# Is it vital that we resign Crawford???



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

I don't think so. Maybe if we had him as our starting PG but I don't see him as a SG anymore. He seems to struggle against better defenders. If we didn't resign him we would have a huge gap at SG right? I don't think so if Pax does the right things. There have been roomers about sending Tyson and or our pick with fillers for players such as Ray Allen, Caron Butler, Paul Pierce. If we could land one of those in a trade and pair them along side Stephen Jackson who would could sign for the MLE, do we really need Crawford? No, IMO. I would love to land Caron for Tyson strait up cause we would be adding a scorer. He knows how to score and will average well into the twenties in a couple years. Paired along Stephen Jackson and Kirk Hinrich, we would be one of the biggest if not the biggest backcourt in the leauge. Kirk 6'3, SJax 6'8, Butler 6'9. That would cause a lot of match up problems for opposing teams. We do loose outside shooting, but I figure we could sign Wesely Person for the vet's minimum, and bring him off the bench at SG. We still have our pick, so hopefully we could take Okafor. If not we should trade down for a quality PF/C that is a good shot blocker and a lower pick and take Luke Jackson incase Caron is a bust. Even if we did resign Jamal, he most likely wouldn't be a starter, and I don't see him wanting to come off the bench. I remember when he whined when Cartwright started Hinrich over him at first. So is it really vital to our team that we resign Crawford???


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Pass the pipe...

I'm sure you would love it, but Miami would have to love it too, isn't that a shame?

Caron for Tyson wouldn't happen even in Live or 2K4...


----------



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

And why wouldn't it happen?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>vince19</b>!
> I remember when he whined when Cartwright started Hinrich over him at first. So is it really vital to our team that we resign Crawford???


I don't. I remember him and Rose whining about being benched. Well Rose whining about being benched, and Crawford whining about being made the scapegoat.

Probably the larger question is, why would you pay Crawford more than Stephen Jackson, just to bring him off the bench behind Hinrich and Jackson?

I still don't understand why Stephen Jackson is going to come to the Bulls out of all the teams in the league he could go to. But then again, I didn't understand why he took less money to play for the Hawks over the spurs.

As far as the point of this thread...um yeah it's probably not vital to resign Crawford if we got Caron Butler and Stephen Jackson. But no one likes to see yet another lottery pick leave for nothing.

One thing I do find funny, is how shifty Jamal's position has been this year. It seems every month or so someone says he can't be a point guard, or that he can't be a shooting guard when he has played both this year usually over the course of one game.

That said. I do think his future is at the point somewhere. That's what he'll get his money this summer to do.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>vince19</b>!
> And why wouldn't it happen?



That's what I'd like to know. Chandler has had a horrible year but Butler's season hasn't been very good either. Both players have injury problems and Miami is in need for a big man.

I think Odom is better at the 3 than what he's playing now. Brian Grant as your center? I think Miami would be interested in a Chandler for Butler swap.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

You guys haven't seen Caron play, earlier in the season I think this deal gets done before you can finish getting it out of your mouth...

If you've only seen Caron this year 1 time, our last game against them last week should have been enough to explain to you why Tyson for Caron isn't a slam dunk.

I won't speak anymore about it, go to the Heat board and ask for Caron and we'll give them Tyson, (if it works out straight up like that), and see what kind of response you get.

In fact, forget it, I'll do it...


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> You guys haven't seen Caron play, earlier in the season I think this deal gets done before you can finish getting it out of your mouth...
> 
> If you've only seen Caron this year 1 time, our last game against them last week should have been enough to explain to you why Tyson for Caron isn't a slam dunk.
> ...



Other than that monster game against the Bulls in which Odom didn't play, Butler's stats haven't been all that great.

He's been much better, I'll give you that. But it's not like Butler has played himself out of a potential Butler for Chandler swap.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GEFBOGIE #17</b>!
> To me Caron is our sf of the future, while Chandler has not proven anything yet to me, especially with the way caron has been playing I would say this might be the worst trade in heat history-IMO


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

And the Heat could really use Chandler just to balance the floor some. Actually having a 7 footer on the floor would be nice. If Chandler bulked up some more he could be a center.

Chandler
Haslem
Odom
Jones
Wade

might be nice.

And as far as injury risk. I think both guys are risky for both teams. If anything, Caron's knees are more worrisome than Chandler's back. Though not by much.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

I really don't see the merit in not resigning Crawford. We'd definitely be a better team if we aquired Butler and Jackson, but why not try to keep Crawford along with getting those guys? 

Whether we sign Crawford or not, we're still going to be over the cap, and we still aren't looking at a team that is so good that we should give up one of our better players for nothing. 

I'd understand if Paxson let JC leave in the situation that someone offers him a crazy Arenas type deal. But if its a deal going up to the value that Jason Terry signed for last summer, considering the fact that Pax willingly and (presumably)knowingly took on the big multiyear deals of guys like Antonio Davis and Jerome Williams, it would be a hard pill to swallow seeing the Bulls let him go because of the fact he got offered more than the MLE.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

If you sign him, you're speculating, not investing.

You may go boom, you may go bust.

If he won't be a chemistry or culture problem, why not?

He's not the starter on a championship team, but he could probably help us get from awful to good (provided Pax's other moves go well) before we have to upgrade his position.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Talk about the grass always being greener.

Jamal Crawford is just as good a SG as Jackson with the added bonus that he can spell Kirk at PG. Give Crawford MLE money and use usr MLE something else.


----------



## 2cool4skool (Mar 30, 2003)

What is this guy thinking? Chandler for Butler?! Ridiculous.

But it's a good start. I'd like to see Curry for Butler, and grabbing Okafor (PLEASE!). Oh! That'd be SO sweet! :yes:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> If you sign him, you're speculating, not investing.
> 
> You may go boom, you may go bust.
> ...


john paxson was a starter on 2 championship teams ...are you saying Jc is incapable of reaching the heights of a john paxson?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HEATLUNATIC</b>!
> Carons knee is damn near 100% and next year when he becomes our 3rd scoring option his #'s will be much improved!!!
> 
> Chandler is a beanpole with a bad back!!!
> ...





> Originally posted by <b>wadecaroneddie</b>!
> i was for it in a thread before, but one thing i said was that he would have to be healthy and produce the rest of the year, and obviosuly that hasnt happened with Chandler. With Butler, he is back, and is producing like he did last year for us. I was for it before, but im against it now. Chandler's back and inconsistency is just too much.


----------



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

The fans might not want a Chandler for Caron but Pat Riley probably would. The fact is the Heat need a big man badly. They don't have any shot blockers and they are real undersized. Right now in the eastern conference it isn't making that much of a difference but they won't beat Detroit or Indiana until they get bigger upfront. They probably will make the playoffs, but won't go far. Caron is the odd man out cause Odom naturually plays the same position as him and Odom is better than Caron. If the Heat can get Chandler they can move Grant to PF and Odom to the 3. Pat Riley knows this. Stan Van Gundy knows this. I hate losing Chandler and would love to see him stay as a Bull, but I know this trade makes a lot of sense for both teams. Eddie Jones's name has been rumored and he looks like the oddman out too with Wade, and I would love to get him as well but his contract makes things difficuilt. Bottom line the Chandler for Caron is a good deal for both teams, I think Heat fans overrate Caron because hes had a couple good games.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> john paxson was a starter on 2 championship teams ...are you saying Jc is incapable of reaching the heights of a john paxson?


So far, he hasn't.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> So far, he hasn't.


jonny pax at JC's age avg. 2.9 pts 3.0 shot 44.5 from the field 61.5 from the line 18.2 from 3pt. range...JC has already surpassed the best pax has ever done


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>vince19</b>!
> I don't think so. Maybe if we had him as our starting PG but I don't see him as a SG anymore. He seems to struggle against better defenders. If we didn't resign him we would have a huge gap at SG right? I don't think so if Pax does the right things. There have been roomers about sending Tyson and or our pick with fillers for players such as Ray Allen, Caron Butler, Paul Pierce. If we could land one of those in a trade and pair them along side Stephen Jackson who would could sign for the MLE, do we really need Crawford? No, IMO. I would love to land Caron for Tyson strait up cause we would be adding a scorer. He knows how to score and will average well into the twenties in a couple years. Paired along Stephen Jackson and Kirk Hinrich, we would be one of the biggest if not the biggest backcourt in the leauge. Kirk 6'3, SJax 6'8, Butler 6'9. That would cause a lot of match up problems for opposing teams. We do loose outside shooting, but I figure we could sign Wesely Person for the vet's minimum, and bring him off the bench at SG. We still have our pick, so hopefully we could take Okafor. If not we should trade down for a quality PF/C that is a good shot blocker and a lower pick and take Luke Jackson incase Caron is a bust. Even if we did resign Jamal, he most likely wouldn't be a starter, and I don't see him wanting to come off the bench. I remember when he whined when Cartwright started Hinrich over him at first. So is it really vital to our team that we resign Crawford???



Our options for improving our team this offseason are somewhat limited so I would say if the price was right then resigning him would be vital but it would also depend on what upgrades we could make on the other wing position as well as what salaries we could possibly dump (Jyd,erob) .I think we will learn a lot about how this summer shape up after the expansion draft .


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> jonny pax at JC's age avg. 2.9 pts 3.0 shot 44.5 from the field 61.5 from the line 18.2 from 3pt. range...


How many years of college, how many years in the league and how much playing time did Pax have at Jamals age?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> How many years of college, how many years in the league and how much playing time did Pax have at Jamals age?


is it jamal crawford's fault pax needed to stay in the 8th grade twice ?

of course it is ...to you... even though he wasn't even born yet


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> is it jamal crawford's fault pax needed to stay in the 8th grade twice ?


I rest my case.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I rest my case.


finally....


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

seriously jonny pax was on a nationally ranked powerhouse on notre dame similar to the setting kirk and jay came out of , he played in a lot of big games and was pyhsically mature ...he had no excuses for a 2.9 scoring avg.

while people are resting their case without actually making one because he didn't leave early ...which i doubt he could have really and expected to be drafted in a position to have a decent career ...but ok lets fast forward 2 years when jonny pax avg. a whopping 5.3 pts and 3.7 assists is he the player crawford is today at the age of 26 when he should have been entering his prime?


----------



## kirk_hinrich_rocks! (Apr 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>vince19</b>!
> I don't think so. Maybe if we had him as our starting PG but I don't see him as a SG anymore. He seems to struggle against better defenders. If we didn't resign him we would have a huge gap at SG right? I don't think so if Pax does the right things. There have been roomers about sending Tyson and or our pick with fillers for players such as Ray Allen, Caron Butler, Paul Pierce. If we could land one of those in a trade and pair them along side Stephen Jackson who would could sign for the MLE, do we really need Crawford? No, IMO. I would love to land Caron for Tyson strait up cause we would be adding a scorer. He knows how to score and will average well into the twenties in a couple years. Paired along Stephen Jackson and Kirk Hinrich, we would be one of the biggest if not the biggest backcourt in the leauge. Kirk 6'3, SJax 6'8, Butler 6'9. That would cause a lot of match up problems for opposing teams. We do loose outside shooting, but I figure we could sign Wesely Person for the vet's minimum, and bring him off the bench at SG. We still have our pick, so hopefully we could take Okafor. If not we should trade down for a quality PF/C that is a good shot blocker and a lower pick and take Luke Jackson incase Caron is a bust. Even if we did resign Jamal, he most likely wouldn't be a starter, and I don't see him wanting to come off the bench. I remember when he whined when Cartwright started Hinrich over him at first. So is it really vital to our team that we resign Crawford???




i wholeheartedly disagree, we dont need no more ghetto fabulous hip hoppers on the bulls, we have plenty. jamal needs to go back to raintown


----------



## kirk_hinrich_rocks! (Apr 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> How many years of college, how many years in the league and how much playing time did Pax have at Jamals age?



it dosent matter IMHO, jamal has been here long enough for us to realize what he's worth to us, and it isnt much IMO


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Is it vital we resign Crawford?

we have 22 wins this season. its not like we are g oing to get worse w/o him. We sure as hell havent gotten better with him either.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> Is it vital we resign Crawford?
> 
> we have 22 wins this season. its not like we are g oing to get worse w/o him. We sure as hell havent gotten better with him either.


it is possible to win less than 22 games so yes it ca be much worse


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> it is possible to win less than 22 games so yes it ca be much worse


Agreed...

Despite the fact Rem hates JC so that clouds his reality..

It's obvious he doesn't know JC's been our leading scorer in 35 of 77 games, 11 of 22 wins...

Plus I'll take an educated guess and say he's kept us in at least 8 games that we did lost but were in the game because of him.

That's called a difference maker, without JC we're at least 5 games worse if not more...


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

How are Terry's Hawks doing and Arenas's Wizzer after they signed and paid the big bucks ?

And then you ask yourself is he a guy who has made any real impact or difference since his time here ?

And then there are reasons for this and reasons for that but our management should not be into taking risks anymore and buying into speculation and hope in hyberbole 

Only percentage plays should be the order of the day - so if that means trading down on nominal and subjectively assessed talent levels to try and build a better team that has a better chance at actually winning some games then that is what is need to be done

The original question : Vital ?

No.

Preferred ?

If it can be accommodated and all parties are reasonable and acknowledge certain fundamental realities


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious he doesn't know JC's been our leading scorer in 35 of 77 games, 11 of 22 wins


:laugh: 

Sorry Arenas but this is pretty funny 

Let's assume that Jamal is our biggest producer of offensive opportunity ( the guy that takes the most shots on the team ) 

It tells us at all that only 50% of time he is our leading scorer and that only 30% ( 11 out of 35 ) of that time actually translates to a major contributing factor to a win 

So in other words when Jamal is our leading scorer in 50% of our games we are only going to win 30% of that 50% 

Yee hah !


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I think that speaks more volumes about what is around Jamal than Jamal himself...

Now that's pretty funny


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I think that speaks more volumes about what is around Jamal than Jamal himself...
> 
> Now that's pretty funny


Fair enough

Its not as though we have a legitimate small forward in working productive order 

In fact our entire forward line has been absolutely anaemic


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> How are Terry's Hawks doing and Arenas's Wizzer after they signed and paid the big bucks ?
> 
> And then you ask yourself is he a guy who has made any real impact or difference since his time here ?
> ...



Just a note, Terry signed a very small contract actually for his numbers.. something in the 40 millions, over 6 years. Arenas has been injured alot of this year. I think the wizards have a decent squad with all their players healthy.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> ...


its a better ratio then some others as far as win in games led in scoring ...3 wins in 11 games capt. kirk, 5 out of 19 for curry 1 in 5 for gill yet you find it funny the ratio crawford generates even though its the highest on the team (rose 2 out of 5 is no longer on the bulls )

fyi its 13 games JC led the bulls in scoring out of 22 wins (once tied with curry once with kirk)

so what does this means boys and girls , well it means what was already pretty obvious to most that the bulls do significantly better when crawford does well and when he is the leading scorer the bulls do better than when anyone else leads the bulls


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> its a better ratio then some others as far as win in games led in scoring ...3 wins in 11 games capt. kirk, 5 out of 19 for curry 1 in 5 for gill yet you find it funny the ratio crawford generates even though its the highest on the team (rose 2 out of 5 is no longer on the bulls )
> ...


Good post...

Ace, myself and others here have realized since December that this team goes as JC goes...

I brought up the stats in regards to win, but think of games we lost where we're even in the game because JC was having a big game, most recently look at the Nets home game, and the buzzer beat loss in New Orleans. That's at least another 10 games in there that maybe we had a shot at winning because of his play.

The problem is JC is not Kobe, TMac, or Pierce, he can't carry a team.

If he was on a team as a 3rd, maybe even 4th option, then I would know that team was good and JC would be a better player for it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Good post...
> ...


thats the way the bulls season has gone but its future resides on curry's shoulders, this season to me has shown nothing , i am pretty sure if you just went by the games in which curry plays well and then checked crawford's stats in those games i'm positive they would be higher across the board , the problem is the bulls are in make-up the same as last year in that their shooting guard needs an inside player to help him more effective as when rose was augmented by fizer and then later by curry .Maybe in time the crawford can hold a team on his shoulders consistently but not now thats for sure


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> thats the way the bulls season has gone but its future resides on curry's shoulders, this season to me has shown nothing , i am pretty sure if you just went by the games in which curry plays well and then checked crawford's stats in those games i'm positive they would be higher across the board , the problem is the bulls are in make-up the same as last year in that their shooting guard needs an inside player to help him more effective as when rose was augmented by fizer and then later by curry .Maybe in time the crawford can hold a team on his shoulders consistently but not now thats for sure


This team needs to be built around Curry...

Yet we probably won't have the guy who's best at getting him the ball on the team next season.

Agree with your post, I don't think JC can consistently carry a team, he's not on that level yet.

Right now he would serve better as a 3rd option, a guy you can't key on, but he'd destroy you if you concentrated too hard on the 1st 2 options and he could help out when the 1st 2 options are having off games.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> This team needs to be built around Curry...
> ...


wasnt Curry and Rose and Crawford our 1-2-3 punch? I dont know whats going on here, i just think we are one superstar short of being a good team, I personaly think we have better talent and better coached then alot of teams out there, but i think if you wanna look at the best coached team in basketball its the Jazz its amazing how well they play with almost no star talent.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thebizkit69u</b>!
> 
> 
> wasnt Curry and Rose and Crawford our 1-2-3 punch? I dont know whats going on here, i just think we are one superstar short of being a good team, I personaly think we have better talent and better coached then alot of teams out there, but i think if you wanna look at the best coached team in basketball its the Jazz its amazing how well they play with almost no star talent.


it is amazing but it would be crazy to try to emulate them because they have a star role player in AK-47...the bulls have nothing close to him , that guy is a threat to put of a quadruple double everytime he steps on the court


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> it is amazing but it would be crazy to try to emulate them because they have a star role player in AK-47...the bulls have nothing close to him , that guy is a threat to put of a quadruple double everytime he steps on the court


agreed AK is amazing very very and i mean VERY underated player. Stats dont jump out at you, but hes a poster child for consistency.


----------



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

Out of the 13 wins out of 22 that JC has led us in scoring, who were they against? Who was guarding him? I was at the Bulls/Lakers game on March 13th and when JC had Kobe on him, who couldn't do a thing. I kept hoping JC would step up and make a couple shots but he never did. He can't score with longer stronger defenders on him. He can't score against any above average defender. I agree 100% that JC would do better at the 3rd option, but in my plan, there is no room for him to be that. I don't think he would settle for being a 6th man either. Now if he learns how to drive to the basket, get to the foul line, and get stronger it could be very good for us, but I don't see this happening any time soon.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>vince19</b>!
> Out of the 13 wins out of 22 that JC has led us in scoring, who were they against? Who was guarding him? I was at the Bulls/Lakers game on March 13th and when JC had Kobe on him, who couldn't do a thing. I kept hoping JC would step up and make a couple shots but he never did. He can't score with longer stronger defenders on him. He can't score against any above average defender. I agree 100% that JC would do better at the 3rd option, but in my plan, there is no room for him to be that. I don't think he would settle for being a 6th man either. Now if he learns how to drive to the basket, get to the foul line, and get stronger it could be very good for us, but I don't see this happening any time soon.


jc scored 23 against the lakers and kobe the 1st time they met. so your point goes out the window as a rant.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> jc scored 23 against the lakers and kobe the 1st time they met. so your point goes out the window as a rant.


the second time they met he scored 11, i think the only thing that this shows is that JC need to be more consistent i mean hes very unconsistent for example the last game JC scored 4 points the game before that 24. Now look at the numbers for the month of February 31,13,15,11,27,25,4,8,8,27. Hes at best a larry Hughes clone.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>thebizkit69u</b>!
> 
> 
> the second time they met he scored 11, i think the only thing that this shows is that JC need to be more consistent i mean hes very unconsistent for example the last game JC scored 4 points the game before that 24. Now look at the numbers for the month of February 31,13,15,11,27,25,4,8,8,27. Hes at best a larry Hughes clone.


Ya, Larry Hughes sucks...

 

Your last post was discredited now you want to play the inconsistent card.

All of our players are inconsistent.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I think that we need to accept that Crawford at sg is not a matchup thats gonna be in his favor everynight .

Anytime he matches up against a good post up guard he will have his trouble containing them.But he can get better at that its just some things you learn during the offseason and apply the following season and its somethings you learn during the season and can apply during the games .

Offensively he needs offseason plan involving not only strength training but lots of catch and shoot work .He also needs to scrimmage playing off the ball and learn the game away from the ball and thats not as easy as its sounds .It takes practice and lots of extra work .

Skiles should pull a OK. State and have the Bulls practice in football pads and helmets to toughen them up for contact .


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Ya, Larry Hughes sucks...
> ...


 Did i say Hughes sucks where in my statement i said that Larry Hughes was a bad player? Where in there did i say that at best JC would be a LH clone is a bad thing? Yeah all our players are inconsistent i never said JC was the only one. Since the allstar break there have only been five games where KH's asst numbers where below 5 asst thats pretty consistent for me.


----------



## Wild Wild West (Jun 30, 2003)

To answer original question, no it is not vital, but I believe it is vital that if we don't keep him that we get something of value for him. Also remember his replacement if he leaves is not on the current roster. He might get us a small forward, but then we need to draft or use MLE on a shooting guard. Except for maybe Brent Barry who could we sign with the MLE that would be better?
Sura? Person? etc.?, doesn't sound too good does it? Would we rather use a very early pick for Ben Gordon or Iguodala? Maybe but we have a major hole at SF and if Crawford leaves at SG as well. Management apparently doesn't like the way he plays, but the team is more likely to be a success with him improving to at least an average to above average starter, than in letting him go for nothing or getting a modest contributor in return, which is probably his trade value at the moment.

The team success still depends on the three C's increasing their play and value well beyond what they have shown this season. If they are not the answer then we are years from being average, in essence starting over with one key building block in Hinrich. If they are we have 4 young quality starters, with only one key hole to fill at SF and the ability to fill out the rotation with future picks and MLE's, but not needing to get impact starters with those.


----------



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

> jc scored 23 against the lakers and kobe the 1st time they met. so your point goes out the window as a rant.


Hmmmm...no he didn't. This was way before the trade when he was playing PG. I remember this game. If I an correct he didn't even start this game. Kobe would have been gaurding Jalen. So my point still stands.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Where does Crawford rank among the free agents this summer?

Top ten?

Top 15?


----------



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

Top ten, definetely. He is regarded as the sencond best guard if Kobe decides to become a FA. Atleast I think, that is what I have heard a while back.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>vince19</b>!
> Top ten, definetely. He is regarded as the sencond best guard if Kobe decides to become a FA. Atleast I think, that is what I have heard a while back.


What about Ginobili? Q?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> It's obvious he doesn't know JC's been our leading scorer in 35 of 77 games, 11 of 22 wins...
> 
> ...


You continue to make this point, but I'm not certain it caries the validity with which you attempt to wield it. There is no doubt in my mind that a big game from JC gives us a better chance to be competitive or even get a win. In fact, I'm not so sure this should be limited to JC. But have you analyzed the performance of the rest of the team in these games? As somebody who watches the games and doesn't get wrapped around the back and forth on this board, I'd say JC can count on the usual efforts of his teammates. In this respect I'm saying that its usually been JC or EC being "checked out". So when JC isn't having one of these big games he's been found on the bench many times frequently sitting out most of a half and all of the fourth quarters. This certainly doesn't make things very easy on his teammates to be competitive or pull out a win when their starting shooting guard isn't producing/playing. While theres no need to get into a debate over Skiles handling of JC - because his teammates are without him regardless of the reason, I'm just going to say that I think your numbers are misleading.


----------



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

> What about Ginobili? Q?


I forgot about Ginobili. I guess i just assumed that SA would resign him. Q is more of a foward, and I don't think he is ahead of Crawford anyway.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

On NBA Fastbreak about a week ago they rated Jamal as the 4th top FA this summer...


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> You continue to make this point, but I'm not certain it caries the validity with which you attempt to wield it. There is no doubt in my mind that a big game from JC gives us a better chance to be competitive or even get a win. In fact, I'm not so sure this should be limited to JC. But have you analyzed the performance of the rest of the team in these games? As somebody who watches the games and doesn't get wrapped around the back and forth on this board, I'd say JC can count on the usual efforts of his teammates. In this respect I'm saying that its usually been JC or EC being "checked out". So when JC isn't having one of these big games he's been found on the bench many times frequently sitting out most of a half and all of the fourth quarters. This certainly doesn't make things very easy on his teammates to be competitive or pull out a win when their starting shooting guard isn't producing/playing. While theres no need to get into a debate over Skiles handling of JC - because his teammates are without him regardless of the reason, I'm just going to say that I think your numbers are misleading.


The numbers ARE misleading. How many games have we lost solely because Crawford pulls a 4 for 20 and 1 from 10 from 3 land game (like he did tonight). He is good, but common sense cannot be taught. If your shot is not going down, quit shooting so darn much!!!


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bolts</b>!
> 
> 
> The numbers ARE misleading. How many games have we lost solely because Crawford pulls a 4 for 20 and 1 from 10 from 3 land game (like he did tonight). He is good, but common sense cannot be taught. If your shot is not going down, quit shooting so darn much!!!


I forgot JC plays the games by himself...

Did anyone play well tonight?

Our big 3 shot a combined 29%, yet JC is the only one that had a bad game?


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I forgot JC plays the games by himself...
> ...


Well, you are persistant Arenas. As much as I think you prefer style over substance, and that your opinion is wrong, you stick to your guns.

IF you claim that the Bulls won because of Crawford, it is perfectly acceptable to say that the Bulls lost because of Crawford. Your implication that he has led the Bulls in scoring X number of times is a way of saying that the Bulls won because of Crawford.

What I also find misleading about the whole thing is that to win takes a team effort. IF Crawford takes 20+ shots, he is NOT getting his team involved enough. So, we have four possible situations:
1. He takes most of the shots and misses most of them and we lose. He should bear much of the criticism.
2. He takes most of the shots and misses most of them and we win. Well, other players must have stepped up. He probably should not get the credit. And blame? When we win it should be muted.
3. He takes most of the shots and makes most of them and we win. Well, the Crawfordites all start saying how he is a 1st team NBA'er and strut their stuff. He should get much of the credit.
4. He takes most of the shots and makes most of them and we lose. It is hard to make the call here. Did he take some stupid shots at crunch time or fail to play defense? Did the other players not step up? I don't know.

The thing that has irritated me is when people (you are one of them) always inserts Hinrich in a Crawford discussion and Crawford in a Hinrigh discussion. If I want to complain or praise one of them, I don't want the same tired debate.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I don't think JC is capable of carrying any team, I've said if he were a 3rd/4th option on a team, that would probably be a good team..

Considering the team that he's on...

If he doesn't shoot, who should?

When we're struggling as a team he is really the only guy on the team that can offensively take over the game.

If no one is hitting, I'm willing to let him try to get his shot on...

I also believe our offense is terrible and not designed to where we can really get good looks at the basket and easy baskets, as it is, JC and KH mainly shoot long 2s and 3s, your % is not going to be very good when that is the case.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I don't think JC is capable of carrying any team, I've said if he were a 3rd/4th option on a team, that would probably be a good team..
> 
> Considering the team that he's on...
> ...


I'm glad someone else gets it. I think a lot of posters dislike JC because it's the "en vogue" thing to do. They blame him for being inconsistant, and he is, but thats true of a lot of young players still coming up. A couple of years from now Jamal will be solid as a rock. It's not because Jamal is "stupid", the kid is incredibly bright. It's because he is still a young developing player. In any case, I am sick of defending him to people, ya either get it or ya don't. I am almost positive that when JC goes to another team, IF he goes to another team, he will look a lot better than he does on this weak Chicago team where he is counted on to do things that aren't yet in his repertoire. At that point some of the "haters" will come out and finally admit guys like you and I were right. Better to just wait till then.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Where does Crawford rank among the free agents this summer?
> 
> Top ten?
> ...


I'd say he was probably there but has fallen out. He's not exactly maxing out his value heading into the off-season. :no:


----------



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

> I'm glad someone else gets it. I think a lot of posters dislike JC because it's the "en vogue" thing to do. They blame him for being inconsistant, and he is, but thats true of a lot of young players still coming up. A couple of years from now Jamal will be solid as a rock. It's not because Jamal is "stupid", the kid is incredibly bright. It's because he is still a young developing player. In any case, I am sick of defending him to people, ya either get it or ya don't. I am almost positive that when JC goes to another team, IF he goes to another team, he will look a lot better than he does on this weak Chicago team where he is counted on to do things that aren't yet in his repertoire. At that point some of the "haters" will come out and finally admit guys like you and I were right. Better to just wait till then.


I agree, Jamal probably will look better on another team, as a PG. I think Gilbert Arenas said that teams like tall scoring point gaurds better than skinny shooting gaurds. He will probably do real well with another team if he leaves, kinda like what happened to Miller, Artest, Brand, heck even Hassel and Hoiberg. I'm not a JC hater just because I think we should let him walk, I just don't think he's going to be able to play up to his potential on the Bulls.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

The track record is there...

Guys leave the Bulls and almost immediately become better players...

JC's already pretty good, why wouldn't the trend continue?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> The track record is there...
> 
> Guys leave the Bulls and almost immediately become better players...
> ...


There is a real chance that Jamal goes somewhere else and sucks.

Being a 17 PPG scorer on the Bulls means you can score 17 PPG if you take a lot of shots on a team that has no other option.

When Jamal ends up somewhere else, he may not even be that team's 6th option.

There's also a chance he'll turn into a player we regret giving up on.

There's absolutely no statistical or probable reason to think JC's career path would be anything like the guys you mentioned. In fact, there is a long list of guys who left the Bulls and who stunk it up elsewhere. I'm talking since the dynasty. Why wouldn't THAT trend continue with JC? Hmmmm?

Peace!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>vince19</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmmmm...no he didn't. This was way before the trade when he was playing PG. I remember this game. If I an correct he didn't even start this game. Kobe would have been gaurding Jalen. So my point still stands.


so he lit up payton instead ...everyone knows payton can play defense wit the best of them


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> There is a real chance that Jamal goes somewhere else and sucks.
> ...


outside of mercer i cant remember a player on the bulls as prominent as JC to lack improvement once they moved on ...but the difference is that of all the players who were still improving at the time the moved on (brand , miller artest even hassell) they all got better the moment they were on a different team


----------



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

> so he lit up payton instead ...everyone knows payton can play defense wit the best of them


He didn't exactly light up Payton. But I was saying he has trouble scoring against taller, stronger, longer, bigger and faster shooting gaurds. Payton isn't any of those things. This is why I said I think Jamal would be way better off as a PG. He probably could have been more consistent if he had PG's gaurding him the whole season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> outside of mercer i cant remember a player on the bulls as prominent as JC to lack improvement once they moved on ...but the difference is that of all the players who were still improving at the time the moved on (brand , miller artest even hassell) they all got better the moment they were on a different team


There are prominent players throughout the league who played well on bad teams that were flops when they went elsewhere.

Then there's guys like Pargo who couldn't cut it in the NBA, yet who come to the Bulls and put up BETTER numbers than Jamal.

So there is room for a lot of doubt, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Either sign him and trade him, or don't sign him back at all.

Despite the fact that it's already taken 5 years, Hinrich, Curry and Chandler is a good *start* to re-building the Bulls.

What the Bulls really need is a franchise player. Someone like Ray Allen would fit perfectly in Chicago, but I have no clue what his availability status is.

Maybe Crawford (re-signed) and Chandler for Ray Allen, and a lucky draw of Okafor in the draft could turn this team around?

Crawford and Hinrich just won't be a successful backcourt, one of them has to go. Hinrich is the better leader and smarter player IMO, so it has to be Crawford that's leaving. Furthermore, if the Bulls don't intend on trading Chandler or Curry, there is no way that they should draft Okafor. If they want to keep both of them, they need to fill their biggest hole...the SF spot.


----------



## vince19 (Jan 24, 2004)

> Crawford and Hinrich just won't be a successful backcourt, one of them has to go. Hinrich is the better leader and smarter player IMO, so it has to be Crawford that's leaving. Furthermore, if the Bulls don't intend on trading Chandler or Curry, there is no way that they should draft Okafor. If they want to keep both of them, they need to fill their biggest hole...the SF spot.


Exactly. JC and Hinrich isn't a good combination and one of them has to go. It sure isn't Hinrich.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> There are prominent players throughout the league who played well on bad teams that were flops when they went elsewhere.
> ...


there is room for doubt , not alot though because i am pretty sure the team if not the bulls would sign him with the intention of fitting him in somewhere and if it is the bulls that resigns him he is playing for a team he knows pretty well and for a team that knows him well ,this is of course barring injury. From what i've seen with crawford he plays better and more efficiently with more support, be it either curry, or rose or marshall, fizer whomever , in todays game crawford had 50 but curry also had 25 and 12 thats a good bit of help inside and someone to ease the pressure off of him so he can relax a bit


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> there is room for doubt , not alot though because i am pretty sure the team if not the bulls would sign him with the intention of fitting him in somewhere and if it is the bulls that resigns him he is playing for a team he knows pretty well and for a team that knows him well ,this is of course barring injury. From what i've seen with crawford he plays better and more efficiently with more support, be it either curry, or rose or marshall, fizer whomever , in todays game crawford had 50 but curry also had 25 and 12 thats a good bit of help inside and someone to ease the pressure off of him so he can relax a bit


Andre Miller was one hellofa player before he was traded to the Clips. I think the Clips absolutely had a need of a PG of Miller's caliber. We both know how that failed.

Similarly, Arenas didn't exactly play the same kind of role for the Wiz as he did for the Warriors. He put up some good numbers, but the Wiz had a pretty bad year...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Andre Miller was one hellofa player before he was traded to the Clips. I think the Clips absolutely had a need of a PG of Miller's caliber. We both know how that failed.
> ...


with miller in clipperland he failed because he simply couldn't share the ball with lamar , both need to playmake to be most effective and they couldn't make it work. Arenas needs more players around him , wash. stack was hurt all year but i get your point a move doesn't always work out , but look at miller this year when he got to choose where he goes and his game came back


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> with miller in clipperland he failed because he simply couldn't share the ball with lamar , both need to playmake to be most effective and they couldn't make it work. Arenas needs more players around him , wash. stack was hurt all year but i get your point a move doesn't always work out , but look at miller this year when he got to choose where he goes and his game came back


I'd point out that Jamal has had issues with three straight coaches. What he needs is a coach who'll use an offensive scheme to maximize the players' potential.

Remember, even MJ was not that big a deal for North Carolina in their system.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

.


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Remember, even MJ was not that big a deal for North Carolina in their system.


Are you meaning that MJ wasn't that good in Carolina's system?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you meaning that MJ wasn't that good in Carolina's system?


Yep.

He was like 3rd option on that team. When he was drafted by the Bulls, Rod Thorn didn't think MJ was going to be anywhere near as good as he turned out.

"We wish Jordan were 7-feet, but he isn't. There just wasn't a center available. What can you do? Jordan isn't going to turn this franchise around. I wouldn't ask him to. He's a very good offensive player, but not an overpowering offensive player."
Rod Thorn, then Bulls general manager, after selecting Jordan in the 1984 NBA Draft (Chicago Tribune, June 20, 1984)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd point out that Jamal has had issues with three straight coaches. What he needs is a coach who'll use an offensive scheme to maximize the players' potential.
> ...


as far as problems with his coach so has curry , but what you consider problems i pretty much dont , He wasn't better than el-amin or drew in his 1st year so why should he have played ? I never thought so with Cartwright his big problem was the marketing push for Jay will but he ended cartwrigts tenure as the bulls starting pg and skiles he was moved to sg but was installed as its go to player , whats coach 4 gonna go make him an all star. Coach 5 put him in the hall of fame ? i wish all the bulls young core moved up through the ranks with the coaching changes and their "problems"

MJ was the player of the year in the dean smith sys. so I would call him a big deal


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep.
> ...


Yeah I know Thorn said that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure MJ was an All-American and, I think, National Player of the Year his junior year. Yeah his freshman/sophomore year his might've been the third option, but his junior year he was definitely the first. Yeah he didn't average 30 a game but not many people in college do if there are other capable players on the team.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep.
> ...


Jordon was the number one option for NC. And he was the college player of the year. And he was number one option for the olympic team that summer.

Thorn was just covering his butt.


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

Yeah that's what I thought about MJ.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Jordon was the number one option for NC. And he was the college player of the year. And he was number one option for the olympic team that summer.
> ...


He was third option on the championship team.

His career and best single season stats gave little indication he'd be considered by many to be the greatest NBA player ever, or perennial NBA leading scorer. 

For example, his best single season scoring average was ~20 PPG. Antawn Jamison, who I've mentioned a bit on this board, averaged 22.2 PPG in 1998, and he's not led the league in scoring yet.

David Thompson averaged 29.9 PPG his senior season at NC State. He looked like a guy who'd lead the NBA in scoring and he was 4th in the NBA in scoring in his 1st NBA season, and was in a very close statistical tie (technically 2nd) his 2nd season. Note: he played one season in the ABA, finishing third in scoring as an actual rookie.

Jordan was no Pistol Pete in college (Pistol averaged about 45PPG for his collegiate career). 

Thorn clearly had no reason to expect Jordan to become the player he was, or even have as good a rookie season as he did - until he saw him in a Bulls uniform in practice. Olajuwan was absolutely the big prize in the 84 draft, and Bowie was pretty much a concensus #2 pick ahead of Jordan.


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

Yeah but the way you stated it, it implied that Jordan was merely an average player in the Dean Smith system. 20 ppg, All-American, and NPOY is definitely above average.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

The only person who could stop Jordan in college was Dean Smith.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> Yeah but the way you stated it, it implied that Jordan was merely an average player in the Dean Smith system. 20 ppg, All-American, and NPOY is definitely above average.


No, the way I stated it, the Dean Smith system did not showcase Jordan for what he truly was. 

In the NBA, Jordan was a prolific scorer, just about always 1st in the entire NBA in scoring. He scored 1.5x as much as Pip, a 50 best player in his own right.

At UNC, Jordan scored just 2 PPG more than Sam Perkins (who was drafted #4, right after Jordan), so it looks to me like Jordan wasn't THE man on the team, but rather they shared the ball. This is the same Jordan who was scoring 63 points in a playoff game against Bird, Parrish, McHale, et al, just a few months later.

You'd think if he could make those great Celitcs look like statues (which he did!), he could do the same to college teams, most of those players not even good enough to be pro. HE DID NOT LOOK THAT GOOD IN DEAN SMITH'S SYSTEM. That's not to disparage Smith's system in any way, FWIW.

You'd also think that with teammates like Perkins, and Brad Daugherty, UNC would have dominated the NCAA. You'd think that the NBA Jordan teamed with a bunch of nobodies would dominate...

If Thorn had said, "we're so happy to get Jordan because we think he's going to be the next greatest player to Wilt," people would have thought him nuts. 

In retrospect, it looks to me like the Bulls traded Theus and needed a guy like Jordan to replace him. Almost like we drafted Kirk to replace JWill (well, let's just say we had a need at PG or SG).


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Thorn clearly had no reason to expect Jordan to become the player he was, or even have as good a rookie season as he did - until he saw him in a Bulls uniform in practice. Olajuwan was absolutely the big prize in the 84 draft, and Bowie was pretty much a concensus #2 pick ahead of Jordan.


Wrong again....

In Playing for Keeps by David Halberstam, it says that Thorn and the Bulls chief scout Thiabult wanted Jordan and hoped Portland would select Bowie,

"I am, Thorn decided, watching a different kind of playiner [in Jordan] than anything I've seen before.... [The Bulls] were going to draft a great player."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Wrong again....
> ...


http://www.nba.com/allaccess/gms_favoritedrafts.html

ROD THORN, Nets President and General Manager

<I>Thorn spent 1978-85 as Chicago Bulls GM. He has been Nets GM since 2000</I>

<FONT SIZE=+1>Thorn's favorite pick:</FONT>

"Michael Jordan" (Chicago Bulls, 1984, first round, No. 3 overall)

<FONT SIZE=+1>Did he have his sights set on Jordan all along?</FONT>

"Well, yes, I knew he would be available. Houston was going to take [Hakeem] Olajuwon, and if Sam Bowie passed a physical, Portland said they would draft him. So, unless there was some last-minute change."

<FONT SIZE=+1>What was the atmosphere in the draft room? </FONT>

<FONT COLOR=ff0000><B>"We were extremely happy to get Michael. I couldn't tell you that I had the prescience to tell you that he was going to be what he turned out to be. We thought he would be a very good NBA player. It wasn't until we saw him play did we know."</B></FONT>


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Thank you, sir. May I have another?

(From animal house)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

In Playing for Keeps by David Halberstam again...

p. 106

"Billy Cunningham, the coach of the 76ers and a Tar Heel true and blue wanted [Jordan] badly. The 76ers were to pick fith, and as the draft approached Cunningham was trying despertely to move up, willing, other general managers believed, to trade the talented Andrew Toney to get a higher pick. 'But it never came to how much we would give up,' Cunningham said years later, 'because *Rod Thorn knew exactly what he had in Michael."*

So to recap, MJ was a stud in college, player of the year, madly sought after in the draft and Thorn wanted him very, very badly.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Thank you, sir. May I have another?
> 
> (From animal house)


No need to thank me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> In Playing for Keeps by David Halberstam again...
> 
> p. 106
> ...


Amazing how people talk up Jordan after he's been so great for so long, eh?

I don't see why Thorn is covering his arse retroactively 20 years.

I also don't see why Jordan would fall to #3 in the draft if people knew how great he was going to be.

In retrospect, and with full hindsight, if I were the Rockets, I'd STILL have taken Olajuwan. He was the real deal at center, which is most desirable. A career ending (effectively) injury to Ralph Sampson may well have prevented Houston from winning several titles. As it is, they did win two, back to back, with Hakeem.

The Bowie pick is one that I'll never understand. Everybody raved about him from his high school days through college. I don't remember seeing him play in college, though, because his leg was always in a cast. His college days (and Hakeem's) were a clear indication of what a team could expect if they drafted him.

Peace!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

And on draft day, Paxson said that Kirk would be a nice backup for Crawford. 

Do you really believe he was completely honest in his assessment?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> So to recap, MJ was a stud in college, player of the year, madly sought after in the draft and Thorn wanted him very, very badly.


I agree with this, though he was nowhere near the stud in college that Hakeem was, that David Thompson was, that Pistol Pete was, that James Worthy was, that Sampson was, that Shaq was, that Kareem was, that Walton was, that David Robinson was, etc. Heck, I don't think he was the stud, coming into the draft, that Goose Givens was.

Just to put things in perspective, here's a recent player who had a equal/better resume than Jordan:

Wooden National Player of the Year
Naismith National Player of the Year
NABC National Player of the Year
Sporting News Player of the Year
AP National Player of the Year
Scripps-Howard National Player of the Year
First Team AP All-America
ACC Male Athelete of the YEar
ACC Player of the year
ACC First Team
Member US Olympic Gold Medal Team
(Outscored Jordan by about 2 PPG as a senior)
ACC Top 50 Male Athletes of ALl Time
ACC Top 50 Players of All Time
Drafted #3 in the first round, like Jordan

I'm sure you know who this is. Now explain how anyone could know Jordan would turn out better than this guy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> And on draft day, Paxson said that Kirk would be a nice backup for Crawford.
> 
> Do you really believe he was completely honest in his assessment?


I'm quoting Thorn on (about) draft day last year. I believe Thorn has no reason to be dishonest at this point in time.

Maybe when he was in the same position Pax was in (just after drafting Jordan), it might be doubtful.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm quoting Thorn on (about) draft day last year. I believe Thorn has no reason to be dishonest at this point in time.


The first quote when Thorn almost apologized for not getting a big man is from when Jordan was drafted.

So it's an identical situation to Pax's Kirk quote.

The second quote is no big deal in my mind. Thorn just said that MJ turned out to be better than the Bulls expected.  Considering MJ is now considered the greatest of all time, how could this not be the case? 

For his size MJ had as storied an NCAA career as anyone whether or not someone averaged 2ppg more than him or not. 

Back to what I think your point is. Saying that Craw will turn out to be a better player than expectations b/c MJ turned out to be the greatest of all time instead of "just a great player" is a real stretch. That dog don't hunt.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> The first quote when Thorn almost apologized for not getting a big man is from when Jordan was drafted.
> ...


You still have it wrong ;-)



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> There is a real chance that Jamal goes somewhere else and sucks.
> ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd point out that Jamal has had issues with three straight coaches. What he needs is a coach who'll use an offensive scheme to maximize the players' potential.
> ...





> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> You still have it wrong...


Wrong? Maybe in talking basketball with you.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

If I were Jamal, I'd beg the organization not to re-sign me.

Hear me out:

Chicago is a great place to be a professional athlete. But in his time here, Jamal has never, not even this season, been given 100% freedom of doubt to play his game and be his own player.

If I were him, I'd be scared to death that they would sign me and then trade for someone and sit me on the bench as their backup.

No...to be completely free, to have a new fresh start...I'd want to start over somewhere new.

My first questions of GM's wouldn't be about money---it would be about my talent and skill and how they think I'd fit in.

I just don't think the organization has earned any credibility in the guys eyes. He should take everything they say to him with a grain of salt.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now now. No need to be frustrated.

I stand by what I wrote, and provided quite a bit of data to support my view.


Peace!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I stand by what I wrote, and provided quite a bit of data to support my view.


I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Peace!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> If I were Jamal, I'd beg the organization not to re-sign me.
> 
> Hear me out:
> ...



And youre 100% correct  

If the Bulls of the last 6 years are the only organization youve done business with you owe it to yourself to find out what the other side(teams) really thinks.


----------

