $3.5M expiring contract (that I don't think he can trade).


You sure have a Paxson obsession. Get over it.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Camp Crawford = all about the money

Seeing as to what Q and SJax signed for, Jamal would be wise to accept the offer.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

I don't see what they're holding out for. Now they're just being greedy.  I proposed this trade last week and JC ends up making around 50 million over 6 years. Goodwin can hold out for 55 million if he wants, but he doesn't have another offer close to this on the table. I think he'll take 50 million right now over 3.5 and no guarantees next year. That's more than enough for Jamal. He can't make anymore the way this trade is set up anyway. They can add a 7th year but Isiah would have to agree to that. 

It's only a matter of time. It sucks to see Jamal go but Pax stood his ground and got what he wanted out of this.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> If the trade collapses, it's almost certain Crawford will play next season for the Bulls at a qualifying offer of $3.5 million and then become an unrestricted free agent.
> 
> The Bulls' pitch to re-sign Crawford for six years at $39 million is no longer an option.[/color]


Wow, that shows how much Pax wants him OUT!

I really think it's getting about time for the Knicks to pull out of this. They'd be giving up all their expiring contracts, leaving no room for other trades, AND taking back a contract they don't need in JW, AND overpaying Crawford.

Sheet, I'm not even convinced that Crawford will be better than Frank Williams in two or three years.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> You sure have a Paxson obsession. Get over it.


Look, Paxson may as well rescind the offer and make him a UFA now if he doesn't want him.

If I have an obsession, it's with the Bulls actually trying to win ballgames.


----------



## krob (Jul 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> Sheet, I'm not even convinced that Crawford will be better than Frank Williams in two or three years.


Holla that... I agree 100%... they both have all the talent in the world... it comes down to who wants it more...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

what makes you think Frank Williams wants it anymore than Crawford does?

And Dabullz--we couldn't trade Crawford if he accepts the qualfying offer, right?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Suppose the four ending contracts really are worth $4 million combined, but are costing the Bulls $10 million. Also, suppose that JYD is worth a third of his $20 million over the next three seasons. This would imply that the Bulls are saving between $7 and $8 million in this trade.

Given that Crawford is hardly a bargain at the $55 million over seven seasons in this deal, I am starting to have some sympathy for letting Crawford go in this deal. A lot can happen in seven seasons, and if a player doesn't look like a great bargain going in, a team always has to be concerned about the effects of signing a long-term contract will have on a player's drive to get better. Will the player get fat and happy on such a long contract?

It also means that in essence Crawford is costing the Knicks $62 to $63 million over seven seasons in this deal. It is not surprising that Thomas is balking at doing anything more for Crawford.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Doesn't anyone wonder why Crawford was surprised by the size of the contract he was asked to sign? Consider this exerpt from an article in Monday's Tribune:

Agent Aaron Goodwin is working to get the Knicks and Bulls to agree on a streamlined trade that would send his client Jamal Crawford and Jerome Williams to New York for Othella Harrington, Dikembe Mutombo, Frank Williams and Cezary Trybanski, sources said. 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,7822070.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

This deal was public knowledge. Goodwin was pushing this very package. So why didn't Crawford know _exactly_ what his yield would be on this transaction?

Jamal Crawford got played. I don't know if it was Thomas who misled him, or if it was Goodwin (remember, this is Goodwin's deal). Hell, maybe Goodwin and Thomas worked together to put one over on Crawford. But obviously Crawford believed he was going to sign for one amount, but when he saw the contract on paper he was caught by surprise. Somebody must have though they could appease Jamal and get him to sign off anyway because they thought he's be so elated over the chance to play for the Knicks. Guess that person (or persons) was wrong.

As for whether or not the Bulls offer remains on the table, does it really matter? If Crawford is balking at a 7 year $55 million dollar deal he's certainly not going to be interested in Chicago's 6 year $39 million dollar offer. 

Crawford never should have been surprised by the size of the contract he was going to be asked to sign. The fact that he was raises doubts about the integrity and/or competence of either Goodwin or Thomas, or both. If Goodwin put this deal together as the newspaper article says he did, and both teams agreed to it, Crawford's signature on the contract should have been a formality.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Supposing the four ending contracts really are worth $4 million combined, but are costing the Bulls $10 million. Also, suppose that JYD is worth a third of his $20 million over the next three seasons. This would imply that the Bulls are saving between $7 and $8 million in this trade.
> 
> Given that Crawford is hardly a bargain at the $55 million over seven seasons in this deal, I am starting to have some sympathy for letting Crawford go in this deal. A lot can happen in seven seasons, and if a player doesn't look like a great bargain going in, a team always has to be concerned about the effects of signing a long-term contract will have on a player's drive to get better. Will the player get fat and happy on such a long contract?
> ...


Agree

Good points

Given the state of the CBA and impending reform with its associated ubcertainties , I find it mind bogglingly ignorant and uncommercial in the extreme for Camp Crawford to risk the money that is on the table .. to play for the QO and have to negotiate in a bigger grey area next summer - or , risk injury and kiss $50M odd million away 

I'm stunned by the sheer stupidity of it

If Crawford was duped as to tenure of contract what benefit is there for Goodwin and Thomas to play him in the first place

Nonethless if he feels wronged - get over it 

You have $16M more than your nearest offer 

You have $52M at risk 

Sign your contract Jamal .

Be the bigger man 

Hell just be a man period.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Jamal Crawford got played.


I see what you are saying, and you may be right. But that one sentence just bothers the hell out of me. This kid is so greedy.

I think we are seeing, why Paxson doesn't want anything to do with this kid.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Doesn't anyone wonder why Crawford was surprised by the size of the contract he was asked to sign? Consider this exerpt from an article in Monday's Tribune:
> 
> Agent Aaron Goodwin is working to get the Knicks and Bulls to agree on a streamlined trade that would send his client Jamal Crawford and Jerome Williams to New York for Othella Harrington, Dikembe Mutombo, Frank Williams and Cezary Trybanski, sources said.
> ...


If he was told 6yrs 55million and then when he goes to sign its 7 yrs 55 million it would make a huge difference .Does he have a player option? Is it a team option included after any of the years ?Just soo many variables that we dont know about .

Maybe Isiah and Pax agreed on a deal and then sent it to Goodwin with the original amount but with a year added ?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Didn't Crawford say he wanted to go somewhere where he was really wanted? Well, NY finally put a deal on the table the Bulls accepted, and Crawford won't take it? What gives? 

I thought Jamal was going to be happy to escape to Chicago. Now, if he relents,he'll be irritated with NY already.

Good times.

Oh, this HAS to go through now, doesn't it?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> Agree
> 
> Good points
> ...


Also, suppose there is a lockout and a couple week window to sign players like there was after the last lockout. Throw in some animosity because of the negotiations, some owners feeling poorer because of lost revenue during the lockout, and I sure wouldn't leave $55 million on the table.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Also, suppose there is a lockout and a couple week window to sign players like there was after the last lockout. Throw in some animosity because of the negotiations, some owners feeling poorer because of lost revenue during the lockout, and I sure wouldn't leave $55 million on the table.


I know 

I never take things too seriously on this board - I just yack and have a hoot most of the time - but I am deadly serious on this 

I really find this stunning in its idiocy


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

As a Knick fan,I am begging you guys,find another taker for crawford..I have seen enough of JC and Goodwin to last a lifetime..6 years and 55 million isnt enough for him???What the next best offer?3.5 million for one year.If he thinks there is a better deal on the table than what Zeke is offering,go take it...And you better learn the language,cause he is not finding a better deal in America...:upset:


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

hey, FJ, didn't i PM you about your club?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> hey, FJ, didn't i PM you about your club?


No 

But welcome aboard m'boy


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> And Dabullz--we couldn't trade Crawford if he accepts the qualfying offer, right?


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#84

84. When can't a player be traded? Can players be given "no-trade" clauses in their contracts? 

When the player is playing under a one-year contract and will have Larry Bird or Early Bird rights at the end of the contract. Note: This includes first round draft picks following their fourth (option) season, who accept their team's qualifying offer for their fifth season.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> I know
> 
> I never take things too seriously on this board - I just yack and have a hoot most of the time - but I am deadly serious on this
> ...


Suppose Kismet is right and Crawford was played by Isiah and perhaps Goodwin, as well. If that is the case, this may be about more than the money - he may not want to play for Isiah. And he may be at a loss about who to trust.

It is a longshot, but maybe by some miracle Paxson comes out as the guy Crawford trusts in this whole predicament. In that scenario, maybe he can convince Crawford to sign a four or five year contract with a player option, giving Crawford the option of going for bigger money later while still having some security.

A pipe dream for sure. But it was Kismet's post that got me thinking this way.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> If he was told 6yrs 55million and then when he goes to sign its 7 yrs 55 million it would make a huge difference .Does he have a player option? Is it a team option included after any of the years ?Just soo many variables that we dont know about .
> ...


TRUTHHURTS, everything you say may be true. But it doesn't change the fact that Crawford should not have been surprised by the contract he was offered. The fact is this was his agent's deal, not some last second proposal or counter proposal from either team. Crawford's own agent put the packages together, got both teams to sign off on the deal, but can't get his own client to agree to it??? That makes no sense at all. Someone changed the terms of the contract without consulting Crawford. Or someone just flat out lied to Crawford about the financial aspects of the transaction. Either way, this is more than a misunderstanding. There's dishonesty at work here. If not, then the only other factor effecting this deal is the player's greed.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

This deal is gonna get done.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> TRUTHHURTS, everything you say may be true. But it doesn't change the fact that Crawford should not have been surprised by the contract he was offered. The fact is this was his agent's deal, not some last second proposal or counter proposal from either team. Crawford's own agent put the packages together, got both teams to sign off on the deal, but can't get his own client to agree to it??? That makes no sense at all. Someone changed the terms of the contract without consulting Crawfored. Or someone just flat out lied to Crawford about the financial aspects of the transaction. Either way, this is more than a misunderstanding. There's dishonesty at work here. If not, then the only other factor effecting this deal is the player's greed.


Perhaps not straight out dishonesty 

Could be a taken for granted type of situation


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> TRUTHHURTS, everything you say may be true. But it doesn't change the fact that Crawford should not have been surprised by the contract he was offered. The fact is this was his agent's deal, not some last second proposal or counter proposal from either team. Crawford's own agent put the packages together, got both teams to sign off on the deal, but can't get his own client to agree to it??? That makes no sense at all. Someone changed the terms of the contract without consulting Crawfored. Or someone just flat out lied to Crawford about the financial aspects of the transaction. Either way, this is more than a misunderstanding. There's dishonesty at work here. If not, then the only other factor effecting this deal is the player's greed.


Where has it been proven that Goodwin was involved with the latest structure of this deal ?Pax and Isiah couldve easily came to an agreement without Goodwin and Isiah inserted the terms of which he would pay Crawford hoping that they wouldnt notice the 6yr 55mil being changed to add a 7th year.

I would think that Isiah and Goodwin had agreed to a dollar figure to which he could negotiate with pax even without Goodwin present and Goodwin would agree to it if it were under those terms .Now if they never spoke of a 7th year and then Isiah brought back a deal which includes a 7th year in which the amount boosts the deal from 45mil to 50Mil then maybe Goodwin rejected it .It didnt say jamal rejected it but jamals camp and since KC has spoken to jamal several times over the last few weeks and quoted him directly the onlu reason i can think of him not quoting jamal directly would be if Goodwin sent it back.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

I would love to see JC's face expression when paxson and IT broke off the trade. now where is he going to find the 55mil haha. i hope then he signs for the 3.5 and becomes a unrestriced FA next year only to meet a new CB agreement where max years for a contract is only 4-5 years. and he gets injured in the season. and put up some crap numbers.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

More power to JC if he turns down $55M. He is going to have to play mighty well for us next year to show he is worth more money.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> This deal is gonna get done.


I'm with you, johnston. If Crawford got played, and I believe that's exactly what happened, he's still going to realize that you don't walk away from $55 million. The Bulls aren't going to pay him $55 million, I guarrantee it. He hasn't even received an offer from anyone other than the Bulls, and now the Knicks. He'd be out of his mind to walk away from all that money. You wanted appreciation, Jamal? Well you were just offered $55 million worth of appreciation from a team you said you wanted to play for. Whether you got scammed or not, if you don't sign this contract, you're just going to look greedy...and very, very stupid.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

this feels like an attempt to squeeze a lil' more cash from thomas , there obviously must be some wiggle room or it wouldn't make sense to do it at this point outside of getting some other contract perk like an out clause after 3 or so years , and if JC is good enough to warrant him getting more dough than his deal calls for in a few years, its not exactly a bad thing for the knicks around that time because houstons's contract will be up , it will just cost them some more money, but it would be well spent.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Wow! JC was suprised with the amount and said no. 

I think this deal will get done. Someone said you do not walk away from $55 million dollars and what if the same thing happens to him that happened to kandiman? Remember he was offered XXXdollars and said no. Signed the qualifying offer and the next summer, no one bid on him. 

I also heard and do not have link that E-rob was pulled out of the deal because he and Curry are being talke about by Memphis. Curry/Robinson for Swift and Bonzi. I read that they were talking as of last night. Sorry I do not have link.


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

Interting, Goodwin confident deal will get done 
Possibly tommorrow?  
Who knows what the hell to believe.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Suppose Kismet is right and Crawford was played by Isiah and perhaps Goodwin, as well. If that is the case, this may be about more than the money - he may not want to play for Isiah. And he may be at a loss about who to trust.


I think you guys may be getting a little aheqad of yourselves here.

Remember this:

August 3, 2004 -- Bull combo guard Jamal Crawford could become a Knick as soon as today, as Chicago GM John Paxson has made a counter-offer that Knick president Isiah Thomas is expected to accept, according to sources. 

Purportedly this was a Paxson driven offer, and the complexities of the BYC trades are such that Crawford's salary is dependent of the players involved in the trade.

I agree with with Kismet that Crawford's signature should have been a formality in a trade pushed thru by Goodwin... but one from Paxson?

Anyway, I'm not sure who's interest it's in to play Jamal. I'm only halfway through the thread so Ill continue on to see if you guys have cracked that nut.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Published: August 4, 2004. After weeks of negotiating, the Knicks have agreed on a deal to acquire guard Jamal Crawford from the Chicago Bulls, his agent said last night.

"They've come to an agreement as far as players," Crawford's agent, Aaron Goodwin, said. "We're trying to work out details that work out for Jamal. I'm confident we'll have something by tomorrow."

Although the Knicks would be getting the best player in the deal, they are surrendering four expiring contracts, the chips that they had hoped to use in other deals. Crawford, a restricted free agent, must agree to a seven-year, $55 million deal to make the numbers work. 

"I'm very optimistic it's done," Goodwin said. "Unless for some reason New York changes their mind, I think Chicago is on board.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/sports/basketball/04knicks.html

From the NYTimes, no less. Well it sounds like Goodwin and Crawford are talking about what kind of contractual tweaking will need to be done to make Jamal happy. So Goodwin feels confident that its done and it will be wrapped up tomorrow. All I can say is, "Whew, I'm glad that's over."


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> this feels like an attempt to squeeze a lil' more cash from thomas , there obviously must be some wiggle room or it wouldn't make sense to do it at this point outside of getting some other contract perk like an out clause after 3 or so years....


Good point. At this stage of the game they are probably just haggling over whether incentives are built in or if the last year is a player or team option, etc.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I guarantee you Jamal wants an out after his 4th or 5th season and/or IT doesn't want the final year guaranteed.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Let's have a looksee at ****'s CBA FAQ:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#36

36. What if a restricted free agent has no interest in staying with his original team? How can he force the issue? 

If the player is a first-round draft pick who just finished his fourth (option) season, his original team can use their Bird rights to match any offer. For other players, it may be possible for another team to make an offer that the original team cannot match (see question number 35 ).

<B>Most teams won't even bother signing first round picks coming off their fourth season to offer sheets, because it is often a given that the offer will be matched by the original team.</B> So if the player really wants to leave, he can accept his original team's qualifying offer, which constitutes a one-year contract at a scale salary. <B>The player must play with his original team for one more season,</B> but following that season he will be an unrestricted free agent, and can then sign with any other team. For example, Michael Olowokandi accepted the LA Clippers' qualifying offer prior to the 02-03 season. He was then an unrestricted free agent in 2003, and signed with Minnesota

<FONT COLOR=0000ff>So perhaps we can put to rest some of this talk about how Crawford isn't getting any good offers. 

We do have two cases we can look at: QRich who wasn't matched and Boozer who was made a UFA and scored a huge deal. The Boozer deal might be something closer to what Craw could get if he were a UFA right now. Maybe not, but I'd think better than the Bulls' best offer so far.

The Clips were under the cap and the Bulls are over it. The Clips wanted to use their cap space for other purposes than signing their own RFA. They got Kittles, who they like better, and only then did they decide to not match the Suns' offer. In fact, it was looking like the Clips would match the offer right until they got Kittles, and QRich was resigned (not re-signed) to being forced to playing for the Clips for another year.

Bulls have Craw's BIRD rights so they can match any contract he is offered. And being over the cap, they only have luxury tax issues (if there is one) to deal with in considering the size of what they'd match. This put them in the driver seat, and also drove away any potential suitors for Crawford but the Knicks.

The REALITY of the situation is that any team that wants Craw for next year has to deal with Pax for a sign and trade. The reality is that only teams with big expiring contracts (and willing to lose them for Crawford) or teams sufficiently under the cap are in position to deal for Crawford in a sign and trade scenario at this time. To make matters worse for Crawford, only those teams with expiring contracts AND who are willing to take one or more of Pax's big mistake contracts off his hands are invited to the dance.

So Crawford is absolutely being royally screwed by Paxson. If Pax wants to sign him, he can. $55M over 7 years works out to $7.8M per year, which is half a MAX deal (like Rose's or AD's) and (in Kismet's kind of reasoning) not a whole lot more money than Pax was willing to pay JYD or Pip or Krause was willing to pay ERob. 

If Pax doesn't want to sign him, he's got few options to sign and trade him (of Pax's own doing). If he can't find a bigger sucker than Pax has proven to be so far, and I'm talking about someone who'll take our highest priced crap that isn't even expiring deals, then what?

The answer is force Crawford to play for the minimum QO or sign a terrible long-term deal (like the one Pip signed so long ago and kavetched about until it ran out). What happens if Craw signs the QO? Spite. Craw's going to sit on the bench and watch Pargo get more minutes; to drive Craw's value down when he's a UFA.

Get it?

Craw's agent isn't the bozo people think he is. He's done the hard part. He's found the sucker who'll take our crap contracts. IT isn't the fool we'd like to think he is; he's willing to trade his crap for our crap and get Craw for something less than he'd have to pay him as a UFA. Now Craw's camp realizes they're getting into the Pip-shouldn't-have-signed-such-a-long-deal situation and wants to make the best of the situation. Good for them!

Realistically (once more), no deal Paxson apparently has discussed for Crawford is appealing to any of us, and for good reason. 

Like I said earlier, Pax wants cap relief? He can have it right now by rescinding his QO to Crawford. Instant $3.5M in cap relief. And it's the upright thing to do.

Or sign him to that $55M/7 year contract, play the heck out of him for a season, and then trade him for a really good player straight up.

</FONT>


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Like I said earlier, Pax wants cap relief? He can have it right now by rescinding his QO to Crawford. Instant $3.5M in cap relief. And it's the upright thing to do.


Naw... Let's get rid of JYD, too.

p.s. Any uncapped team could have signed JC to a big offer. No way Pax goes $55M for JC.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Naw... Let's get rid of JYD, too.
> ...


Name the uncapped teams (let's see how limited the market really is). And then look at the FAs they were trying to sign.


----------



## elcocinero (Feb 10, 2003)

Doesnt anyone else find it crazy that New York will go over the 100 million dollar payroll mark in the 05/06 season. And they still wont even be that good. (That is if Jamal accepts the 7 year, 55 mil).


2005/06
Allan Houston $19,125,000
Anfernee Hardaway $15,750,000
Stephon Marbury $16,453,125
Tim Thomas $13,975,000
Shandon Anderson $7,900,000
Kurt Thomas $6,620,062
Nazr Mohammed $5,500,000
Moochie Norris $4,200,000	
Mike Sweetney $2,116,920 
Jamal Crawford $6,225,178
Jerome Williams $6,075,000
$103,940,285


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

DB, usually you're a solid poster. this time you're spewing crap.

any team who wanted JC -- "showed him the love," as it were -- could've had him. there were plenty of teams with cap room going into this off-season: Denver, San Antonio, Phoenix, the Clipps, Atlanta, Utah. there were also the other 22 or so who had the MLE. (yeah, i know, Goodwin said that wasn't enough for the Bulls. that still left the rest of the freakin' league out there.)

you say those teams had other priorities? fair enough. but if JC is a superstar-in-waiting, why weren't any of those teams altering their priorities for him? it seems to me it's because they agreed with Paxson's assesment that JC wasn't worth the money either.

you're right that there weren't many RFAs who signed offer sheets, but that didn't stop Kenyon Martin from leveraging a sign-and-trade to Denver, did it? he never signed a sheet -- he just threatened to, and the Nets wanted something for him so they made the deal.

was JC's lack of interest in the marketplace due to his RFA status? it didn't hurt Martin, or Q, did it? Paxson has made it pretty clear that he'd not be willing to match a high-dollar tender to JC. so why wasn't there one? because teams didn't think he was worth it, that's why. the Suns thought enough of Q to try. the Hawks and Nuggets thought enough of Kenyon to try. but no one thought enough of JC to try. hmm...

or Darius Miles, with Portland in major cost-cutting form. maybe because he's inconsistent too? or Stromile Swift, when there's been almost no word out of Memphis whether they'd match or not. maybe because no one knows which Swift will come to their town? 

if this offseason has taught us anything, it's that NBA GMs, by and large, will throw money at holes on their team and cross their fingers that maybe this guy or that will turn into something he's never shown himself to be.

so you want to criticize Pax for _not_ having that mindset and trying to sign guys to sensible deals? wtf?

Paxson can't win with you -- he's damned if he does, he's damned if he doesn't. :sigh:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Thunderspirit, you make some outstanding points. 

I'm not of the belief that we need to do 'the right thing' and just let Jamal walk either. The CBA has been noted in the thread. The QO is quite clear. Pax is no less upright because he's following it. 

Should we do 'the right thing' and waive ERob? We abuse him too. He bares the brunt of our jokes, he sits on the pines, he's unwanted. Should Pax be upright there too and just waive him - and pay him the rest of his $14M?

Sorry, if I'm not having any sympathy for Jamal right now. I agree with the earlier postings - he's got $16M more than the Bulls offered. Take it and live a happy and wealthy life. You're going to the team you seem to really want to play for. You're getting a new start. You're playing for your childhood idol. 

I'm just stunned. What is this kid thinking? Again, I agree with earlier posts. How is his signing not a formality? I have NEVER seen such a screwed up trade from start to finish. 

I found it somewhat peculiar that nobodies really jumped on how this is going to look to NY fans if this does go through (unless I missed it). Just like things that are thought, but not said - this is not the sort of thing you want made public. You quickly deal with the issue if there is one and get it worked out. NY is a pretty tough place to play. I'll bet they'll remember this when he has one of those 'inconsistent' or shall we say very forgettable games.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

If Jamal leaves $55M on the table, maybe we'll be adding Dampier to the Olowokandi examples...



> Free-agent center Erick Dampier will fly to New York tomorrow to meet with the Knicks in hopes of finalizing a sign-and-trade deal with the Warriors or, *barring Golden State's cooperation, agreeing to a one-year contract for the mid-level exception of $4.9 million.*
> 
> *Dampier opted out of the final two years of a seven-year, $48 million deal with the Warriors that would have paid him $8.1 million this season and $8.7 million in 2005-06.*


Ouch.

ESPN


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

Wow there's a lot written already in this thread and I agree, this trade is just ....ed up from start to whatever end it takes. What's Jamal thinking anyway?
There was not much room to deal from the start, Pax told everyone he was going to match any MLE-offers, so he had to get someone in for a SAT. But going to NY to start with was not very clever, b/c it was obvious that NY has not much to offer to us. So we had to include at least one bad contract, to make it worth it. We all saw what happened in the discussions about the trade in the last 6 weeks... No other teams wanted to start any discussions b/c of this and b/c they just don't want to pay JC that much money IMO. And sure JC got played by both sides, it's business after all. If JC had stopped the whole stupid process 4 weeks ago, maybe some other team would have had some interest, by now, all there's left is take this offer and be probably not so very welcome in NY anymore or take the QO and be not so very welcome in Chicago anymore. I just don't get what the purpose of this whole theater is.
If I was the queen of England I would say: I'm NOT amused....


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I don't think JC got played. He got an offer of $55M (overpaid) rather than $39M and got onto a team who wants/needs him.

At that salary it's hard to think NY got a good deal, and all you guys got was moderate cap relief, so you're not thrilled. Thus ultimately I'm not sure any side did better in this than JC and his agent.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> DB, usually you're a solid poster. this time you're spewing crap.
> 
> any team who wanted JC -- "showed him the love," as it were -- could've had him. there were plenty of teams with cap room going into this off-season: Denver, San Antonio, Phoenix, the Clipps, Atlanta, Utah. there were also the other 22 or so who had the MLE. (yeah, i know, Goodwin said that wasn't enough for the Bulls. that still left the rest of the freakin' league out there.)
> ...


Denver, San Antonio, Phoenix, the Clipps, Atlanta, Utah. Those are the teams you named. That's Jamal's (or any RFA's) entire market?

As you pointed out, Denver used its cap space for Kenyon Martin who is an all-star and a member of a team that won its division, and made the finals recently. 

Atlanta is ][ this close to dealing for Walker. I'm not sure how that affects their cap space, but minus Terry, Crawford would be an ideal pickup for them at this point.

Crawford isn't a fit for the Clips in the long run because they either were going to keep QRich or ended up with Kittles AND they already have big guards in Magette and their potential star in draftee Shaun Livingston.

Phoenix gambled on QRich and won, though I pointed out it was expected the Clips would match AND the Clips had cap space to preserve/use. The Suns also signed Nash and already had Joe Johnson, so Craw wasn't that good a fit (neither, really is QRich).

NOTE: the Clips DID the UPRIGHT THING by not matching.

Crawford is a horrible fit for Utah which has a team concept and players that fit it. Same situation with San Antonio, though Craw might make a nice 3rd guard with Parker/Manu.

Denver's guard rotation is already 3 strong.

And please don't count me in the Jamal is going to be a superduperstar club, because I'm not THAT high on the kid. Just given OUR roster and talent level, he's better than we give him credit for.

Also, I do give Paxson credit when it is due. He had a great draft, and he's running an incredibly sound franchise by the $$$. But I want a winner, not a team that is the maximum $$$ producer.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

When this one comes back to bite us in the *** I hope everyone remembers I called it first.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> When this one comes back to bite us in the *** I hope everyone remembers I called it first.


If it works for the better, can we still remember that you called it a horrible move that would come back to bite us?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> If it works for the better, can we still remember that you called it a horrible move that would come back to bite us?


ABSOLUTELY. I hope you do. But I'm right so I'm not worried about it.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> I don't think JC got played. He got an offer of $55M (overpaid) rather than $39M and got onto a team who wants/needs him.
> 
> At that salary it's hard to think NY got a good deal, and all you guys got was moderate cap relief, so you're not thrilled. Thus ultimately I'm not sure any side did better in this than JC and his agent.


We may not know the impact of trading Crawford for a couple of seasons. At this point he's simply not a difference maker. However, he may go on to find his niche in NY the same way that Hassell did in Minnesota. Would that mean the Bulls made a mistake? Not necessarily. Hassell flourished with the Wolves because of who he was surrounded by...Cassell, Sprewell, Garnett. Trent didn't need to score a single point playing with that crew to be effective. In Chicago, however, he was needed to produce at both ends as a SG because the Bulls had no such scoring machines.

Maybe the same thing will happen for Jamal. Maybe he'll excel in an environment where he's surrounded by older, veteran players. Maybe he'll do a terrific job as a complimentary piece. If so, that doesn't mean it was a mistake for the Bulls to have traded him. It might just mean that like Hassell, he was a better fit with his new team than he was with the Bulls.

What do the Bulls get out of this? Oh, the simple answer is cap relief. But lets see what that cap relief can be translated into one or two years from now. Lets see how a less burdensome payroll and additional roster slots at that time effect the Bulls ability to add desireable pieces down the road. This isn't a deal that's going to reveal its benefits to the Bulls immediately. But unfortunately, that won't stop some from passing immediate judgement, lol.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> We may not know the impact of trading Crawford for a couple of seasons. At this point he's simply not a difference maker. However, he may go on to find his niche in NY the same wqay that Hassell did in Minnesota. Would that mean the Bulls made a mistake? Not necessarily. Hassel flourished with the Wolves because of who he was surrounded by...Cassell, Sprewell, Garnett. Trent didn't need to score a single point playing with that crew to be effective. In Chicago, however, he was needed to produce at both ends as a SG because the Bulls had no such scoring machines.
> ...


I think because the Bulls field such a young and incomplete team you could say that X player will play better on (insert team here) than the Bulls because they have better player surrounding them. Maybe the team has better players surrounding player X because they ACTUALLY HOLD ONTO TALENT. SOmething that seems anathema to Bulls management.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> The REALITY of the situation is that any team that wants Craw for next year has to deal with Pax for a sign and trade. *The reality is that only teams with big expiring contracts* (and willing to lose them for Crawford) or teams sufficiently under the cap are in position to deal for Crawford in a sign and trade scenario at this time. To make matters worse for Crawford, only those teams with expiring contracts AND who are willing to take one or more of Pax's big mistake contracts off his hands are invited to the dance.


*DaBullz!*, you are off the mark on this. The reality FOR NEW YORK is that they must send back expiring contracts. I'm sure there are many teams out there who have valuable and talented players Pax would be willing to accept in a trade. New York doesn't happen to be one of those.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Denver, San Antonio, Phoenix, the Clipps, Atlanta, Utah. Those are the teams you named. That's Jamal's (or any RFA's) entire market?
> 
> ...


You've just listed in this argument 14 players who make JCraw unnecessary. And this on six teams. Add to that *Marquis Daniels, Derek Fisher, Brian Cardinal, Keyon Dooling, Fred Hoiberg, Trenton Hassell, Richie Frahm, Rodney Buford, Anthony Peeler, Bruce Bowen, Stephen Jackson, Brent Barry,* and *Jason Hart* (all FA signings already this summer) and you'll see that there were 27 reasons Jamal has not been courted as much as thinks he should have been.

While were talking about reality, let's realize that the REALITY is the Jamal is nowhere near as good as he thinks he is. Would I be happy to have him back? Sure. Do I think it's ridiculous that he thinks he's in some kind of position to make demands about playing time, starting, being featured, being respected? Absolutely!

Fact is, throughout his career Jamal has had problems with every coach he's played under. Whenever an issue comes up, you hear the same old rhetoric "nobody told me" crap or "I don't know what they want from be" garbage that ERob and Eddy like to throw out there, too. Maybe letting Jamal go is a continuation of the purge of players who fail to take personal responsibility for their own shortcomings and constantly complain to the press that they are in the dark about what the team expects from them.

We all know what's expected of them. We should assume, then, that they all should be able to figure it out as well.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wynn!

Craw's problems are:
1) Teams won't make an MLE offer to Jamal because Pax will match, natch. See ****'s FAQ I posted earlier.
2) Teams with cap space are few and Jamal is only a good fit with one of them (I say he's best fit with us, but that's another story).
3) Expiring contracts are not a technical requirement, but one of Pax's fabrication. Pax could take (as you say) a quality player with a big enough (non-expiring) contract to make the S&T/BYC issues work.
4) To take Crawford in S&T from us, Pax is demanding teams take his garbage unexpiring contracts/players in return. This is a HUGE disincentive for anyone to get involved.

New York could trade us Houston or Hardaway, neither have expiring contracts and are large enough to make the BYC issue disapear. Heck, NY was going to trade us Shandon Anderson who's got 3 years left on his Jamal-sized contract (who would you prefer for those 3 years at $8M?)

Let me address point 4 briefly. If Antoine Walker could be had for Jason Terry (and filler), he likely could be had for Jamal at the same contract size. Terry's slightly more productive, but he's 3 years older and 4 inches shorter. The Mavs got back expiring contracts, whereas the Bulls would have demanded they take back AD or JYD+ERob. If Dallas wanted Jamal, they surely don't want AD or JYD+ERob; the deal is killed.

To make matters worse for Jamal, if any team did offer him the MLE (or any contract for that matter), the Bulls could take up to 15 days to match or decline to match. This would put a lot of teams in a bad way, unable to use their MLE (or cap space) for those 15 days.

So again, let's look at the possibilities for Crawford:
1) The bulls want him. So sign him and make him happy already.
2) The bulls don't want him. What is the gain by forcing him to take the QO? Will he get much/any PT for the season (if not, why waste the QO $$$ on him in the first place)?
3) The bulls don't want him, but want to maximize their return for letting him go. We're seeing that there's only one team with all the requisites to make this happen that's willing to take our crap contracts (AD, JYD, ERob). The deal looks terrible from our end, no matter how you spin it.

So what's left?

Rescind the QO and let him go and make do with what we have. The possibilities this way are:
1) Jamal gets no offers at all, so the Bulls can re-sign him at between QO and MLE for long-term.
2) Jamal gets a lesser offer than what the Bulls offer to match and Jamal bolts just to get out of the Bulls' sorry situation.
3) Jamal gets a big offer from someone with cap space.
4) Jamal signs a small/short-term deal with a team that wants him and signs his big deal a year later.
5) Jamal gets a fair market offer and the bulls match and he signs with the Bulls.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> When this one comes back to bite us in the *** I hope everyone remembers I called it first.


Only way it can is if he becomes a superstar...which he can't.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> When this one comes back to bite us in the *** I hope everyone remembers I called it first.


How could we forget?


----------

