# Article - No extension for Crawford



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bullsep30.html



The only two teams with healthy cap space who need a point guard are the Clippers and Utah. If they show interest we might have a problem. If not, it's a risk well taken.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

"I talked to his agent, Arn Tellem, and we agreed to let it go,'' Paxson said. "We were very far apart in terms of what we wanted to do.''


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

hmmm...I wonder what exactly that means...


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Paxson made it official that guard Jamal Crawford's contract won't be extended before the Oct. 31 deadline.

"I talked to his agent, Arn Tellem, and we agreed to let it go,'' Paxson said. "We were very far apart in terms of what we wanted to do.'' 

Not a positive sign if you want to see JC remain a Bull for a long time. Based on Paxson's statement, it sure sounds like he's going to let the free agent market set his price next summer and decide if he wants to match whatever offer Crawford accepts. This also may drive Cartwright to attempt to accelerate Hinrich's development a little more than they might have planned in the event Crawford does walk next summer.

Now, what we don't know is what Crawford and Tellem are asking for at this time. If it turns out to be some absurdly high dollar amount (based upon, among other things, his performance over a 22 game stretch last season), will JC get as much PT as everyone had expected? Or will the Bulls rotation reflect an expectation that this might be Jamal's last season and he'll end up yielding some more minutes to Kirk?

In any event, the stalemate between the two sides coupled with Williams' career threatening injuries make the drafting of Hinrich appear to be a wise decision.

It also casts a bit of a cloud over the season before it's begun. Not coming to an agreement on an extension is one thing. But being "very far apart" in their negotiations is something else entirely.


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

Just off the top of my head, the kind of players I'd likely trade Crawford for if it came down to it:

Richard Jefferson
AK47
Artest(If Pax and BC approve)
Caron Butler


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

one way to look at this is, Jamal will be playing his very best this year. He will be playing for a possible big payday. If he has it in him, it's all good for the Bulls. They will pay him what he wants or trade him for a good player equal to his skills.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Paxson is doing this exactly the right way. In no way should he be paying JC big bucks this summer. Bottomline is he has not earned it yet. He will have all this year as the # 1 PG and will be given every opportunity to prove his worth. If he plays the way they want him to then he gets paid generously, if not then say goodbye to JC.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> one way to look at this is, Jamal will be playing his very best this year. He will be playing for a possible big payday. If he has it in him, it's all good for the Bulls. They will pay him what he wants or trade him for a good player equal to his skills.


...or they may lose him and have nothing to show for it at all.

When you talk about the possibility of a sign and trade transaction next summer, which may become a very real possibility, it also makes you wonder if Paxson's public statement about the two sides being _very far apart_ might actually encourage an interested team to attempt to deal for Crawford before the February trade deadline. I can see a number of teams who might like to own Crawford's signing rights next summer but would prefer to deal for him at his current salary rather than try to match his new salary in any kind of a sign & trade transaction. S&T's have the potential of stripping the interested team of much needed roster depth, especially if they have to combine two or more players' salaries to match Crawford's new contract.

Sounds to me like trade talk could possibly become a hot topic of conversation regarding Crawford again this season...maybe even more so than in previous years. A lot might depend on the team's success as the season progresses Here we go again.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Paxson made it official that guard Jamal Crawford's contract won't be extended before the Oct. 31 deadline.
> 
> "I talked to his agent, Arn Tellem, and we agreed to let it go,'' Paxson said. "We were very far apart in terms of what we wanted to do.''
> ...


I am just curious. Given that we already pretty much knew that Paxson and Crawford weren't likely to come to an agreement on an extension, this sounds like exactly what I would expect any GM to say. In fact, if it was particularly contentious, I might have expected Paxson to say something stronger.

Of course, there could be more going on here and I am in no position to question Kismet's read of this situtation. But to read much of anything solely from this statement other than the fact that Crawford won't be getting an extension this Fall seems very, very speculative, much more speculative than those folks who think Crawford is going to be an All-Star based upon his performance at the end of last season.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Towards the end of July, I believe, Paxson commented on the possibility of signing Crawford to an extension. I don't recall his exact words, but in general terms, I believe Paxson limited his remarks to describing the possibility that a contract might not get done before 10/31 but that both sides still want to see Jamal remain a Chicago Bull for a long time.

Today we see Paxson describe the two sides as being "very far apart." That's the first time he's quantified negotiations between the two parties. And if he was asked directly how close the two sides were to getting a deal done, we all know that there were many different ways he could have responded. The phrase "very far apart" has a certain connotation that wouldn't normally be associated with words like "encouraging" or "optimistic."

John's an extremely smart guy. You can bet that he doesn't make public remarks, especially about his players or the organization, thoughtlessly. Contract negotiations are serious business. John had a reason for making the public statement he did. I'm not sure what his reasons were or are. But I'm sure they were well thought out.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Fair enough, but I would feel a lot more confident reading something into this if the article was about Crawford rather than about Fizer. The sum total of what is said about Crawford is this.

Paxson made it official that guard Jamal Crawford's contract won't be extended before the Oct. 31 deadline.

"I talked to his agent, Arn Tellem, and we agreed to let it go,'' Paxson said. "We were very far apart in terms of what we wanted to do.''

We have no idea what else Paxson might have said. So while Paxson may have been very careful in selecting these words, there may have been other words that he was equally careful in selecting that just didn't get reported.

I guess that I would have thought if Modrowski believed this statement marked a big change in the Crawford negotiations, he would have led with it. The fact that this was only a couple paragraphs at the end of an article about Fizer suggests (but does not prove) that he didn't think this statement was big news.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Could Paxson be taking a risk that the Clippers or the Jazz will not be interested in Crawford and that he will have no competition for his services and may be able to get him at a cheaper price because of it?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hps</b>!
> Just off the top of my head, the kind of players I'd likely trade Crawford for if it came down to it:
> 
> Richard Jefferson
> ...


you're nuts.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

I don't think this is a really big deal. A lot of fourth year players don't get extensions and I don't really blame Paxson for wanting to see if Crawford can turn his second half magic into an entire year's worth of excellent play. 

He's still going to be an unrestricted FA. The Bulls have a lot of money and Reinsdorf is willing to spend it. If Jamal puts up monster numbers and Paxson is cautious to pay up or thinks that Hinrich can easily take his place, then he is an idiot. Crawford is still a part of the team, so I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

:grinning: :grinning: Hey GB, get your hands off my [strike]nuts[/strike] hps. :grinning: :grinning:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

read my post here: http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=648054#post648054

It all fits togather. I'd bet Pax is offering a contract he knows they won't accept.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Seems to me one of the two sides in this is valuing the player on his performance and the other is valuing the player on something less (which translates into much much more).

If you've read my posts in the past, I've suggested that it looks to me that the Bulls are not committed to JC nearly as much as many of us think.

Peace!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I think everyone knows I was always in favor of Jay Williams at PG instead of Crawford and have thought that JC was the PG getting traded if Jay did not get in accident. I think JC is a fine player just does not play PG the way this team needs him to play it. Not saying he can't or won't just that he has not up to this point. Paxson obviously thinks this way as well. He is waiting because JC has not proven to him that he deserves the big money. Kirk is here in case JC does not prove it this upcoming season.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

So Pax probably threw out a number like 6-year 38 mil, and Craw's agent was probably thinking more like 6-year 45 mil. (Both are total random guesses, but it hardly matters).

These articles help to establish a better understanding of the dynamic between Paxson and Crawford, which looks very healthy to me.

By the way, I quoted a LOT of these articles, and I think it can be streamlined, but here are the links:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull151.html

...[John Paxson ] recently pulled aside Jamal Crawford . . . But the conversations weren't to negotiate as much as to *establish an understanding. Paxson wants to be patient, which likely means there won't be an extension this year.*

''All I expressed to Jamal is that whatever happens in this process, if something doesn't work out this year, it doesn't mean that we don't want him back,'' Paxson said . . . *Crawford has said he wanted to sign an extension, but Paxson said Crawford is handling the situation with maturity.

''Jamal was great about it,'' Paxson said. ''He's been so good about everything this offseason.

''I think he understands. And I understand what it's like to be a player when a contract is up, and it's not an easy thing. But it's the way the system works, and no matter what happens, we still would have an opportunity to keep him.''*

From Crawford's side:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/basketball/cst-spt-rose18.html

''We want something that's fair to both sides,'' Crawford said. ''If it doesn't work out this summer, no problem.

''A lot of guys don't get extended after their third year.'' . . . ''I'm sure there will be offers from other teams,'' Crawford said, "but my first priority is to stay here.

''Things could really work out in my favor because minutes and everything will be there. It's just on me now. I've been working real hard this summer, and I'm ready. I'm excited for us as a team.''

...

Crawford said there are no hard feelings regarding Paxson's stance. Paxson also must think about signing Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry to extensions next year.

''I'm not disappointed at all,'' Crawford said. ''I understand it's a business.

''Pax has been straight up and honest, and I like working with him so far.''

But this part is most compelling for me, and the best news I could hear:

Curry and Crawford are close friends who share the same agent, Arn Tellem. Curry didn't say his negotiations next year would be affected by Crawford's status, but *he wants Crawford to remain a teammate.

''I think we need to try to sign Jamal,'' Curry said. ''He is a big part of this team and what we want to do.''*

That's great. I think that Curry will soon have Shaq-like influence on the team. He probably won't be as demanding (I want Phil Jackson! Now!), but if he says he wants Crawford, and he IS the man, then I think what he says may hold a lot of weight.

All in all, things don't look at bad as they seem. So an extension wasn't signed; so what? Paxson has made assurances, and he hasn't shown any secret evil side to his good and honest rap, so I think that he's doing the right thing. I would say that Krause might have handled the situation much more poorly. Krause was brilliant at some of the grander strategic moves, but when it came to player rapport, he wasn't the best.

I'm satisfied, for now.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Good post Showtyme. I certainly understand what you are saying. It is just that Paxson flat out said they are very far apart. That tells me that we are talking about a heck of a lot more money between the two sides than 7 million(45-38) over 6 years.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

Ah, the issue of building through the draft in todays NBA...

First you sign kids with little or no college experience and pay them millions to develop into solid pro's over many years (enduring all the growing pains along the way). Your team recieves very little in terms of return on your investment.
Then...
Their high-profile agents base contract demands upon future value of their clients great skill (pre-supposition of stardom).
But...
Pax is the GM, he must deal in reality. He is probably basing his offer on present day market value, BUT he cannot afford lose another key asset (JWill?) without equal return compensation. Pax will step up his offer (tender or match) if Jamal proves that he is the real deal. I wonder if Jamals ACL reconstruction is creating a level of durability concern for a long -term commitment.

Jamal your table is ready!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Great post, Showtime.

That post was perhaps even a notch better than the standards set by HJHJR, DickieHurtz, and Kismet in bringing published quotes together with analysis to make a solid argument.

It is these kinds of posts that we all come on here to read.

Thank you.

Just to add, that doesn't mean I am persuaded by everything you say. I just like the way you brought forth evidence for your views.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

_That's great. I think that Curry will soon have Shaq-like influence on the team. He probably won't be as demanding (I want Phil Jackson! Now!), but if he says he wants Crawford, and he IS the man, then I think what he says may hold a lot of weight.
_

Do you really think Curry knows whats best for this team--more so than Paxson? Really?

He hasn't even learned to put a team on his back and carry them to a victory--let alone build a winning team.

And going into the season...what else is he going to say about a friend of his??

I trust Pax. I think they are hoping Heinrich is the future of that position. I also think you and other posters are looking for a way to make this into a positive thing for Crawford. It isn't.

If he was half of what people on this board think he is capable of--he'd be signed by now.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> I trust Pax. .




And you trust Pax based on what ?His long distinguished record of drafting and developing players or the record of his TEAMS while he was Gm.Maybe its the way he's signed hundreds of all star caliber players to team friendly deals.  


Pax is just as unproven as GM as jamal is as a player but with that being said we could play the first preseason games,Jamal could dominate and Pax could be swayed they still have 30 days in which to get one done .

I for one dont care what Pax envisions of pg's on his team because being a pg that Pax likes doesnt mean it will equal wins.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Seems Utah would be our only competition for Crawford next summer. I can see them signing him to an offer sheet(similar to what they did with Terry). We would then have to decide to match it, let him walk, or work out a S&T. Also have to consider them maybe interested in Fizer as well. Call me crazy but either JC or Fizer could easily become a Jazz. I would like to see Harpring here somehow if we lose one of those two to Utah.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> _That's great. I think that Curry will soon have Shaq-like influence on the team. He probably won't be as demanding (I want Phil Jackson! Now!), but if he says he wants Crawford, and he IS the man, then I think what he says may hold a lot of weight.
> _
> 
> ...


Shaq doesn't know what's best for the Lakers, either, you know.

I mean, obviously other higher powers had a hand in what's happening there, but consider: if Shaq is the main man, you make him happy otherwise he might not play very well.

If there's not a lot of spin control on what's going on in Indiana, they might find a very unhappy Jermaine O'Neal very unhealthy for the team.

You listen to your best player. That's just how it works.

Thanks for the nice comments on the articles. The funny thing is that I was pretty outraged when I heard that Pax didn't re-sign him, but in the context of other communications, I think that the fans would probably be a lot more upset than the people involved (Pax and JC). It's our job to stay calm, because if we buy into local sports media's attempt at trying to cause malcontent among US, then it'll eventually get back to Jamal. 

We can't go around saying, "Man, he deserves this," and start whining about how we need to lock him up for a good rate right now instead of doling out to him later... that kind of attitude may start to seep into Crawford's mind as well. "Why AREN'T I getting paid right now? Don't they KNOW who I am? Everyone ELSE knows..."

Hopefully he doesn't pay attention to the media, but from the way I'm understanding the stance that Pax is taking, I think we have to have more confidence in our Bulls management until they prove us wrong.

Crawford bought into it. We should too. Jamal wants to stay in Chicago, and he's an excellent player that will hopefully prove his excellence this year. Pax appears to be ready to reward that, and if they were "far off" as of right now, it's because it's not really the right time to deal. Pax's offer was probably a token low-ball; Crawford's agent probably offered a token sky-high number. Both agree that now is not the time, and as long as Crawford is comfortable with it, we should be as well.

Curry lobbying for Craw only helps, especially if they hook it up into an amazing combo on the court as well. The time in Rucker isn't to be written off, and the fact that they are pretty close friends should speak for something as well. If their skills hook up on the court with amazing levels of chemistry, then as long as Curry's around, I think the Bulls would be wise to keep Crawford around.

In Minnesota, if Marbury didn't want to leave so badly, it would have been amazing to watch an elite PG and an elite big man hook it up for the last few years. I guarantee that 1st round exits wouldn't have been the case. Stephon, Wally, and Garnett... yikes. That's dangerous.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> Call me crazy but either JC or Fizer could easily become a Jazz.


If you're picked up by the Jazz are you "a Jazz," like there are many "deer" surrounding that other "deer?" "The Jazz" constitutes the whole team, so are you "The Jazz" as well, or just "some Jazz" as in I think I'll go watch "some Jazz" tonight at the Delta Center? I don't want JC or Fizer to become any amount of Jazz. j/k Kirk


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

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


Quite possibly the worst post ever. Pax has been around basketball for decades. He's won, he's seen what it takes to win.

*Of course *I'll accept his judgement over anyone on the team under 30. OF COURSE.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Are you comparing Crawford to Marbury?

I think that if Crawford becomes the Bulls PG of the future, then he changes from the kind of PG we think he is and becomes more KH-like---because THAT is what the management (Pax and C'Wright) wants. *He'll become what THEY want--not what you think and not what HE wants.*

I want Craw to succeed--but it's important to recognize that he won't be Penny Hardaway (the back in the day Penny) or Gilbert Arenas-like in a Bulls uniform. He'll have to be more John Stockton -like, because THAT is what the management (Pax and C'Wright) wants.




> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> Shaq doesn't know what's best for the Lakers, either, you know.
> ...


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

I agree they are not looking for a 20PPG guy at the PG. They are looking for a high assist man, good passer, and ability to hit open shots off double teams down low. They want things to be inside-outside not the other way around. JC will have to learn how to do that.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Are you comparing Crawford to Marbury?
> 
> I think that if Crawford becomes the Bulls PG of the future, then he changes from the kind of PG we think he is and becomes more KH-like---because THAT is what the management (Pax and C'Wright) wants. *He'll become what THEY want--not what you think and not what HE wants.*
> ...


And that's too bad. If it's true, which I think it is but hope it's not, then Paxson didn't really watch Crawford play at the end of last year. Not only was he scoring a lot but his assists were high and turnovers were low. He also ran the offense quite well. He fed Curry the ball and got others involved. 

Crawford can be a great scorer as well as a great distributer and PG on this team in whatever offense he plays.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

If Curry argues that Crawford is best for the team and best for his own success, that he offers an intangible level of comfort that no other player can, then the management would have to weight some real consideration in that. 

Pax and Cartwright are not tyrants. Shaq asked for a freaking NEW COACH (granted Kurt Rambis wasn't likely to keep the job anyway), and asked for him by name. I'm not saying that Curry is Shaq (or that Crawford is Marbury), but when a player speaks out about chemistry, the owners and decision makers have to take it into consideration.

I'm not saying that Curry owns the team, either. But I'm saying that Eddy Curry standing by his teammate and good friend, Crawford, is something that weighs in for the greater likelihood that JC would stay.

As for "am I comparing Crawford to Marbury", that answer is definitely no. They have similar ball-handling abilities, but Crawford is nowhere near as fast. Quickness is something that Crawford has, deceptively, because his long body looks like it is moving slow, but as far as absolute speed with the ball, I don't know if anyone in the NBA is faster than Marbury (except for potentially Iverson and, watching Tony Parker play, possibly Parker).

What I WAS comparing was the chemistry between Marbury and Garnett and the chemistry that might potentially develop between Crawford and Curry. Marbury-Garnett was a great duo that worked really well, and chemistry was really beginning to develop there. Crawford and Curry are in a similar situation; I'd hate to see us trade Crawford away and use a "serviceable" point guard (analog to Terrell Brandon) who might not work out at all.

Is Crawford a pass-first thinking point guard? No. But I'd much rather have Jamal Crawford than Jamaal Tinsley, today, and I think the coaching staff would agree.

Crawford has excellent passing vision and can make things happen, but being a "pass-first" point guard is actually having tunnel vision... a really good classic point guard has the ability to put up his own points as well as create for others. Jason Kidd has the balance; so does Gary Payton. Those guys are more complete point guards than Rod Strickland or Mark Jackson, guys that could run a team really well and create for their teammates but lacked the ability to be their own threat.

This is not an objective argument about how good Crawford is. We don't need to get into that as of right now.

This is simply saying that if Curry wants Crawford to be around, and if Crawford and Curry are developing chemistry ON the court (more significantly than their close friendship off the court), and if Crawford plays WELL objectively (not just in accordance to whatever Pax and BC demand), then I think the odds of trying to get JC to stay in town are much higher than a desire to get rid of him.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> 
> 
> And that's too bad. If it's true, which I think it is but hope it's not, then Paxson didn't really watch Crawford play at the end of last year. Not only was he scoring a lot but his assists were high and turnovers were low. He also ran the offense quite well. He fed Curry the ball and got others involved.
> ...



Pax has watched Crawford every year he's been in the league.

But I think he and C'Wright have come to an agreement that Jamals best is incompatible with the philosophy that they're building into their team.

I have a feeling that Bulls fans will grow to like Heinrich and his game--and that he'll be reaping bushels of assists by his second year.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> If Curry argues that Crawford is best for the team and best for his own success, that he offers an intangible level of comfort that no other player can, then the management would have to weight some real consideration in that.


Still trying to convince yourself, eh?

Curry hasn't played with Heinrich yet--and the offense hasn't been consistently run to the coaches or managements satisfaction yet.

There's a lot yet for Curry to experience. 



> Pax and Cartwright are not tyrants.


But they WILL do what they feel is right for the team--including forcing their veteran, time and battle tested philosophy on a bunch of youths.



> I'm not saying that Curry owns the team, either. But I'm saying that Eddy Curry standing by his teammate and good friend, Crawford, is something that weighs in for the greater likelihood that JC would stay.


See my first comment. 



> As for "am I comparing Crawford to Marbury", that answer is definitely no. They have similar ball-handling abilities, but Crawford is nowhere near as fast. Quickness is something that Crawford has, deceptively, because his long body looks like it is moving slow, but as far as absolute speed with the ball, I don't know if anyone in the NBA is faster than Marbury (except for potentially Iverson and, watching Tony Parker play, possibly Parker).


He's strong too. Country strong. Crawford ain't--probably won't ever be.



> What I WAS comparing was the chemistry between Marbury and Garnett and the chemistry that might potentially develop between Crawford and Curry. Marbury-Garnett was a great duo that worked really well, and chemistry was really beginning to develop there. Crawford and Curry are in a similar situation; I'd hate to see us trade Crawford away and use a "serviceable" point guard (analog to Terrell Brandon) who might not work out at all.


Point. But both had established themselves and both were elite. Neither of our guys is (yet).



> Is Crawford a pass-first thinking point guard? No. But I'd much rather have Jamal Crawford than Jamaal Tinsley, today, and I think the coaching staff would agree.


Are you comparing Heinrich to Tinsley?



> This is simply saying that *if* Curry wants Crawford to be around, and *if* Crawford and Curry are developing chemistry ON the court (more significantly than their close friendship off the court), and *if* Crawford plays WELL objectively (not just in accordance to whatever Pax and BC demand), then I think the odds of trying to get JC to stay in town are much higher than a desire to get rid of him.


3 ifs. What Heinrich makes it easier for Curry to score? What if they develop chemistry? What if Heinrich plays really, really well?

if if if


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

where did we get the perception that Hinrich is a strictly pass-first point guard? Didn't he average 17ppg in college and only 5-6 assists? That's not exactly screaming NEXT STOCKTON to me. More like Steve Nash if I'm gonna insist on making unrealistic comparisons.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Quite possibly the worst post ever. Pax has been around basketball for decades. He's won, he's seen what it takes to win.
> ...


So has Jim Paxson,Wes Unseld,and MJ that doesnt make them good gm's. If thats your scenarios then Corey Blount Cliff Levingston and Bobby Hansen are next in line for jobs. :laugh:

I will go by what Pax does as Gm not what he did as a player thats what got the Wizards in trouble .


As for "becoming what they want " being a pass first pg has not proven that it equals wins for the Chicago Bulls as Ollie,Anthony,Jwill all gave it a shot over the last 2 years and failed miserably.

Crawford has shown that he is resilient,can lead,will take a big shot ,make a big pass,can take over a game if need be and is a team player.All pax wants to see is him do it for a whole season rather than 20 games.

It seems to me that youre trying to read more into this than what is really there.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> 
> 
> And that's too bad. If it's true, which I think it is but hope it's not, then Paxson didn't really watch Crawford play at the end of last year.


HE WAS THE FRIGGIN COMMENTATOR FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!!! :upset:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

What about if what Ncbullsfan says is true and the salary cap is less of an issue to teams next year...couldn't letting the market decide Jamal's value be a poor move on paxson's part?


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

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


when was the last time the triagnle had a TRUE point guard? . Jamal is exactly the type of point guard that thrives in this system, a guy who can shoot, pass and drive. and Kirk is no true point guard, that is the biggett fallacy


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> when was the last time the triagnle had a TRUE point guard? .


Well, I seem to hear something different every time. Some will say that the Bulls have completely scrapped the triangle, others say that it's half implemented, and some say it's still fully implemented.

:whoknows:


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I seem to hear something different every time. Some will say that the Bulls have completely scrapped the triangle, others say that it's half implemented, and some say it's still fully implemented.
> ...



which brings me to the old cliche, talent is talent. we have a talent a point guard, and we are no in position to be nitpicky here.. nobody in their right minds would trade Arenas for Jamal Tinsley. I have never read an article with BC or Pax stating that they wanted a pure point guard to run the team.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> which brings me to the old cliche, talent is talent. we have a talent a point guard, and we are no in position to be nitpicky here.. nobody in their right minds would trade Arenas for Jamal Tinsley. I have never read an article with BC or Pax stating that they wanted a pure point guard to run the team.


However...during last season we did hear Cartwright describe his image of what he wants from a Bulls point guard: ...six points and twelve assists per game. I believe those were his exact words. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> However...during last season we did hear Cartwright describe his image of what he wants from a Bulls point guard: ...six points and twelve assists per game. I believe those were his exact words. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


You're right.

Crawford will never be happy with that.


Buut you fanboys go on believing what you want to believe.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> However...during last season we did hear Cartwright describe his image of what he wants from a Bulls point guard: ...six points and twelve assists per game. I believe those were his exact words. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


considering he said that during the Jay/ Jc competition last season, i wouldnt take that statement too literally. im sure he was supposed to say he wanted our point guard to play like steve francis... that guy knows exactly where and when to feed yao ming down low :sour: . 


besides.. Jc's competition was jay williams, no? had jay won out the point guard spot we would still be here complaining about how we want our starting point guard playing right? Jay isnt any more pure point guard then Jc. If Jay was in the position Jamal was in today.. would we trade off Jay for Kirk because he wasnt dropping 12 dimes a game? i dont think so. 6apg from jc this year would make me happy, though 5 asg would dissapoint me.

Tyson isnt, and may never be a primary scorer, our only primary scorers for the future are Eddy and Jc. Lets wait for Tyson to prove he can be a big scorer before deciding Jc is too offensive minded.

besides.. im not even worried about Jc, he has pure point guard passing skills, i've seen what he can do. Its just a matter of getting the starting nod and getting starting minutes. i can understand the skeptisicm from people here, all i can say is you dont know his game yet


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right.
> ...


and you're the kirk hinrich posse president. Let kirk PROVE he is a pure point guard, and at the NBA level at that, before trying to convince people here that Jc should mold his game after mr.heinrich


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> where did we get the perception that Hinrich is a strictly pass-first point guard? Didn't he average 17ppg in college and only 5-6 assists? That's not exactly screaming NEXT STOCKTON to me. More like Steve Nash if I'm gonna insist on making unrealistic comparisons.



my thoughts exactly.
lets wait for Kirk to play and WIN a single NBA game before forming the Kirk Hinrich Posse


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> However...during last season we did hear Cartwright describe his image of what he wants from a Bulls point guard: ...six points and twelve assists per game. I believe those were his exact words. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


Wow, I am the furthest thing from a Jamal Crawford bandwagon hopper, but is there a single player in the history of the NBA who has come close to those statistics?

If that is truly is what BC and JP have in mind, then here is a list of point guards that would not fit what the Bulls have in mind.

1. John Stockton in his prime
2. Magic Johnson in his prime
3. Jason Kidd
4. Scottie Pippen in his prime
5. John Paxson in his prime (would not be even two counties over from being in the ballpark)

If Crawford averaged 8 assists per game like he did towards the end of last season, wouldn't that be more than any player that has ever played for the Bulls or the Lakers while they were running the Triangle?

Wow, this thread has really gotten out of control.

We are going to need someone five years from now who can create offense from the perimeter.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Personally, I don't understand the assertion that Jamal's skills don't "fit into what the Bulls are trying to do". My understanding was that the Bulls were trying to win! Jamal quite obviously gives them the best chance to do that. They tried to sit him down and hand the reigns over to a highly touted (and very skilled) rookie already and we all saw how that turned out. They let a skilled semi vet in Best run things and again...we saw how that ended. Crawford fits perfectly into this Bull's team. Offensively he has the ability to distribute the ball well. He has a real knack for feeding the post (which the Bulls will be doing a lot of) and by now he has a good grasp of the triangle (whicth the Bulls will run more this season). And Crawford also has the ability to bomb from long range which should be really useful when Curry & Fizer are double teamed down low. I'm not sure who would fit better into what the Bulls look like they ar trying to do. I'm gonna assume that Paxson simply thinks it will be cheapest to match any offer for Jamal next season rather than resign him this season. And that might be a good point since there are few teams under that cap. Then again, who knows what trades will happen and who will be under the cap when that time rolls around...It's a gamble. 

Oh, and Pax hasn't been on the job long enough to earn any real credit as GM yet. It seems to me I remember Krause saying that he would "keep Jamal on the Bulls as long as he could" which sounds like a smart thing to me.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

"Both sides, obviously, take a risk," Paxson said. "In Jamal's case, he's really got to prove that he can play a full year at a high level.  

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=37895143

There you have it. Paxson has revealed what he considers to be a major issue regarding making a long term commitment to JC. *DURABILITY.* While I'm sure Crawford has to prove his value in other areas as well, long term health is a big consideration.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> "Both sides, obviously, take a risk," Paxson said. "In Jamal's case, he's really got to prove that he can play a full year at a high level.
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=37895143
> ...


Roger that, Kismet.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!However...during last season we did hear Cartwright describe his image of what he wants from a Bulls point guard: ...six points and twelve assists per game. I believe those were his exact words. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Wow, I am the furthest thing from a Jamal Crawford bandwagon hopper, but is there a single player in the history of the NBA who has come close to those statistics?
> 
> ...


 Leave it to a number cruncher to interpret hyperbole literally. Hey, NC, ever hear of people using embellishment to make a point? BTW, I'm referring to BC and his use of the 6 pts, 12 assists description because he did indeed say that last year. 
:grinning:

For the sake of clarification, NC, why don't we refer to KC Johnson's statement in today's Trib as an adequate interpretation of Cartwright's remarks last year: Cartwright and Paxson already are trying to impress upon Crawford to be a distributor first, but with his quickness and shooting ability, this could be a tough task. 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ct01,1,3312404.story?coll=cs-basketball-print


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Sorry, Kismet, but I wasn't very clear. My post was hyperbole and embellishment to make a point, as well.

Except for the fact that Crawford's assist average towards the end of last season is, to my knowledge, as high as anyone that has played for the Bulls or Lakers during their Triangle years.

Again, I shudder in saying this because the Crawford posse will take it to an extreme, but sometimes there really does seem to be a higher standard that Crawford is held to.

And Kismet, don't take things so personally. This summer you have been my favorite poster in this forum (and the one I agree with most often and who changes my mind most often), and that is precisely the reason I push and prod you so much. I know that once you told me to leave you alone, but I figured that you might have forgiven me for the silly things that you were mad at me about several months ago. If you still feel the same way, I will try to refrain from commenting on any of your posts, as I did for the most part the last few months.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> our only primary scorers for the future are Eddy and *Jc*.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> Cartwright and Paxson already are trying to impress upon Crawford to be a distributor first, but with his quickness and shooting ability, this could be a tough task.[/COLOR]



with his shooting ability and quickness this could be a tough task 

would they perfer someone who cant shoot and is slow ?

if so Jamaal Tinsley is available but obviously the bulls wont do that because crawford has proven he is a better player than tinsley

i think the bulls brass knows better than to hire for important positions players not talented enough to be capable of more than the parameters they have set forth

does anyone realize the post play has shown steady improvement all season and especially with JC starting ?

this is much ado about nothing but so sadly few are realizing this


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey, NC, ever hear of people using embellishment to make a point? BTW, I'm referring to BC and his use of the 6 pts, 12 assists description because he did indeed say that last year.
> :grinning:


:greatjob: :greatjob: :greatjob:




> For the sake of clarification, NC, why don't we refer to KC Johnson's statement in today's Trib as an adequate interpretation of Cartwright's remarks last year: Cartwright and Paxson already are trying to impress upon Crawford to be a distributor first, but with his quickness and shooting ability, this could be a tough task.
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ct01,1,3312404.story?coll=cs-basketball-print


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

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


Yes, if he distributes first, and shoots second.

See John Stockton---who didn't have a great jumper when he entered the league.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/john_stockton/?nav=page

In his fourth season, the first he started all 82 games, he averaged 17 points a game and *almost 14 assists*. Now consider: if we allow for 6 free throws a game, and consider that he probably made 4 of them, the other 13 points probably game from a statline that read a lot like 5-8 from the field. A couple of three pointers and 2 or 3 field goals.

Jamal goes out most nights looking for 8 shots _each quarter_. 

(thats a joke)


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

GB I think you are right on with this one. Paxson and BC IMO see this teas similar to championship teams of before. Curry is Jordan and Chandler is Pippen in terms of their roles on team(not saying either player will get to that level). Now they are looking for guys that will be supporting casts. They want other players to be role players alongside these 2 superstars. They don't wnat them to be a big scorer, just pass the ball well, play good defense, and hit open jumpers off double teams. They are not interested in seeing the PG jack up 20+ shots a game.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Pax wants consistency from Jamal*



> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> "Both sides, obviously, take a risk," Paxson said. "In Jamal's case, he's really got to prove that he can play a full year at a high level.
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=37895143
> ...


I would say that durability isn't the issue, but consistency. And I don't think you can conclude that Paxson has doubts. Rather, he is looking for a demonstration of consistency that is worthy of a long term commitment to Jamal as the PG for the team. He knows and likes what Jamal is capable of. But he hasn't seen it for real over an extended period of time. That's what this year will be about for Jamal.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, if he distributes first, and shoots second.
> ...


john stockton in his 4th season was also 27 

and john stocktons are pretty rare,but if the bulls want him he is available ,i doubt they called 

and since the bulls had absolutely no problem in the points in the paint category(the lowest they could have finished is 3rd they were 2nd in the last week of the season if i remember correctly) its a pretty big reach of fate to assume that crawford is all of a sudden this huge chuck who mostly goes for his own shot and ignores theinside game

this is just hearsay that has gone wild as crawfords assist totals as a starter were more than credible as well


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

John Stockton was a great point guard because he made his teammates better, he played gritty (basically dirty) defense, and he was an incredibly intelligent player that kept him effective until he was 40 (and could probably still be effective today).

To attribute his greatness to just being "pass-first" point guard is dangerous, because it reduces his greatness altogether. Andre Miller and Jamaal Tinsley are pass-first point guards. They are high assist men who pass first and shoot second. They are good point guards, but not great.

Must everything be a political statement? Paxson and Cartwright are asking Crawford to pass more and score less. They asked Jalen to do the exact same thing.

“He’s so versatile and we feel like we now have a lot of other guys that can play. He’s going to be the real catalyst for our team; that will be his challenge. Not only can Jamal [ Crawford], Eddy [ Curry] and Jalen score for themselves, but they can score for others. Jalen’s challenge will be for him to become even more of an assist man who relies more on his teammates.”

Does that mean they are unhappy with Rose, and want to replace him with a passing SF/SG rather than a scoring one?

Cartwright on Chandler:

"We really need to focus on making him more of a scorer down on the other end.”

Does this mean that Chandler is out of town if he doesn't start scoring tons of points?

What about Cartwright on Curry:

"Offensively, we want to work on getting him a left hand [shot]. But we really want to get him to have a defensive awareness so that if anything comes into that lane, it will belong to him."

If Curry doesn't get a left handed shot or doesn't learn how to D up in the paint, he's a goner? 

Could it simply be that Cartwright want Crawford to work on the weaker part of his game as much as they want every other player on the roster to work on their weaknesses?

The bottom line is this: the fact that Pax and Craw's agent didn't come an extension agreement doesn't speak to the conclusion that Pax isn't a fan of Crawford or thinks that he deserves any more money.

It simply says that Craw has a season to play yet. Jamal isn't upset about it. Pax isn't either. They both think that Crawford might have a future with the Bulls. I've seen a lot more GM's and coaches being a lot more plain about intentions to trade or not re-extend. If Crawford and his agent were satisfied that JC may still be in Chicago and be a long-term solution at the point for this team, then we ought not read more into things than that.

If you are a hater, then that's your choice. I'm not pro-Crawford to the death either. But ceteris parabis, he is the best PG on the team. I like seeing the team do well. That's the bottom line.

By the way, if he plays like he did in his 20 starting games last year, averaging 6.9 apg, it would put him in the top NINE point guards in the entire league.

I don't think it's a HUGE problem; just a general direction that he might head.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


is that the best you got?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> John Stockton was a great point guard because he made his teammates better, he played gritty (basically dirty) defense, and he was an incredibly intelligent player that kept him effective until he was 40 (and could probably still be effective today).
> 
> To attribute his greatness to just being "pass-first" point guard is dangerous, because it reduces his greatness altogether.


Boy o boy did you ever miss the target. You shot at California, I'm in New York.

I was making a point about the mentality of Mr. Stockton and how it showed up in the stats box. Nothing more, nothing less.




> Andre Miller and Jamaal Tinsley are pass-first point guards. They are high assist men who pass first and shoot second. They are good point guards, but not great.


Let examine them:

Dre took 1,045 his third season for an average of about 13 shots per game. Stockton took 923 for an average of about 11 shots per game. Jamal took 808 for an average of about 10 shots per game. However---he played an average of only 25 minutes. The other two's average is * 39 minutes* (for stockton) and *36 minutes* (for Dre).

This isn't just a matter of passing more and shooting less. This is radical surgery. They are asking Jamal to _change his game_ and the presence of a mid-lottery pick at PG means the team is hedging their bets that he can't do it. They are trying to perform a basketballobotomy on him.

Krause may have had the same concerns.



> Must everything be a political statement? Paxson and Cartwright are asking Crawford to pass more and score less. They asked Jalen to do the exact same thing.


And he's another one that may be outta here in a seasons or so time.

But hey---you go on believing something the facts very clearly don't say: That Jamal will be the PG here for the next 10 years.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> is that the best you got?


Sure, I'd be happy to add you to my ignore list...


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Sorry, Kismet, but I wasn't very clear. My post was hyperbole and embellishment to make a point, as well.


Uh, huh...and your point was???



> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Except for the fact that Crawford's assist average towards the end of last season is, to my knowledge, as high as anyone that has played for the Bulls or Lakers during their Triangle years.
> 
> Again, I shudder in saying this because the Crawford posse will take it to an extreme, but sometimes there really does seem to be a higher standard that Crawford is held to.


Ok, I must have overdosed on dumb pills again because I still don't get what you're driving at. But let me throw this out just for the hell of it: The whole idea of a points vs. assists ratio for Crawford has nothing to do with numbers. It's really about his state of mind at gametime...will he be a distributor or a scorer, or a little of both? And will his vision of his role and how he executes it match up with Paxson's and Cartwright's expectations?



> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> And Kismet, don't take things so personally. This summer you have been my favorite poster in this forum (and the one I agree with most often and who changes my mind most often), and that is precisely the reason I push and prod you so much. I know that once you told me to leave you alone, but I figured that you might have forgiven me for the silly things that you were mad at me about several months ago. If you still feel the same way, I will try to refrain from commenting on any of your posts, as I did for the most part the last few months.


Why is it that anytime I question you or critique one of your posts you attribute my statements to being based on some personal conflict you seemed to think we had in the past? Now that's what I call an arrogant presumption. In other words, my critical responses to your posts couldn't possibly be due to a simple difference of opinion, because your positions are, in your mind at least, so well thought out and articulated that they should be perceived as unchallengeable. Look, I don't give a rat's butt what your personal stance is on any particular basketball issue. Ownership of an expressed idea or information isn't important on this board. That's why almost all of us use pseudonyms in place of our real names (interesting though, how you're one of the very, very few who includes your real full name in the descriptive column to the left of your posts, Dan). Its the idea that should matter on this board...not _who_ spawned it. But I digress. Please, Dan, feel free to proffer your views on anything I post on this board. As I said before, I often overdose on dumb pills before posting. So I expect a lot of criticism to some of the things I offer up. It matters not to me how people respond to my posts and I'm sure as hell not keeping track of who my critics are. So don't worry about me taking things personally on this board. Believe me Dan, I've got much more pressing life issues to deal with than to worry about who likes and dislikes anything I've got to say on basketball boards dot net! Carry on, Professor!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Why is it that anytime I question you or critique one of your posts you attribute my statements to being based on some personal conflict you seemed to think we had in the past? Now that's what I call an arrogant presumption. In other words, my critical responses to your posts couldn't possibly be due to a simple difference of opinion, because your positions are, in your mind at least, so well thought out and articulated that they should be perceived as unchallengeable. Look, I don't give a rat's butt what your personal stance is on any particular basketball issue. Ownership of an expressed idea or information isn't important on this board. That's why almost all of us use pseudonyms in place of our real names (interesting though, how you're one of the very, very few who includes your real full name in the descriptive column to the left of your posts, Dan). Its the idea that should matter on this board...not _who_ spawned it. But I digress. Please, Dan, feel free to proffer your views on anything I post on this board. As I said before, I often overdose on dumb pills before posting. So I expect a lot of criticism to some of the things I offer up. It matters not to me how people respond to my posts and I'm sure as hell not keeping track of who my critics are. So don't worry about me taking things personally on this board. Believe me Dan, I've got much more pressing life issues to deal with than to worry about who likes and dislikes anything I've got to say on basketball boards dot net! Carry on, Professor!


Dear Kismet:

It is too bad. There is no point in me explaining myself. You have this idea in your head that I am this arrogant know-it-all professor, and anything I say just reinforces that fact for you. I suspect that even when I sincerely try to be conciliatory or complimentary, you interpret that as some form of passive-aggressive behavior.

That's too bad, but I guess I will have to give up ever trying to disagree with you on these message boards. It seems that all it ever leads to is derisive personal comments about me being a "number cruncher" or questioning why I don't have a job in the NBA yet.

I sincerely look forward to reading whatever you post, but I will do the board a favor and not respond to any more of your posts. It's just not worth it.

Best wishes,
Dan


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

GB, are you intentionally trying to be on a different page as you?

You have a biased opinion about the fate of Jamal Crawford. That's fine by me. This board is all about voicing opinions. You think he's going to go. Fine.

Just because I pursue discussion with you, it isn't logical to assume that I am on the other side of the bias. As I've mentioned SEVERAL times in the thread, I am NOT some hardcore pro-Crawford guy.


> If he was half of what people on this board think he is capable of--he'd be signed by now.


1. Half the people on this board don't think Crawford is better than 16/6/3/1 stl. The other half think worse.

2. Ricky Davis, Ben Wallace, Corey Maggette... name anyone that began to really break out near the end of their third year and got an extension BEFORE the fourth year started. The only guys I can think of off the top of my head that got it that early are the solid hardcore producers from the moment they got into the league, guys like Matrix, Brand, and Pierce. 

Conclusion: He very well could be capable of being a top quality point guard, and Pax could know it, and he COULD still be not signed; in fact, the odds are against him that he WOULD be signed if he has capability but not history.



> > If Curry argues that Crawford is best for the team and best for his own success, that he offers an intangible level of comfort that no other player can, then the management would have to weight some real consideration in that.
> 
> 
> Still trying to convince yourself, eh?
> ...


I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. That's an extremely assuming. Don't pigeonhole my statements.

I said "IF" Curry sticks up for Crawford, which he is doing as of the present moment. If he plays with Hinrich and feels some kind of amazing chemistry with him, then fine. Then he'll stick up for Hinrich and that will factor into management's consideration as well.

But at the moment, he is sticking up for JC. If he sticks up for JC in the long run, I think it DOES make an impact on management's decision (how much impact is up to you, but there is definitely something there).


> > Is Crawford a pass-first thinking point guard? No. But I'd much rather have Jamal Crawford than Jamaal Tinsley, today, and I think the coaching staff would agree.
> 
> 
> Are you comparing Heinrich to Tinsley?


How random is that? No, I'm not comparing Hinrich to Tinsley. I didn't even mention Hinrich's name.



> > This is simply saying that if Curry wants Crawford to be around, and if Crawford and Curry are developing chemistry ON the court (more significantly than their close friendship off the court), and if Crawford plays WELL objectively (not just in accordance to whatever Pax and BC demand), then I think the odds of trying to get JC to stay in town are much higher than a desire to get rid of him.
> 
> 
> 3 ifs. What Heinrich makes it easier for Curry to score? What if they develop chemistry? What if Heinrich plays really, really well?


The three ifs are there because they are circumstantial qualifications to my statement. They aren't there because they express what I want to happen. 



> Buut you fanboys go on believing what you want to believe.


What the heck is that supposed to mean? This is not an anti-JC pro-JC argument, whatever you want to believe. For that, you have to go back a few months. Most of the posters on this board are past that, and I'm proud to say that if you read the posts very carefully, most of the Bulls board posters are extremely intelligent with the way they portray their ideas. Provocation and broad heuristic generalizing that you bring to the thread makes things confusing. It's like:

Us: "It may rain tomorrow."
You: "What, do you hate rain? It's gonna happen. Stop being a rain-hater. You're crazy."
Us: "Well, there's nothing good about rain and... hey. I don't even care. I was just making an observation. Oh, and look... maybe if the clouds go away it won't rain."
You: "Yeah, wishful thinking. Admit it. The clouds aren't going anywhere. The rain is coming and you best deal with it."
Us: "I don't even CARE! Can't I make a comment about the presence or absence of rain without attacking or defending the notion? And FYI, the clouds ARE moving out."
You: "Yeah yeah, whatever. You rain-hater."
Us:  

I'm not anti JC, or pro JC. I'd like to see him stay, but that's besides the point. Pax and Cartwright have made statements that can be interpreted in a lot of ways.

Some other points:



> I think that if Crawford becomes the Bulls PG of the future, then he changes from the kind of PG we think he is and becomes more KH-like---because THAT is what the management (Pax and C'Wright) wants. He'll become what THEY want--not what you think and not what HE wants.


I think I agree with that mostly, except that "becomes more KH-like". Can you find a place where Cartwright and Paxson look at Hinrich (who has yet to step on the floor for an actual NBA game and run a game with Chandler and Curry) and say, "the player that you are is exactly what we want in the point guard of the future"? I'd say if anything, Hinrich is NOT a pure distributor. He doesn't look to school guys like Crawford or take shots over people (probably because he doesn't have the height advantage like JC), but he was KNOWN for being a great deep shooter, and Cartwright and Pax praise him for his ability to "attack the basket". Aaron Miles was the primary distributor in Kansas, with 6.5 apg for 11th in the NCAA. Hinrich played mostly as a scoring off-guard, and he did it well.

Crawford will have to continue to evolve as a player. Sure. Part of that evolution is creating top chemistry with the players on the team. Okay. But he is not clay to be molded by the coaching staff or thrown out the window. If he is, we're in big trouble; that is the very mentality of the last five years of "rebuilding".



> This isn't just a matter of passing more and shooting less. This is radical surgery. They are asking Jamal to change his game and the presence of a mid-lottery pick at PG means the team is hedging their bets that he can't do it.


Can you prove that based on the evidence? Pax and BC advising Craw to be more of a distributor doesn't sound like they want him to "change his game", when they critique every other team member as well.



> But hey---you go on believing something the facts very clearly don't say: That Jamal will be the PG here for the next 10 years.


Again, read carefully. I've never said that, and I don't enjoy being pigeonholed into an argument to take up a side I don't even believe in. Ask anyone on the boards; I'm not on the JC bandwagon. In fact, you might even click on the "JC bandwagon" thread and find that my contributions are extremely moderate.

Here's what I've said so far:



> If you are a hater, then that's your choice. I'm not pro-Crawford to the death either. But ceteris parabis, he is the best PG on the team. I like seeing the team do well. That's the bottom line.
> 
> By the way, if he plays like he did in his 20 starting games last year, averaging 6.9 apg, it would put him in the top NINE point guards in the entire league.
> 
> I don't think it's a HUGE problem; just a general direction that he might head.


 (By "it's a HUGE problem", it referred to his mentality to be more of a distributor than a scorer.)



> I'm not saying that Curry owns the team, either. But I'm saying that Eddy Curry standing by his teammate and good friend, Crawford, is something that weighs in for *the greater likelihood* that JC would stay.


 That's about as dilute as you can get. Nowhere did I mention that I think he WOULD stay, or that I WANT him to stay like crazy.

No one is trying to convince themselves that JC is the second coming. (Not no one; I know that there are some who think Crawford is definitely going to be the next Gary Payton. I and most posters are not among that belief.) But the data given to us by the media points to nothing certain. I simply posed circumstances that might show another side of things than "he didn't get extended; they drafted Hinrich; it's all over for JC unless he becomes Hinrich's twin".

Craw and his agent aren't super worried. Pax isn't super worried. There's a little more pressure on JC but not anything like last year. I'm just not overly worried about anything.


> I also think you and other posters are looking for a way to make this into a positive thing for Crawford. It isn't.


We're not looking for such a way, it's not a "positive thing" (though not excessively negative), and we know that it's not.

Gosh this was long.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Dear Kismet:
> ...


WTF are you talking about???? 
:rofl:

Seriously, Dan, you can take the open end of that syrup bottle you're pouring all over this thread and...never mind... :kissmy:


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that anytime I question you or critique one of your posts you attribute my statements to being based on some personal conflict you seemed to think we had in the past? Now that's what I call an arrogant presumption. In other words, my critical responses to your posts couldn't possibly be due to a simple difference of opinion, because your positions are, in your mind at least, so well thought out and articulated that they should be perceived as unchallengeable.


Finally someone else understands too 



> Carry on, Professor!


Wasn't that one of those British "Carry On " series of movies with lots of bums and boobs jokes


----------

