# accoring to Insider, Pax wont pay JC more then the mle



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

which means he is gone, either now or this summer. Doesnt make sense to lose him for nothing since many teams will pay him more then the MLE this summer. IF this is true, Pax is playing this stupid. JC is worth far more then the mle and everyone knows it. Its called being cheap folks


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Man, Insider just ripped that from what KC said in the Trib this morning


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

It was mentioned today in the Tribune..

I wonder where K.C got that info from  

Rlucas I'm starting to worry that we might stand pat


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> JC is worth far more then the max and everyone knows it. Its called being cheap folks


:rofl: 


Ok I know that was a typo rlucas but still that is funny to read it like that.


And yeah this is just from what KC said in paper today.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> :rofl:
> ...


i caught that. thanks. Ill edit that out so future readers dont get confused


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> JC is worth far more then the max and everyone knows it.


Ummmm check please! common man hes worth more then the max! what the hell are you smoking! JC is good but hes not a superstar and giving him a max contract would be a terrible mistake.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: accoring to Insider, Pax wont pay JC more then the mle*



> Originally posted by <b>thebizkit69u</b>!
> 
> 
> Ummmm check please! common man hes worth more then the max! what the hell are you smoking! JC is good but hes not a superstar and giving him a max contract would be a terrible mistake.


typo. relax


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: accoring to Insider, Pax wont pay JC more then the mle*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> typo. relax


or freudian slip??


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't think Chad Ford's mind reading equipment is functioning properly. Surely to GOD Paxson think JC is worth more than the MLE. If not, be prepared for a very long tenure under Pax, or, maybe a very SHORT tenure.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

How can you let information like this get leaked? Doesn't this impede your ability to get the best deal possible?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

He is worth more than MLE. If I were Paxson I would give him anything at or below 6 yrs, 42 million. Anything over that don't match.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

If Paxson does offer JC no more than the MLE, please follow these instructions so that you are prepared.





In your best chanting voice,

FIRE PAXSON 
clap, clap, clap clap clap
FIRE PAXSON 
clap, clap, clap clap clap

Repeat until Paxson is in fact fired.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Has John Paxson been quoted as stating this? Please, RLucas, tell me that you've actually heard Paxson saying this. Can you even give me a news source that _quotes_ Pax as stating this? Maybe, just maybe, it's pure speculation. Nawwwwwwww. That'd be too much. Actually taking something at face value. It's soooooo much more entertaining to read something into a completely subjective statement as KC Johnsons _opinion_ as to what Pax may or may not do during the offseason in regards to Crawford.

I hope you understand the reason KC Johnson doesn't quote Pax is because he can't. Know why? It's never been said.

The only things I've ever seen Pax *quoted* as saying is that the Bulls have the right to match whatever offer Crawford is given. So, go ahead and take as gospel the opinion of a journalist who has nothing to quote and only has supposition. I'll go ahead and take the word of the man himself as he's been quoted many times. 

Crawford may well walk with the Bulls getting nothing in return. Hell, he might even sign a mid-level +1$ deal somewhere and Pax not match it. Until that even occurs though, I'm not about to go off half-cocked and condemn a man for something he hasn't even done and has never been QUOTED as doing.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Has John Paxson been quoted as stating this? Please, RLucas, tell me that you've actually heard Paxson saying this. Can you even give me a news source that _quotes_ Pax as stating this? Maybe, just maybe, it's pure speculation. Nawwwwwwww. That'd be too much. Actually taking something at face value. It's soooooo much more entertaining to read something into a completely subjective statement as KC Johnsons _opinion_ as to what Pax may or may not do during the offseason in regards to Crawford.
> 
> I hope you understand the reason KC Johnson doesn't quote Pax is because he can't. Know why? It's never been said.
> ...


jesus christ. relax. Its in Insider and the Chicago Tribune. Dont shoot the messenger. so dont direct comments at me since I am just passing along info


----------



## Crawscrew (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> He is worth more than MLE. If I were Paxson I would give him anything at or below 6 yrs, 42 million. Anything over that don't match.


That's exactly what I was thinking. If some team wants to invest 8-10 million in JC than he's gone. But I think he has showed enough progress to the point where 6 yrs at 42 million, might not be that bad. I have a feeling that some team will offer him more, but he will take less to stay wit the bulls, I have no reason to back up this thought, just a gut feeling.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I would like to hear C Blizzy and his thoughts on Crawfords value. He seems to be a very objective guy.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Has John Paxson been quoted as stating this? Please, RLucas, tell me that you've actually heard Paxson saying this. Can you even give me a news source that _quotes_ Pax as stating this? Maybe, just maybe, it's pure speculation. Nawwwwwwww. That'd be too much. Actually taking something at face value. It's soooooo much more entertaining to read something into a completely subjective statement as KC Johnsons _opinion_ as to what Pax may or may not do during the offseason in regards to Crawford.
> 
> I hope you understand the reason KC Johnson doesn't quote Pax is because he can't. Know why? It's never been said.
> ...


I echo and applaud your remarks, Flash. And while we're on the subject, let me add this little bit of an observation: there are far fewer leaks emminating from Berto under Paxson's watch than there were during Krause's regime. Krause may have been known as the Sleuth. But the fact is he didn't endear himself to many people nor did he foster a lot of loyalty from his staff. There were those who wouldn't think twice about torpedoing Krause's efforts when they got the chance. Such is not the case with Pax. Unless you read a direct quote from Paxson, its extremely likely that any information that reaches print comes from a source outside the Bulls' Basketball Operations staff. And those sources could include other teams that Paxson is negotiating with, or in some cases, players and/or player agents.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Insider just checked his personal wiretap and repeated what KC johnson reported in the Tribune .I dont think KC meant it the way it came out .

It seems to me that maybe Pax has a certain amount he wants to pay out at the sg position and while he would be looking towards veterans guards with Mle type deals if he cant retain Crawford this summer he would go over the amount but only by so much .

I think Pax envisions Maggette type dollars for Crawford but maybe Crawford was still rating himself on a pg scale which would be sligtly more than that.

In the end it will be whether Crawford still sees himself as a pg that should test the market nad perhaps play elsewhere or a sg that wants to remains a Bull.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Insider just checked his personal wiretap and repeated what KC johnson reported in the Tribune .I dont think KC meant it the way it came out .
> 
> It seems to me that maybe Pax has a certain amount he wants to pay out at the sg position and while he would be looking towards veterans guards with Mle type deals if he cant retain Crawford this summer he would go over the amount but only by so much .
> ...


I don't think it's up to Crawford, it's up to whoever it signs him, and I think whoever does will do so for him to be their PG...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think it's up to Crawford, it's up to whoever it signs him, and I think whoever does will do so for him to be their PG...


exactly. teams arent looking at JC to solve their 2 guard needs. they are going to be looking at him as a lead guard


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It's obvious that Pax is going to re-sign Jamal by matching whatever deal he gets.

While he's nothing close to an all-star, he's the closest thing we've got. To lose him would be devastating to a team that's already been devastated by Paxson's moves.

Plus, we'd have a backcourt of Brunson and Hinrich next season. Ewwwwww.

We're done with going for FAs with anything but the MLE for a long time to come. Allowing our guys to go RFA is strategically the smartest thing to do, considering the way the CBA works.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I would like to hear C Blizzy and his thoughts on Crawfords value. He seems to be a very objective guy.


Thanks, but sometimes my passion for the Bulls gets in the way of my objectivity. Anyhow, I thought the best way to respond to your request might be to copy a post I did on JC after the Boston game. Take it for what its worth...just my two cents:

Ok, it pains me to say this (not really...I'm actually ecstatic) but last night JC played up to his ability _at both ends of the floor._

And this is exactly what drives me so completely nutz when it comes to talking about his future in Chicago. He's got all kinds of ability. Unfortunately its not on display frequently enough.

Now I don't want to get into anymore "give him more time" debates because frankly, he's run out of time from a contractual standpoint. This is going to be an extremely difficult decision for Paxson and the Bulls this summer. They've seen his ability. They know what he's capable of. A long term contract, however, would be based more on potential than productivity. After 4 years of wild inconsistency and 3 years of having to live with an underproductive Eddie Robinson and his untradeable long term contract, do you really want to take a chance _again_ and make a multi-year commitment to a player you _hope_ will evolve into a star player? They gambled on Robinson's upside and lost. Are they willing to take the same kind of chance on Crawford?

This is where knowing what's inside the person becomes so important. *None of us is qualified to know what makes JC tick.* Paxson, Skiles and the rest of the staff should have a fairly good idea, however, having worked with the kid to varying degrees for three and a half years on a daily basis for the most part.

If a player's second contract was based purely on talent, resigning Crawford's a no brainer. But second contracts are supposed to be based more on productivity than potential. When they're not, when you're still for the most part rolling the dice, you start to wonder if your money might be better spent on a known commodity. Its a tough call, one I wish Crawford had made easier with more frequent solid performances like the one he turned in last night.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> We're done with going for FAs with anything but the MLE for a long time to come. Allowing our guys to go RFA is strategically the smartest thing to do, considering the way the CBA works.


Actually, the most potential savings can be had the year before a player is RFA.

The Clipps waited until RFA. And I don't think the Clippers saved a dime by waiting on Brand and Mags. And they lost Odom whom they wanted. And they had a year of turmoil.

The Pacers have signed their guys early. Artest, Foster, Bender. Pacers saved a ton of dough by signing Artest a year earlier. They probably could not have gotten Foster or Bender any cheaper. Wheter they are worth the money or not is a different story.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> Thanks, but sometimes my passion for the Bulls gets in the way of my objectivity. Anyhow, I thought the best way to respond to your request might be to copy a post I did on JC after the Boston game. Take it for what its worth...just my two cents:
> ...


What confuses me is your reluctance to say the guy played well or did something right?

I'll never understand that, and you're not the only one here guilty of it.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Very good post CB. Is it safe to say you side on the not giving JC a long term contract of the arguement? Unless we can get him cheap of course which seems very unlikely.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, the most potential savings can be had the year before a player is RFA.
> ...


This is not true if you have as many guys on rookie contracts as the Bulls do - and guys like ERob, JYD, and AD signed to big long-term deals.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> This is not true if you have as many guys on rookie contracts as the Bulls do - and guys like ERob, JYD, and AD signed to big long-term deals.


How is that not true? If we were to extend Chandler or Curry this summer, they don't get their raise until a year from this summer. The amount is just agreed to a year early.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> Ok, it pains me to say this (not really...I'm actually ecstatic) but last night JC played up to his ability _at both ends of the floor._


It was against Boston.

_As a shooting guard_ there isn't much special about JC. Maybe if he had a mind and heart transplant, but as it stands 
_As a shooting guard_ there isn't much special about JC.

He can be replaced. Maybe if he had a mind and heart transplant he'd be worth more, but as it stands now, he isn't.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think JC will easily get an offer of around 7mil per year. I also think that, as someone pointed out elsewhere, that the team making him the offer will frontload it to make it difficult for the Bulls to match it and still have money to offer max deals to Chandler and/or Curry should they merit it. As I have said all along, Pax SHOULD have tried harder to sign JC to an extension. I don't think JC had unrealistic contract demands, he was looking for a 3 year 21-22 mil deal. 

Another thing I want to point out, if Crawford walks Curry will try to get away from the Bulls when he is an RFA unless the team is MUCH improved by then. Crawford and Curry aren't JUST friends, they are best friends. And if JC is moved, there goes their vision of them BOTH leading the Bulls back to respectability and beyond. Curry trying to go somewhere else is IMHO a more real possibility than a lot of folks speculate.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

If that is true ACE and it may very well be then Curry needs to go. If he is more concerned with keeping his best friend on the team than doing what is best for the organization then I question whether he has what it takes to be a superstar. Having said that I think Crawford will not be here and we will keep Curry long term. We should not pay JC more than 7 million per year.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> It was against Boston.
> ...



So now hes dumb and has no heart ?  

I dont think you believe some of the garbage you say sometimes yourself :sour:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> If that is true ACE and it may very well be then Curry needs to go. If he is more concerned with keeping his best friend on the team than doing what is best for the organization then I question whether he has what it takes to be a superstar. Having said that I think Crawford will not be here and we will keep Curry long term. We should not pay JC more than 7 million per year.



I wouldnt think so .You have to understand Crawford,Curry,Chandler,Fizer have all seen the Bulls run better players out of town.They saw how hard Artest and Miller played and worked and it got them traded for the ultimate softy in Jalen .

In all honesty we cant afford to let Crawford leave unless its for some just crazy Arenas type amount.You cant keep saying we want to win and allow great players to leave to win somewhere else.

The Bulls havent commited to a player in a long time .


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>! I don't think JC had unrealistic contract demands, he was looking for a 3 year 21-22 mil deal.


The Trib has written that JC knows what every guard in the league is signed for. I am sure that he had\has Arenas money on his mind.

I highly doubt that Crawford would have accepted a a 3 year 21-22 mil deal. I am actually hoping the the Bulls sign him to this type of deal b/c I would much rather give him 3 years rather than 6 or 7 years to get it all together.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> The Trib has written that JC knows what every guard in the league is signed for. I am sure that he had\has Arenas money on his mind.
> ...


Before the summer negotiations started he was quoted somewhere as saying he wanted a deal similar to Jason Terry's resigning. I believe Terry makes 3 year 22mil.

As for Curry and Basghetti's points, the NBA is a business. Players aren't fans like we are. It's easy to sit here and say "Curry should want what is best for the orginization." But in truth, Curry and most other players in the league want what is best for them. Besides, Curry undoubtedly has his OWN ideas about what is best for the direction of the franchise and I am sure that his ideas include keeping the talented Crawford around. I can practically guarantee that if any player on the Bulls could go to a serious contending playoff team right now via trade they would be thrilled. The NBA is all about the jewelry, the money, and respect.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Well you know what I trust Paxson ideas for what is best for the team over Curry.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

OK, 

I am praying the Paxson doesn't have Message Board Posters disease and has an open mind about Crawford.

To begin with, he is improving. Also, he's maturing. It would've been easy for him to spout off another stupid remark in response to Robo-scrub "JYD". However, he continues to mature and learn and I for one just wish he would've been given this tough love sooner.

Now, let me play the maybe Paxson has also learned a few things card. He opened his mouth about potential trades and moves and has gotten burned to the point of one or two more mistakes and he should be replaced. So, maybe he's learned his lesson and has decided to play the media and his "leaks" to his advantage for a change.

If you are a team who doesn't think the Bull will match anything more than the MLE, how much higher do you go to insure that? Maybe 6 or 7 Mill, say 8 in a sellers market. 8 Million would be a bit much, but IMO, not so much that we shouldn't match it. Paxson has to have figured out by now, making good trades for star quality players isn't likely or readily available. Also, those type of players don't play for the MLE. 

So....I submit to you my fellow posters, ok, I pray with you, that Paxson is just posturing and showing growth as a GM. I also pray that he has gotten the message through to Crawford that the City loves him, the fans, not on these message boards love him:grinning: and that the Chicago Bulls love him.....we just need him to continue to work hard to become the player we all know he can and will be.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Before the summer negotiations started he was quoted somewhere as saying he wanted a deal similar to Jason Terry's resigning. I believe Terry makes 3 year 22mil.
> ...


Ace, 

Terry turned down a deal from the Hawks for 7 years 50 million  to sign that offer sheet with the Jazz because he wanted out .I think when the remarks were made about Crawford wanting a deal similar to Terrys it was before he signed a offer sheet with the Jazz and this offer was on the table .


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Are they willing to take the same kind of chance on Crawford?
> 
> This is where knowing what's inside the person becomes so important. *None of us is qualified to know what makes JC tick.* Paxson, Skiles and the rest of the staff should have a fairly good idea, however, having worked with the kid to varying degrees for three and a half years on a daily basis for the most part.


We can sit back and talk about $5M or $6M or $7M a year for 3 years or 6 years being right, but the above part of Blizzy's post nails it. 

Either Pax and Skilles thinks the kid has got it and will continue to improve or they don't. This will determine if Pax signs him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

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


That could be accurate. EVen so, 22 divided by 3=7.33mil
50 divided by 7=7.14mil.


Either deal should have been acceptable and you can't tell me all Jamal would be willing to do was a deal that was 7 years or greater in length.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> That could be accurate. EVen so, 22 divided by 3=7.33mil
> ...


The difference between a 3 year and a 7 year deal is HUGE in my mind. I am sure that Pax would have felt the same way last summer.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Another thing I want to point out, if Crawford walks Curry will try to get away from the Bulls when he is an RFA unless the team is MUCH improved by then. Crawford and Curry aren't JUST friends, they are best friends.


So were Mike Miller and Tracy McGrady.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> So were Mike Miller and Tracy McGrady.


Now Miller is on a playoff team, and TMac will be watching his friend play on TV waiting for the Olympics to come...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

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


I said nothing of his intelligence...but I do believe he is lacking in the heart department.

He's not a number 1. He's a second option...mebbe a third.

When he goes out and shuts down the best player on a good team and shoots for his average several nights in a row I'll reconsider my position.

Right now he's streaky and inconsisent. Tantalizing, but but streaky and inconsisent.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I said nothing of his intelligence...but I do believe he is lacking in the heart department.
> ...


How many players do that?

Dirk's great, but he's not shutting down men every night...

Neither is TMac...

Both great players.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Now Miller is on a playoff team, and TMac will be watching his friend play on TV waiting for the Olympics to come...


And that relates to this thread how?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Now Miller is on a playoff team, and TMac will be watching his friend play on TV waiting for the Olympics to come...


Yeah and haven't we all heard how eager T-Mac is to bolt Orlando when he gets the chance? Thanks for making my point for me.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

No prob ace...

 

One more assist today and I'll be at Eddy's season total...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> No prob ace...
> 
> 
> ...



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah and haven't we all heard how eager T-Mac is to bolt Orlando when he gets the chance? Thanks for making my point for me.


No point made. He wants to go because *the team sucks*

Otherwise he would have been talking about going to *Memphis* not L.A.


Thanks for helping me make *my* point.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> No point made. He wants to go because *the team sucks*
> ...


I said that Curry would be more likely to leave the Bulls if crawford goes. I didn't say Curry would necessarily be clamoring to go play with JC, just more likely to NOT want to play with the Bulls. Maybe T-Mac wouldn't be as quick to want out of Orlando if his best friend were there with him to help him turn things around.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> If that is true ACE and it may very well be then Curry needs to go. If he is more concerned with keeping his best friend on the team than doing what is best for the organization then I question whether he has what it takes to be a superstar. Having said that I think Crawford will not be here and we will keep Curry long term. We should not pay JC more than 7 million per year.


people said the same way back when ....I wonder if trading MJ because he wanted the bulls to draft joe wolf instead of horace grant was a good idea and his insistence on making it difficult on grant for that which was beyond his control

players play ...management manages, players will always have their preferences of whom they want to play with and for, its all apart of the package of who they are.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

It's probably already been said, but the first question is whether you want Hinrich or Crawford as your "PG of the future." I'm pretty sure this one's been answered and Kirk gets the nod. 

This makes Crawford a SG for the Bulls. As a SG, how does he compare to other SG alternatives the Bulls may have? Is there a SG who is better for the Bulls than Crawford who may be available through the MLE, draft or by a trade (that doesn't involve Hinrich, Curry or Chandler)? I try to catch as many Bulls' games as I can, but don't watch many other NBA games, so I'll let you NBA gurus answer that question.

I admire Crawford for (pretty much) keeping his mouth shut and working to improve himself at the SG position. Still, he's a little undersized, below average defensively and is not a good catch-and-shoot shooter. Net, if I were Paxson, I wouldn't be wild about commiting long-term to Crawford as the Bulls' SG of the future and probably wouldn't go much above the MLE to keep him.

It's not that Jamal isn't worth more. It's just that he's not worth more to the Bulls.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Still, he's a little undersized, below average defensively and is not a good catch-and-shoot shooter. Net, if I were Paxson, I wouldn't be wild about commiting long-term to Crawford as the Bulls' SG of the future and probably wouldn't go much above the MLE to keep him.
> 
> It's not that Jamal isn't worth more. It's just that he's not worth more to the Bulls.


EXCELLENT post, but I hope you have an asbestos suit...

The NBC (no-one but crawford) crew is roasting and toasting people who dare speak out against their god.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> It's probably already been said, but the first question is whether you want Hinrich or Crawford as your "PG of the future." I'm pretty sure this one's been answered and Kirk gets the nod.
> 
> This makes Crawford a SG for the Bulls. As a SG, how does he compare to other SG alternatives the Bulls may have? Is there a SG who is better for the Bulls than Crawford who may be available through the MLE, draft or by a trade (that doesn't involve Hinrich, Curry or Chandler)? I try to catch as many Bulls' games as I can, but don't watch many other NBA games, so I'll let you NBA gurus answer that question.
> ...


I think the problem lies with the Bulls...

Any other team would have JC running the point for them, meanwhile we're trying to change him into Rip Hamilton...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the problem lies with the Bulls...
> ...


Is Hinrich a better PG than Crawford?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> EXCELLENT post, but I hope you have an asbestos suit...
> ...



I absolutely hate it when people make comments like that. Why in the world would Jamal Crawford be ANYONE'S God? Even describing him that way IMO goes beyond rudeness. I like Jamal Crawford as a basketball player and thats it. It's a damn shame some people have a huge problem with that, they should just get over it. I'd be the first to acknowledge that Crawford has some holes in his game...in fact, so does EVERY player on this team. I think it is blatantly obvious that the Bulls would NOT be able to find a better sg than Jamal for the MLE.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Is Hinrich a better PG than Crawford?


Is Hinrich even a PG might be a better question


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the problem lies with the Bulls...
> ...


Thats really the whole problem in a nutshell. Jamal would be so much better as a full time pg. But then Hinrich has emerged as a very good pg himself. People still ignore the fact that Hinrich and JC SHARE the point more than anything else. Against Boston crawford probably played slightly more pg than Hinrich. Thats one of the reasons I like letting Hinrich play off guard, he can still get assists playing the 2 and Jamal isn't as good at it IMO.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> EXCELLENT post, but I hope you have an asbestos suit...
> ...


Haha..

The NBC crew...that's a good one...

Your dislike for Crawford is pretty obvious...

Your crew is the one that can't say a good thing about him even when he plays well, when really has been most of the time when you leave him alone and don't bench him for missing a shot or throwing the ball away once...

We've played 53 games and he's been the leader in PPG, APG, and SPG pretty much since jump, how many "bad games" has he really had?

Is a bad game in your mind if he doesn't score 40 pts and hold his man to 0?

I'm tired of breaking it down..

Bulls fans will get it when it comes to JC...

It just won't happen until he's on another team...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely hate it when people make comments like that. Why in the world would Jamal Crawford be ANYONE'S God? Even describing him that way IMO goes beyond rudeness. I like Jamal Crawford as a basketball player and thats it. It's a damn shame some people have a huge problem with that, they should just get over it. I'd be the first to acknowledge that Crawford has some holes in his game...in fact, so does EVERY player on this team. I think it is blatantly obvious that the Bulls would NOT be able to find a better sg than Jamal for the MLE.


Dude--take a chill pill. It's a figure of speech.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Is Hinrich even a PG might be a better question


I'd say he's the closest and most productive thing on the team resembling one.

And you?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Haha..
> ...


Yeah it's pretty frustrating when you have a young developing player capabale of dropping 42 points on good shooting but people still complain that he is inconsistent. Of course he is, he's still a young developing player, the fact that he is CAPABLE of being dominant is enough to merit serious kudos at this point.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats really the whole problem in a nutshell. Jamal would be so much better as a full time pg. But then Hinrich has emerged as a very good pg himself. People still ignore the fact that Hinrich and JC SHARE the point more than anything else. Against Boston crawford probably played slightly more pg than Hinrich. Thats one of the reasons I like letting Hinrich play off guard, he can still get assists playing the 2 and Jamal isn't as good at it IMO.


Ace your last 2 posts have been far and above the best posts here. If i could give you another 5 rating, i certainly would


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude--take a chill pill. It's a figure of speech.


I think your intelligent and articulate enough to use a figure of speech that is more appropriate.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace your last 2 posts have been far and above the best posts here. If i could give you another 5 rating, i certainly would


Thanks, I really appreciate the props! Especially given the source!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Jamal would be so much better as a full time pg.


Is he a better solution there than Hinrich? 
Why or why not?



> People still ignore the fact that Hinrich and JC SHARE the point more than anything else.


Then we don't have a full-time shooting guard and moving him become even more important, right?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the problem lies with the Bulls...
> ...


I think that's a completely fair observation. Hamilton is the kind of player they want. Crawford's not that kind of player. Either try to get what you want (or something like it) or change what you want.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd say he's the closest and most productive thing on the team resembling one.
> ...


id say he and Jamal have shared the role. And Id say that Hinrich is most effective playing off the ball and shooting from deep. he is more Hornacek then Stockton. 

id also he and Jamal have a hard time finishing at the rim and I wouldnt trust either guy at the end of a close game to create a shot for himself


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I think your intelligent and articulate enough to use a figure of speech that is more appropriate.


Nah, rudeness pretty much describes it. You got it right the first time mate


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

oh nooo. this isn't turning into one of THOSE threads again???


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Is he a better solution there than Hinrich?
> ...


league wide, if you were to have NBA types pick between Kirk and Jamal to play the point for you, my guess is 55% would choose Jamal and 45% would choose Kirk. Just a guess. And a fair guess if I say so myself. As good as Kirk has been over the last 30 or so games, he really isnt as good as Jamal now, or Jamal at the point over the last 25-30 games last year. I think that is fairly obvious


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Is he a better solution there than Hinrich?
> ...


I think Jamal & Hinrich both have redeeming qualities at the pg spot. I think that Hinrich however has shown more skill off of the ball than Crawford has. Although, Crawford is really starting to play better off the ball. I think we need a legit backup 2 with a good jumper and a real sized starting sf.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Is Hinrich even a PG might be a better question


I knew that was coming from you RL...

I think the role Hinrich plays on the Bulls he would play on most teams except it would be off the bench and about half the minutes...

He could be "PG" and initiate the offense, but I see someone else doing the majority of the ball handling, and in a half court offense you can run Hinrich off screens so he can get some looks because he doesn't easily create his own shot.

I don't see him as a playmaking, creating PG...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> Your dislike for Crawford is pretty obvious...


The reasons too--which no one has disputed.



> Your crew is the one that can't say a good thing about him even when he plays well, when really has been most of the time when you leave him alone and don't bench him for missing a shot or throwing the ball away once...
> 
> We've played 53 games and he's been the leader in PPG, APG, and SPG pretty much since jump, how many "bad games" has he really had?


He's a tantalizing talent. I've said that.

But how many wins has he led us to? 

The team sucks. He's the best player on a sorry team. Sorry, I won't cheer for that.

He's *a piece*. You guys treat him like he's *the answer*.

Uh-uh.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> id say he and Jamal have shared the role. And Id say that Hinrich is most effective playing off the ball and shooting from deep. he is more Hornacek then Stockton.
> ...


I think Jamal can do it...

Then again he never gets the chance, we either throw the ball off the backboard, Casper strips Kirk, or we throw it in to AD for a 18 footer...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I see Kirk and jamal complimenting each other and I think playing next to Jamal has really helped Kirk develop even more becauses he doesnt have to initiate the offense for 35+ mpg .They both are allowed to do at certain times of the game what comes natural for both of them which is look for their shot.

What really woul help them both is having a shooter type on the other wing so that when they dish they can look to kick it out to someone else besides each other .

Their both gonna be scary good after a summer with Skiles .


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> he is CAPABLE of being dominant is enough to merit serious kudos at this point.


I'm all for a short extension with moderate funds to see if he becomes dominant. But I wouldn't bet big money on it.

You watch and see---the team that signs him *will not do so with the expectatiion that he'll be their cornerstone*.

No GM is silly enough. And if they are, they won't last long.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> The reasons too--which no one has disputed.
> ...


Just because Jamal Crawford can't (practically singlehandedly) lead the Bulls to a respectable record that certainly doesn't mean he is a "piece" and your showing your spots with comments like that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> The reasons too--which no one has disputed.
> ...


ok ...every once in a while i hear people complain endlessly and feel the need to ask them questions about their complaints.You dont like the low number of wins crawford has led us too...why isn't someone else doing the leading then?If he's not good enough why isn't someone else in his role as the guy?, Why not kirk or eddy or AD?Do you think Jamal is somehow hindering them from being productive in being the man in his play or personality?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> id say he and Jamal have shared the role. And Id say that Hinrich is *most effective* playing off the ball and shooting from deep. he is more Hornacek then Stockton.
> 
> id also *he* and Jamal have a *hard time finishing at the rim* and I wouldnt trust either guy at the end of a close game to create a shot for himself


So in essence you're saying he's an incomplete shooting guard who shouldn't be tasked with doing much more than _shooting_?

Stop it.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> league wide, if you were to have NBA types pick between Kirk and Jamal to play the point for you, my guess is 55% would choose Jamal and 45% would choose Kirk. Just a guess. And a fair guess if I say so myself. As good as Kirk has been over the last 30 or so games, he really isnt as good as Jamal now, or Jamal at the point over the last 25-30 games last year. I think that is fairly obvious


This is crazy. I would say that 80+% of NBA execs would pick Hinrich.

It's pretty clear to me that Pax does not value JC more than Hinrich. Or as much more than a project at SG.

If half of the NBA GMs felt that Crawford was a point and better than Kirk, JC would not be a Bull anymore.

It's that simple.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> league wide, if you were to have NBA types pick between Kirk and Jamal to play the point for you, my guess is 55% would choose Jamal and 45% would choose Kirk. Just a guess. And a fair guess if I say so myself. As good as Kirk has been over the last 30 or so games, he really isnt as good as Jamal now, or Jamal at the point over the last 25-30 games last year. I think that is fairly obvious


No suprise, I disagree. I think the pros in the Bulls fron office would too.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Man it's going to get ugly around here soon...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I think the role Hinrich plays on the Bulls he would play on most teams except it would be off the bench


This is DaBullz tall tales, thread, right?

Good one. :laugh:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

:laugh: Well Crawford has led us to more wins than Uber star Tmac has led the Magic .......................... :laugh: :no:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

i dont think statistics tell the whole story. But lets just throw them out here. Lets remember, one guy cant do no wrong, one guy cant do no right. Guess who is which?

17.1 ppg
3.3 rpg
5.4 apg
1.47 spg
.33 blks
39.4% FG
.839 FT
.321 3 pt
34.7 mpg

Now here is the other guy

10.8ppg
3.1 rpg
6.1 apg
1.25spg
.21 blks
39.4% FG
.755 FT
.382 3pt
34.3 mpg

Who is the better player? Well statisically, the first guy is the better one. And it isnt particularly close. yet, he is the guy that people want gone. Does it make sense? I mean, does it really make sense? Not only that, the second guy is the coaches favorite, the "best" player on the team and can do no wrong. Now, statisitics dont tell the whole story, but player A, would certainly be wanted league wide more the player B is my guess. Well, everywhere but in Chicago, the franchise that sends our most talented players elsewhere


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> No suprise, I disagree. I think the pros in the Bulls fron office would too.


are their pros in the Bulls front office?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

complete thread disintegration at it's absolute finest.

bravo.:banana: way to be TEAM posters!!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> This is crazy. I would say that 80+% of NBA execs would pick Hinrich.
> ...


we hear teams trying to trade for Jamal. have we heard anyone go after Kirk? Nope.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Like it or not the organization has settled on Kirk as our PG. From the Bulls perspective on JC they are looking at him as to how he fits long term here as a SG. Contract negotiations will be centered around that. As a PG is JC worth big money, maybe, is he as a SG, less likely. Basically the thinking from the organization is(IMO) Kirk is a better PG than JC and JC is better suited to play PG than SG. Hence he will not be here next season IMO unless JC does not get a huge offer from someone.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> This is crazy. I would say that 80+% of NBA execs would pick Hinrich.
> ...


Thanks Johnston. Excellent post.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> No suprise, I disagree. I think the pros in the Bulls fron office would too.


I wouldnt be so sure about that . Even in the game against Boston the Bulls started the game down 8-0 .Crawford then took over at the pg spot directing the attack.By the time the quarter was over it was 29-24 bulls .

Other teams arent looking at Crawford and thinking how he didnt fit into their system .They are looking at him with how his abilities would fit into their systems .


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Like it or not the organization has settled on Kirk as our PG. From the Bulls perspective on JC they are looking at him as to how he fits long term here as a SG. Contract negotiations will be centered around that. As a PG is JC worth big money, maybe, is he as a SG, less likely. Basically the thinking from the organization is(IMO) Kirk is a better PG than JC and JC is better suited to play PG than SG. Hence he will not be here next season IMO unless JC does not get a huge offer from someone.


That doesn't really address why they are still splitting time at the point if thats the case.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> are their pros in the Bulls front office?


More than inhabit this board.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> I wouldnt be so sure about that . Even in the game against Boston the Bulls started the game down 8-0 .Crawford then took over at the pg spot directing the attack.By the time the quarter was over it was 29-24 bulls .
> ...


again, this is right. when Jamal plays outfront with the Ball in his hands, he is better off. When Kirk plays off the ball, he is able to get open for jump shots and his patented touch passes to open shooters or for the open layup. whether anyone wants to agree or not, that is a fact. Kirk makes us better cause he has the best long range shot on the team. Jamal makes us better cause he is the best pure handler and creator on this club. period


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> More than inhabit this board.


just cause they get paid doesnt make them pros. In this case, so far, it makes them lucky. Id rather have MikeDC running this club then what I have seen from this front office. but then again, Pax and the front office are above blame as well.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Let's have some more fun w/ statistics! 

1) 14.8ppg / 4.1reb / 2.8ast / 1.6 stl / 42% FGp / 31% 3 pt / 35 min per / 25 years old

2) 18.7ppg / 5.0reb / 2.4ast / 1.5 stl / 40% FGp / 35% 3 pt / 34 min per / 25 years old

3) 15.7ppg / 4.1reb / 5.1ast / 1.4 stl / 43% FGp / 34% 3 pt / 36 min per / 26 years old

4) 17.1ppg / 3.3reb / 5.4ast / 1.5 stl / 39% FGp / 32% 3 pt / 35 min per / 23 years old

All four of these 'fine' young players play on poor NBA teams. #1 is called an NBA journeyman, #2 is likely the same and will never make an All-Star team, #3 is a good combo guard for a bad team and #4 is JC himself.

Stephen Jackson, Larry Hughes, Jason Terry, Jamal Crawford. Jamal is shooting a worse percentage than all 3, and a worse 3 point percentage than only Jackson. Why should Paxson be in a rush to sign this guy?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

With all due respect to MikeDC, who is a guy I really like by the way, it is crazy to say you would rather have him than Paxson. Not saying Paxson is perfect by any means but come on that is a pretty outlandish statement don't you think?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> This is DaBullz tall tales, thread, right?
> ...


We've had this discussion...

Fact is Kirk's role would not be the same on most teams, and there's a few teams where he'd hardly see the floor...

That's just FACT.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> just cause they get paid doesnt make them pros.


Yes it does.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Let's have some more fun w/ statistics!
> 
> 1) 14.8ppg / 4.1reb / 2.8ast / 1.6 stl / 42% FGp / 31% 3 pt / 35 min per / 25 years old
> ...


With the exception of Hughes I think all of those guys have already hit their ceiling. There is your answer.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Let's have some more fun w/ statistics!
> 
> 1) 14.8ppg / 4.1reb / 2.8ast / 1.6 stl / 42% FGp / 31% 3 pt / 35 min per / 25 years old
> ...



You da man.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> We've had this discussion...
> ...


it's an opinion...and a questionable one.

Which teams wouldn't he find his way onto the floor in at least some small minutes?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Let's have some more fun w/ statistics!
> 
> 1) 14.8ppg / 4.1reb / 2.8ast / 1.6 stl / 42% FGp / 31% 3 pt / 35 min per / 25 years old
> ...


Nice post, but umm...

Who else scores for us?

Don't say Eddy because he JUST started playing some ball...

All this season it's been if you shut down JC, you shut down the Bulls...

If JC couldn't put up 20-25, we weren't even in the game...

That being said, all those guys above have had legitimate players on their team to help their offensive load. With that being the case you couldn't just key on those guys like you can Jamal.

You think any teams are really worrying about Kirk beating them?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> With all due respect to MikeDC, who is a guy I really like by the way, it is crazy to say you would rather have him than Paxson. Not saying Paxson is perfect by any means but come on that is a pretty outlandish statement don't you think?


No read DCs trade ideas when you get a chance. he actually has a clue what makes the NBA tick. he has a plan. and he doesnt come up with unrealistic crap. DC in my mind, is more of a "pro" then anything we have working at the Berto Center today.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> it's an opinion...and a questionable one.
> ...


Define small minutes, then I'll get back at you...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> With the exception of Hughes I think all of those guys have already hit their ceiling. There is your answer.


but didn't jamal hit his ceiling while jumping on someone's trampoline last week? 

:sigh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> it's an opinion...and a questionable one.
> ...


sacramento for one, LA for another. How about Seattle and their 3-4 pgs? He would play about 5 minutes a night in NJ. He wouldnt play in NO, or Dallas, or Den. These are just a handful of teams without even thinking hard that he wouldnt play for. Sure there are some teams he would start on, like Indiana, but right now, he wouldnt be more then a bit player for a half dozen-dozen teams in the NBA. Arenas is right on this one


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice post, but umm...
> ...


I'm not really sure what you're saying here but I'll bite. 

Hughes has been the leading scorer all season for Washington, Jackson and Terry have been the Hawks best players this season as well. So yeah it'd be reasonable to expect that opposing coaches would gameplan to stop them. Dion Glover is the only other Hawk player averaging double figures. Sans Stack/Arenas who've been hurt most of the year... just who are the other offensive options in Washington?

So if you're arguing that Jamal's stats are inflated because there are a lack of options on this team right now, then you're proving my point. Jamal's production this season is on par with the Jason Terry's, Stephen Jackson's and Larry Hughes of the NBA. I fail to see otherwise.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're saying here but I'll bite.
> ...


Yeah, that very well may be true IF you consider Jamal a finished product or the aforementioned players as developing players. The only player out of that group that looks to be still developing to me is Hughes.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're saying here but I'll bite.
> ...


No I don't think they're inflated, I actually they'd be better if there were more options for him to play with...

Also you forgot, JT and Jack had SAR up until a few days ago...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Let's have some more fun w/ statistics!
> 
> 1) 14.8ppg / 4.1reb / 2.8ast / 1.6 stl / 42% FGp / 31% 3 pt / 35 min per / 25 years old
> ...


Well considering they are 2-3 years older than Crawford there is no comparison.

Lets look at sportsline nba player rankings  on this one .

1- is the 15th ranked sf in the league 
2- is the 12th rankes sg in the league 
3- is the 12th ranked pg in the league 
4- is the 10th ranked pg in the league 

out of all of them Crawfords the only one who has changed positions and been asked to be the #1 option all in the same year.

Any mention of fg% this year in the nba is just not realistic as their are very few players shooting a good percentage from the outside .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> No I don't think they're inflated, I actually they'd be better if there were more options for him to play with...
> ...


They weren't better when he had Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall, two guys who scored 22 and 13 PPG last season. Options.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Well considering they are 2-3 years older than Crawford there is no comparison.
> ...


I love those rankings and they're 100% correct. Dirk Nowitzki is the best center in the NBA! Mark Blount is better than Eddy Curry. And oh yeah, Jalen Rose is a better SG than Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant, and Manu Ginobili.

:sigh:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> They weren't better when he had Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall, two guys who scored 22 and 13 PPG last season. Options.


Last season being the operative word. Neither Rose or Marshall played well this season before being traded.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Last season being the operative word. Neither Rose or Marshall played well this season before being traded.


They were still options.

Clearly Jamal didn't make those two better players by being on the floor with them at the same time.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> They weren't better when he had Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall, two guys who scored 22 and 13 PPG last season. Options.


Well his stats are better in PPG, RPG, APG this year, so maybe with them this whole year, who knows...

I'm looking at this year, not last...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I love those rankings and they're 100% correct. Dirk Nowitzki is the best center in the NBA! Mark Blount is better than Eddy Curry. And oh yeah, Jalen Rose is a better SG than Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant, and Manu Ginobili.
> ...


The rankings are simply based on statistical performance. SOmetimes that can be misleading. For instance Hinrich is clearly a better one on one defender than JC and thats not reflected in their stats. I would be very surprised if Rose is ranked as a better sg than the guys you listed above (except possible manu) Are you serious or just pulling stuff out of thin air?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm trying to figure out how I went from 3 to 2 stars and no one voted...

lol...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Well his stats are better in PPG, RPG, APG this year, so maybe with them this whole year, who knows...
> ...


Donyell Marshall 50% FG, 17 PPG

Jalen Rose 38.5% FG, 15 PPG

THIS YEAR.

Options.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> sacramento for one, LA for another. How about Seattle and their 3-4 pgs? He would play about 5 minutes a night in NJ. He wouldnt play in NO, or Dallas, or Den. These are just a handful of teams without even thinking hard that he wouldnt play for. Sure there are some teams he would start on, like Indiana, but right now, he wouldnt be more then a bit player for a half dozen-dozen teams in the NBA. Arenas is right on this one


But you can't simply say "Oh, if he was on Seattle he wouldn't play because they've got so many PGs" because if he was on Seattle they probably wouldn't have so many PGs in the first place. If they had drafted Kirk, for example, they certainly wouldn't have drafted Ridnour as well. 

It's just a meaningless comparison... equally meaningless if you applied it to Jamal. I can't think of very many teams Jamal would start for as either a PG or an SG. He certainly wouldn't play much if at all for the Pistons, Heat, Lakers, Knicks, TWolves, or Mavs. 

They're both about average NBA starters at their respective positions. Arguing about _their_ respective quality because of the respective depth of _other teams_ is a non sequitor. 

It is totally equivalent to saying that MJ is better than Scottie because MJ would have started for the 80s Celtics while Scottie came off the bench behind Bird. MJ may be better than Scottie, but the fact that the 80s Celtics (or even most teams in the league) had more depth at the 3 than the 2 has nothing to do with it.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> The rankings are simply based on statistical performance. SOmetimes that can be misleading. For instance Hinrich is clearly a better one on one defender than JC and thats not reflected in their stats. I would be very surprised if Rose is ranked as a better sg than the guys you listed above (except possible manu) Are you serious or just pulling stuff out of thin air?


Actually i'm serious. Just click on the SG URL.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> They were still options.
> ...


You can lead a horse to water....

You can toss an assist to a teamate but you can't make them hit the shot.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Donyell Marshall 50% FG, 17 PPG
> ...


Are those stats counting games played with the Raptors?

Cuz I guess Jamal could pass them to ball, if the ball could reach the stadium in whatever other city they were playing in at the time...

Hey he can pass the ball to Yell all night tonight!

But then we'd lose...

Try again.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

All I know is this summer if JC signs an offer sheet with someone else and the deadline comes for us to match it and Paxson decides not to, this board will become a very unpleasant place to be around. I hope the mods will be prepared for that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> You can lead a horse to water....
> ...


How much better than 50% does a guy have to be before he hits shots after a magical pass from JC Superstar?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Define small minutes, then I'll get back at you...


it's open.

What teams wouldn't he see any run on?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> But you can't simply say "Oh, if he was on Seattle he wouldn't play because they've got so many PGs" because if he was on Seattle they probably wouldn't have so many PGs in the first place. If they had drafted Kirk, for example, they certainly wouldn't have drafted Ridnour as well.


Well Ridnour gets 15 MPG for them with a injured Barry...

With a healthy Barry, Antonio Daniels, and Flip Murray, Kirk would play all the time...

In practice...

Of course you can use this argument, look at Linton Johnson, he makes the Bulls roster, but because he makes the Bulls roster he'd make any NBA team roster?

Ok...

Kirk starts for the Bulls so he would start and/or get significant minutes on any NBA team?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Are those stats counting games played with the Raptors?
> ...


No, YOU try again.

If Jamal's stats would be better with "more options," then his stats would have been better with MORE OPTIONS.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> sacramento for one, LA for another. How about Seattle and their 3-4 pgs? He would play about 5 minutes a night in NJ. He wouldnt play in NO, or Dallas, or Den. These are just a handful of teams without even thinking hard that he wouldnt play for. Sure there are some teams he would start on, like Indiana, but right now, he wouldnt be more then a bit player for a half dozen-dozen teams in the NBA. Arenas is right on this one


I think all those teams, save sactown, would find a way to get him some playing time.

LA for sure...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Stephen Jackson has been looking pretty good lately. He's getting paid, what now? Isn't he going to be a free agent this summer? If Pax wants a MLE level guy who is actually a SG he might be something resembling an answer. He's somebody you don't want to pay over the MLE though because he could easily become another ERob.

Hughes has been playing the best basketball of his career this season. He seems to finally be getting an opportunity and seems to have matured a great deal on the wizards the last few year...even if Jamal dropped 42 in his grill.(Which in and of itself is a reason why I rate Jamal better. He locked Hughes up when he was defending him. And then killed him on the other end.)

And Jason Terry is just plain old. But he could be Jamal's future backcourt mate. Could finally allow him to play the poor man's Iverson role he's been wanting to play for a long time.

Anyhow. What's this thread about again?

Someone said we should trust Skiles and Paxson because they are supposedly more qualified to know what makes Jamal tick...I dispute that. Paxson doesn't know anything about Jamal, as far as I can tell. He came in out of the broadcast booth and was supposedly already trying to trade him. He's yelled at him in the locker room. And he constantly has left him out of the future plans for the club. Yet this is clearly a young player who plays a lot on his confidence and emotions. Skiles might know what makes Jamal tick. Or he might just be the first guy to give Jamal a chance in Chicago and what we have is Jamal responding to that. But I question how well Skiles has been able to get to know Jamal in only a month or two.

So no. I don't think the people in charge of making decisions for the franchise are neccesarily the best and most proffessional to be making the decisions they are making. Just because someone is a GM doesn't mean they deserve that position...Danny Ainge is using Brain Typing to dismantle the Celtics. This has gotten rid of Eric Williams and Kedrick Brown in favor of Ricky Davis. Someone over there needs to be brain typed and it's not the players.

Lesson #1: Question Authority?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> No, YOU try again.
> ...


Haha...

Hey you're the one using stats acheived by guys on another team...

Those were NOT their stats while they were Bulls, THIS season...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> How much better than 50% does a guy have to be before he hits shots after a magical pass from JC Superstar?


Neither of those guys was shooting anywhere near 50% while on the Bulls THIS season. Rose was coming back from injury and Marshall was playing inconsistent minutes. Last season Jamal did a decent job of getting these guys the ball just like he did THIS season, bottom line is noone on the Bulls could hit the broadside of a barn for the first half dozen games or so, thats just a fact.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> All I know is this summer if JC signs an offer sheet with someone else and the deadline comes for us to match it and Paxson decides not to, this board will become a very unpleasant place to be around. I hope the mods will be prepared for that.


And the backcourt will begin to round into a very pleasent one to watch.

But thats a good reason for the Bulls to ink him Basghetti. Really good reason. Wouldn't want to stress the mods.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> All I know is this summer if JC signs an offer sheet with someone else and the deadline comes for us to match it and Paxson decides not to, this board will become a very unpleasant place to be around. I hope the mods will be prepared for that.


This place is going to become a war zone in the next few days, forget summer...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Someone said we should trust Skiles and Paxson because they are supposedly more qualified to know what makes Jamal tick...I dispute that. Paxson doesn't know anything about Jamal, as far as I can tell. He came in out of the broadcast booth and was supposedly already trying to trade him.


He's been following Jamals Bulls career forever.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually i'm serious. Just click on the SG URL.


Ok, your point is well taken. Sportsline is one of the worst sports/ranking sort of sights IMO. I didn't realize thats where he was linking, my bad.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You are probably right arenas it is just Tuesday and a simple thread like this has gone out of control. I can't imagine it if JC is traded or let walk for nothing this summer. I like this board but I can't imagine how bad it would get if JC is gone. Shows where loyaltly lies IMO.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Haha...
> ...


Cause = jamal as their PG

Effect = not good stats while they were with the bulls

(With Rose as their PG, Rose's, Marshall's, and Carter's stats are improved).

Strike 4 and you're out ;-)


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> The rankings are simply based on statistical performance. SOmetimes that can be misleading. For instance Hinrich is clearly a better one on one defender than JC and thats not reflected in their stats. I would be very surprised if Rose is ranked as a better sg than the guys you listed above (except possible manu) Are you serious or just pulling stuff out of thin air?


They take into accont position played and Dirk is starting at Center for the Mavs.

They also take into account games played and Kobe has played in only 36 and Allen 27 and has suffered a huge statistical drop off from last season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I can't imagine how bad it would get if JC is gone. Shows where loyaltly lies IMO.


Traffic will drop and pick up on another board.

Say he goes to Sacramento:

"Jamal should be starting ahead of Bibby!"

"Who is this Peja guy, and why is he dominating the ball? Jamal needs it in _his_ hand to be successful"

"Why do they throw it inside to Weber so much? Jamals jumper is so much higher percentage a shot"


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> No, YOU try again.
> ...


Actually his shooting percentage was better with more options .


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't know guys, I just know that if Jamal does go to another team whether it be through trade or free agency, I am gonna laugh at the haters when he blows up. Don't take it personal, I won't be able to help myself. btw, if I end up being wrong and he falls off, feel free to laugh at me too. And if you can't feel free, at least feel cheap.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> You are probably right arenas it is just Tuesday and a simple thread like this has gone out of control. I can't imagine it if JC is traded or let walk for nothing this summer. I like this board but I can't imagine how bad it would get if JC is gone. Shows where loyaltly lies IMO.


well if JC is gone, then arenas is sure to follow.
that's where the loyalty is. make no mistake about it.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He's been following Jamals Bulls career forever.


Yeah so has every bulls fan on this board. So has Michael Jordan. So has BJ Armstrong.

Paxson doesn't have any qualifications that should inspire any real confidence in him. He has to prove that he belongs there.

I think he's learning on the job and it's costing us valuable time.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Actually I would think GB and Basghetti would hardly ever be seen if Crawford resigns with the Bulls . 

Others would still follow Crawford kinda in the same way they follow Artest and and miller but I doubt either of you would stick around for the assortment of I told you so's that would be heading your way when Pax resigns Crawford .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I don't know guys, I just know that if Jamal does go to another team whether it be through trade or free agency, I am gonna laugh at the haters when he blows up. Don't take it personal, I won't be able to help myself. btw, if I end up being wrong and he falls off, feel free to laugh at me too. And if you can't feel free, at least feel cheap.


Just remember this:

He who laughs last thinks slowest


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Cause = jamal as their PG
> ...



Maybe Rose and Marshall have benefitted from playing with Vince Carter...

Think about that?

You've been out...

You're trying to use last season, and stats from this season acheived while on another team to support your argument.

Why don't you look up JC's shooting %s when he had these "options"....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Just remember this:
> ...


He who has the last laugh must be thinking the smartest, otherwise he wouldn't be the one laughing now would he?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

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


Yeah, he did pretty good with those guys last season. Noone seems to want to admit that just about every player in a Bulls uni didn't even show up the first half a dozen or more games of the season.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Let me make this clear truthhurts I am a long time poster here and I will stay here regardless of what happens with JC. I think it is best to part ways with him but that is my opinion. If that is not what happens then fine. That is what they get paid big bucks for, to make those decisions. I am just worried about condition this board if JC is traded or not resigned. There will be some uncontrollable hatred being spewed. It has not even happened and look out of control this thread has become.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Well Ridnour gets 15 MPG for them with a injured Barry...
> ...


No and no, but the underlying idea is still pretty pointless IMO, and that's what I'm getting at. On some other teams, he'd start, on some others he wouldn't. On some he'd come off the bench for a lot of time, on some almost none if you held all the other players constant.

But I don't see how you can hold the other players constant. If you have Kirk or Jamal, and you're Seattle or the Lakers, maybe you trade don't draft Luke Ridnour or don't sign Antonio Daniels or Gary Payton. 

If you want to be meaningful, I guess, you could just compare who starts, but really all you're doing there is ranking them as starters in the league. I'd put them both at about the middle.

I could see either Kirk or Jamal start at PG for Boston, Miami, Orlando, Philly, Toronto, Utah, perhaps San Antonio, Atlanta, Cleveland, Indiana, Milwaukee, LA Clippers, Phoenix, or Portland. I could maybe see Jamal start at SG for New Jersey, New Orleans, Denver, Houston, Utah, or Portland, but that depends on how they view playing an undersized guy there.

All in all, that's about middle of the road for both guys, and it's pretty good for a couple of young players.

Going beyond that, and trying to say one is oh so much better than the other because they'd fit in somewhere on an already crowded team says very little about them as players.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Let me make this clear truthhurts I am a long time poster here and I will stay here regardless of what happens with JC. I think it is best to part ways with him but that is my opinion. If that is not what happens then fine. That is what they get paid big bucks for, to make those decisions. I am just worried about condition this board if JC is traded or not resigned. There will be some uncontrollable hatred being spewed. It has not even happened and look out of control this thread has become.


I think this is just the beginning...

I wouldn't worry about this board, I'd worry about Pax's office if he makes a dumb trade....

That's where I'd be at...

Not the computer.


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

Sure his shooting percentage was better with more options, that's b/c now all the shotclock expiring shots Jalen took before are JC's now. 

I'd love to get another big shooting combo guard to JC and Kirk, b/c I think JC and Kirk complement each other pretty well. They really start to feed of off eachother. Skiles being a guard himself has a lot to do with that IMO. I'd see what they can do in the last months of the season. 
Then decide. 
It' very difficult to say what he's worth, we all saw what happened to Arenas. I'd love to keep him around.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I think the board will be fine when Jamal finally takes his leave. There's only like 4 or 5 of us Jamal fans on this board. I worry what some of you others will post about honestly. 4 out of ever 5 threads about Jamal is a negative thread about him. And most of the posts in threads not directly about Jamal are about Jamal. I guess you'll just turn on Eddy next or moreso. Until he is run out of town too.

It's not the Jamal supporters who get threads going like this usually. It's certain people who can't let a thread having to do with Jamal go by without taking some shot at him.

At the end of the day though, it's not about Jamal.  It's about the losing culture around this team. Jamal is just a placeholder. Until the team starts performing close to expectations this board will always be very well trafficked. Lots of Bulls fans out here. And no place better to vent then on a message board.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Let me make this clear truthhurts I am a long time poster here and I will stay here regardless of what happens with JC. I think it is best to part ways with him but that is my opinion. If that is not what happens then fine. That is what they get paid big bucks for, to make those decisions. I am just worried about condition this board if JC is traded or not resigned. There will be some uncontrollable hatred being spewed. It has not even happened and look out of control this thread has become.


 Most of the hating is against Crawford so it stands to reason that him being traded would bring out everyone who dislikes him to rip on the ones who did, not the other way around .  


Most of the posts surrounding Crawford are either in defense of him or against him .You raraely see many praising him .Youre worried about the wrong side here


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Quick correction,

Hughes did change posistions this year, he played PG last year and switched over to SG this year, he's on his way to becoming a top 10 SG so I don't know why anyone would call him a journey man or think he's not going to be real good.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I would rather us trade JC now than let him walk which is something me and Paxson apparently disagree. I would go ahead and trade JC along with Fizer to the Clips for Jaric/Ely/Dooling/Clips 2004 1st rd pick. Then move JYD for McKie. But that is just me what do I know?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Most of the hating is against Crawford so it stands to reason that him being traded would bring out everyone who dislikes him to rip on the ones who did, not the other way around .
> ...


Truth...Hurts. 

Shanghai Kid is right. Hughes is not a journeyman anymore. Anyone calling him that is misinformed. Journeymen are like: Tony Massenburg.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I would rather us trade JC now than let him walk which is something me and Paxson apparently disagree. I would go ahead and trade JC along with Fizer to the Clips for Jaric/Ely/Dooling/Clips 2004 1st rd pick. Then move JYD for McKie. But that is just me what do I know?


That's kind of how I feel. If we're going to lose Jamal(and I'm actually for it, because I think it will help Jamal's career. I don't know if he can be the player he can be in Chicago's losing Atompsphere.) I would want to get something back for him. Preferably something young with something of a future.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I would rather us trade JC now than let him walk which is something me and Paxson apparently disagree. I would go ahead and trade JC along with Fizer to the Clips for Jaric/Ely/Dooling/Clips 2004 1st rd pick. Then move JYD for McKie. But that is just me what do I know?


See as a Clips fan, I look at that deal and say no way...

Here's why...

Forgetting the "we're making a run at Kobe" stuff for a second...

The 1st rd pick is going to be a middle lotto pick, we give up our starting PG who has been playing great the last month, a big man who's 2 yrs removed from the lottery...and well Dooling, you can have for a large pepperoni pizza...

We don't need Fizer, JC we can sign a nice contract to at the end of the season...and if Pax won't go over the MLE to keep JC, we might as well get a #1 jersey for him now...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> That's kind of how I feel. If we're going to lose Jamal(and I'm actually for it, because I think it will help Jamal's career. I don't know if he can be the player he can be in Chicago's losing Atompsphere.) I would want to get something back for him. Preferably something young with something of a future.


I hope that as well...

I'd love if he was in Orlando or Philly and got to play with a TMac or Iverson...

I also fear though that JC leaves...

EC will be gone in a year too...


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Hinrich,Dooling
Jaric,McKie,
????,Robinson
Chandler,Davis
Curry,Ely,Blount


Throw in 2 lotto picks(ours and the Clips) along with MLE with this group of 9 and we could have something. I would parlay those 2 picks(and ERob) for a stud SF and then use the MLE on a quality backup SF/SG and let Dooling walk with McKie the third guard behind Kirk and Marko.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Quick correction,
> 
> Hughes did change posistions this year, he played PG last year and switched over to SG this year, he's on his way to becoming a top 10 SG so I don't know why anyone would call him a journey man or think he's not going to be real good.


I said 'likely the same' and will never be an All-Star pertaining to Hughes. He has always put up stats on bad teams but he will never be an All-Star. JMO. You can disagree. As for your top 10 SG argument it doesn't hold water.

McGrady, Pierce, AI, Vince, Redd, Kobe, Allen, Finley are my top 8. Of the rest there's Manu, Eddie Jones, Joe Johnson, jRich, Q, Mobley, Rip, Houston, Rose, and Wesley. I am not sure how Hughes ranks among that group but not top 3.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Hinrich,Dooling
> Jaric,McKie,
> ????,Robinson
> ...


To do that you'd have to get our first rd pick, and we've established that won't happen...


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

*Re: Re: accoring to Insider, Pax wont pay JC more then the mle*



> Originally posted by <b>thebizkit69u</b>!
> 
> 
> Ummmm check please! common man hes worth more then the max! what the hell are you smoking! JC is good but hes not a superstar and giving him a max contract would be a terrible mistake.


yeah man..lets get real he isgood butnota super star yal treat him likea bball god


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah so has every bulls fan on this board.


Not from the sideline, locker-room and team bus. I doubt anyone on this board has the connections to the organization that he's had either.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Actually I would think GB and Basghetti would hardly ever be seen if Crawford resigns with the Bulls .
> 
> Others would still follow Crawford kinda in the same way they follow Artest and and miller but I doubt either of you would stick around for the assortment of I told you so's that would be heading your way when Pax resigns Crawford .


Search my old posts--I've said again and again I hope he gets it togather.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: accoring to Insider, Pax wont pay JC more then the mle*



> Originally posted by <b>Priest</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah man..lets get real he isgood butnota super star yal treat him likea bball god


Who are you?

It was established hours ago that the max was a typo, it was supposed to be MLE...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> sacramento for one, LA for another. How about Seattle and their 3-4 pgs? He would play about 5 minutes a night in NJ. He wouldnt play in NO, or Dallas, or Den.


I disagree, but we've been over this a thousand times so it won't do any good to argue it further.

P.S. Don Nelson must've been lying the other day.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

*A) "JC is a SG, but he'd be a better PG, blah blah blah" *

Yuck. I hate that linear thinking. 

Can Jamal score? Yes.
Can Jamal pass? Yes.
Can Jamal D up other SGs? Inconsitently, but improving.
Can Kirk score? Inconsistently.
Can Kirk pass? Yes.
Can Kirk D up other PGs? Yes.

Why can't they be played together PERIOD? None of this "He's the SG, I'm the PG!" crap. I don't believe in titles, I believe in talent. If you think Kirk and some other SG is a better backcourt because that SG has the title, I'm glad you don't make decisions for our team.

In the backcourt, why would you want one guy to only pass and one to only score? That's ridiculous. I would rather have two guys who can do both very well like we do now. 

Yes, Jamal and Kirk both need to increase their %s, but I firmly believe through the development of the team they will.

Me and Isiah thing the same on this matter. Just because someone's title says PG doesn't mean they can't play SG. Ask Rick Adelman.

*B)"Blah blah blah Jamal will never get better because Stephen Jackson isn't considered a star."*

Jamal- 4 years in the league, 23 years old. Improvement every year. No QUESTION he has more talent than Jackson.

Stephen Jackson-4 years in the league, 25 years old. Minor improvement every year, but still improving.

Awful comparison. You want to tell me Stephen Jackson is of an equal talent level to Jamal Crawford? I didn't think so. You want to tell me Jamal Crawford has recieved the same teaching that Stephen Jackson did under Byron Scott and Greg Poppovich?

Once again, I didn't think so.

All of you act like somehow a 7mil/per deal is reserved for superstars. News flash, that's about 1/7th the cap and will very VERY likely be a much smaller fraction a few years from now. Our sports economist NCBullsFan could tell you that--- the salary cap is a function of league revenues, and with league revenues going up and likely increasing much more over the next 3-6 years with young stars in the East and the migration of talent to other teams, the salary cap will only be increasing. If that 50mil cap goes up to 60mil in three years, Jamal making 7mil/year is 1/9th of the cap (in other words, PEANUTS.)

And Gilbert was signed to an even larger deal not to be the FIRST OPTION. Jerry Stackhouse was the first option, and they had young post talent in Haywood and Brown, with support from Larry Hughes. If you want to say Curry and Chandler > Brown and Haywood, sure. If you want to say Stackhouse and Hughes < Hinrich and Dupree (?) I'm going to say you are in insane.

A superstar makes double figures per year. A good player, 2nd/3rd option makes 7mil/year. 

Jamal deserves 7mil/year, NOT the MLE. Our MLE is currently on the injured list, and is not a bad indication of what to expect from the MLE. It is not designed to bring young talent with star potential, it's to sign one more veteran for 15-20mins a game.




This thread has a lot of growing up to do. And if Paxson lets Jamal walk with a contract offer of less than 9mil/year, he deserves to be fired.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> This thread has a lot of growing up to do. And if Paxson lets Jamal walk with a contract offer of less than 9mil/year, he deserves to be fired.


Boy am I glad you're not GM.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> I believe in talent.


So does Paxson.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Boy am I glad you're not GM.


:allhail:


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Well you keep thinking that Hughes is a journey man or has no chance of being an all-star. The fact is, he's a most improved player candidate. And I never said he was a top 10 SG this year, I said he was on his way to becoming one. Statistically, their aren't 10 SG's in the league getting more points, rebounds, and steals than Larry f'n Hughes.


As far as Crawford having a good game against him. Hughes raped Micheal Redd and Allen Iverson this year, so what does that mean? Nothing. 

Larry Hughes makes the MLE btw, and continues to be underrated.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Pax wont pay JC more then the mle !

So what! We going to loose more game than now?

This year was the test for Jamal to show up what he got and...
we are on the bottom of the standing !

After loosing Brand and Artest , I don't give a s...t what will happen with Jamal .

P.S. IMO, if he will not accept 21mil/3 year deal – let him go .


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> Pax wont pay JC more then the mle ...and Jamal will leave !
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Boy am I glad you're not GM.


Airety's argument looked like a very logical one to me. Do some of you think JC is already at the pinnacle of his career or something? Do you really see us easily replacing him with someone of equal or greater talent and productivity? I can't see that happening very easily. If we can get him to 50mil over 7 years I'd be on cloud 9 as we'd have him locked up at a reasonable price through what could be the most productive portion of his career. Besides, we're not paying the bills so who cares what he makes? If Curry & Chandler improve to the point where they deserve anywhere near the max, going into lux tax land to keep them would be well worth it (if there even is a lux tax). Let's not lose JC as he's turning the corner into high productivity like we did with Artest & Miller. The franchise couldn't stand for that to happen.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

If you are terrified to pay a guy averaging 17pts 5 assists 1/7th of your cap money, your team will be awful. We're handicapped by having AD, JYD and E-Rob's contracts, sure, but if you were paying 7 guys to score 17 points you'd be scoring 119 a game... about 30 more points a game than we score now.

You let Crawford walk for less than 9mil/year (9mil a year is a bit too much) and you have failed as a GM. Paxson already messed up with that Toronto trade, he was so eager to do something and make his mark he traded talent for grinders.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*GB*

You dont like the low number of wins crawford has led us too...why isn't someone else doing the leading then?If he's not good enough why isn't someone else in his role as the guy?, Why not kirk or eddy or AD?Do you think Jamal is somehow hindering them from being productive in being the man in his play or personality?

i'll just keep asking it...to prove a point


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> If you are terrified to pay a guy averaging 17pts 5 assists 1/7th of your cap money, your team will be awful. We're handicapped by having AD, JYD and E-Rob's contracts, sure, but if you were paying 7 guys to score 17 points you'd be scoring 119 a game... about 30 more points a game than we score now.
> 
> You let Crawford walk for less than 9mil/year (9mil a year is a bit too much) and you have failed as a GM. Paxson already messed up with that Toronto trade, he was so eager to do something and make his mark he traded talent for grinders.


How about a SF who averages 17.5 ppg on 45% shooting and pulls down 5 rebounds/game? What if his name was Glenn Robinson. Would you sign him for a deal at 9 million per if he was on the open market right now? I wouldn't.

I'd sign Jamal to up to about 7.5 per, but I'd rather keep it to 4 or 5 years as opposed to 6. But that's it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: GB*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> You dont like the low number of wins crawford has led us too...why isn't someone else doing the leading then?If he's not good enough why isn't someone else in his role as the guy?


The team is too inexperienced/untalented.

A couple of pieces, a lot of role players...no stars.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> I'd sign Jamal to up to about 7.5 per, but I'd rather keep it to 4 or 5 years as opposed to 6. But that's it.


Team option after the second year?

Fair. He gets two more seasons to prove himself and 14 million for his trouble.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: GB*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> The team is too inexperienced/untalented.
> ...


then the question becomes why heap most of your complaining on one of the players who are actually trying to take the mantle and trying to be a star ...trying to use his talent...unlike players like eddie robinson or an untalented sloth like brunson or JYD ...why would you specifically target a player who isn't to blame as much as others 

you and many others blame a single player(occasionally curry or chandler for different reasons) for a team's problems and that isn't close to fair, if you have a problem with how the team is constructed you have to look at who is doing the assembling


----------

