# Knicks New Offer



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

They'll take Moochie Norris out of their package if we'll replace either Jerome Williams or Eddie Robinson with Scottie Pippen in ours.

*Pippen would replace either Jerome Williams or Eddie Robinson in the package. Thomas was looking for a compromise for taking Moochie Norris' fat contract out of the offer and replacing him with Cezary Trybanski, who is in his final year. 

The Bulls are desperate to unload Williams and Robinson's long-term deals and probably won't want to part with Pippen, who's in the last year of his contract, making $5.4M. 

The Bulls were willing to take Frank Williams, Othella Harrington, Dikembe Mutombo and Shandon Anderson for Crawford, Williams and Robinson before Isiah pulled Mutombo from the deal, adding Norris.*

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/25508.htm

Sounds like the new offer would read Crawford, Williams and Pippen for Anderson, Harrington, Trybanski and F. Williams. Mutombo would still be off the table. And since Moochie's $3.9 million is being replaced by Trybanski's $1.8 million, it makes mathematical sense that Robinson's $6.8 million be replaced by Pippen's $5.4 million. 

This combination would place Crawford's first year salary somewhere in the vicinity of $5.5 million. And that's really not much more than the MLE amount of $4.95 million. Within those financial parameters you would think the Bulls and Crawford could get something done. But there's a fly in the ointment. I've heard that JC doesn't like the idea of splitting time with Hinrich and Gordon. It seems Crawford wants to be the Bulls main man in the backcourt and won't be happy if it is any other way. So therein lies the problem...the Bulls envision Crawford as part of a three guard rotation. But he wants to be the Bulls featured guard with Kirk and Ben splitting most of their time between each other. Where does that leave Pax and the Bulls if Crawford isn't buying into their concept? I guess that while Chicago may be JC's "first choice" that would only be the case if it was entirely on his terms. Not just financial terms, but in terms of how his role and the roles of his backcourt teammates would be defined as well. Nice try, Jamal.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I love reading Post articles. They are always good for entertainment. 

So let me get this straight. Pax said he would only make a trade to gain SOME cap flexabilty. Someone point out the cap flexability we get in this trade?

Bulls are worse off after this move then before they started. Anderson's contract is worse then JYD, and we are still stuck w/ Erob.

Yesterday, i read about the Phantom 25MILLION the bulls would save by taking on both Moochie and Anderson, today i read that we are adding Pippen and taking out Erob.

Is IT on crack?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Thats still terrible imo.
Why would we trade away an expiring contract when thats what wer'e trying to get.

I hope Pax does not buy...

We gain Nothing here - JYD and Shandons contracts R both 3 years from exp' (and JYD's contract is smaller and more reasonable) , PIP's expiring is like OH and Trybansky.

So the trade is Jamal for Frank Williams - Big thanks Zeke.

The only changes I see that should be done from the original Pax demand have to be in our favour - cause imo also what Pax demands is not worth it at all(OH,CT,FW,Deke and Anderson for JYD,ERob and Jamal)

Here's my offer for Zeke - otherwise he can go **** himself - excuse my french:

Jamal,ERob,JYD,Jefferies and AD

for

Tim Thomas,OH,Deke,Anderson and Frank Williams.

If it ain't that NY has absolutly *nothing* to offer us.

I beg U pax - Stay away from Zeke!!!


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> Is IT on crack?


From my experience it sounds more like Maskalin - The only way to fly - Have a good one Zeke!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

If JC is good enough to be the "main man" then what is his problem? I don't get it. Why hand it over to him? If JC is good enough to beat out kirk and ben then he should have no problem proving it on the court imo. 

As you can see, NY is not offering much more than the MLE and the offers are getting worse, not better. The way I see it, John is still in the drivers seat. 

As for The offers from NY, I have said this before, they are insulting. This one is even worse. I have also said we do not HAVE to trade JC at all. So the offers that Zeke is making is not acceptable. 

Say no to this latest proposal.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> As you can see, NY is not offering much more than the MLE and the offers are getting worse, not better. The way I see it, John is still in the drivers seat.
> 
> ...


Good post TBF, I don't really get what Thomas is thinking here. Is this supposed to be enticing for the Bulls?
I honestly hope Pax doesn't seriously entertain this proposal, its worse then before.


----------



## willieblack (Jun 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> They'll take Moochie Norris out of their package if we'll replace either Jerome Williams or Eddie Robinson with Scottie Pippen in ours.
> 
> *Pippen would replace either Jerome Williams or Eddie Robinson in the package. Thomas was looking for a compromise for taking Moochie Norris' fat contract out of the offer and replacing him with Cezary Trybanski, who is in his final year.
> ...


Respectfully, what or whom is your source concerning Crawford's feelings about being part of a three guard rotation?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I have a question

Why not Tim Thomas in any trade scenario? I mean the guy is a 6-10 SF with only 2 years left on his deal. And even when he isnt playing that well he is still a pretty darn good player.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> They'll take Moochie Norris out of their package if we'll replace either Jerome Williams or Eddie Robinson with Scottie Pippen in ours.
> 
> *Pippen would replace either Jerome Williams or Eddie Robinson in the package. Thomas was looking for a compromise for taking Moochie Norris' fat contract out of the offer and replacing him with Cezary Trybanski, who is in his final year.
> ...


That's moronic. 



> This combination would place Crawford's first year salary somewhere in the vicinity of $5.5 million. And that's really not much more than the MLE amount of $4.95 million. Within those financial parameters you would think the Bulls and Crawford could get something done. But there's a fly in the ointment. I've heard that JC doesn't like the idea of splitting time with Hinrich and Gordon. It seems Crawford wants to be the Bulls main man in the backcourt and won't be happy if it is any other way. So therein lies the problem...the Bulls envision Crawford as part of a three guard rotation. But he wants to be the Bulls featured guard with Kirk and Ben splitting most of their time between each other. Where does that leave Pax and the Bulls if Crawford isn't buying into their concept? I guess that while Chicago may be JC's "first choice" that would only be the case if it was entirely on his terms. Not just financial terms, but in terms of how his role and the roles of his backcourt teammates would be defined as well. Nice try, Jamal.


This seems to be making a mountain out of a mohill... mostly under the continued guise of fishing for an acceptable rationale to send Jamal out of town as far as I can see.

First, what's with the "nice try Jamal" stuff? I think that's a pretty legit question... why should a player want to go to a place that's (eagerly) hyping a guy to play his spot when he can go to New York and more likely than not have a shot at taking over a long-term starting role (given the shoddy condition of Houston and Penny's knees).

Second, what exactly are we talking about in terms of minutes? If all of these guys aren't playing about 30 minutes a game, I'd be pretty mystified. Is the difference really between playing 32 minutes and 36 minutes?

What it looks to me like is that the Bulls probably said something to the effect of "Kirk and Ben are the future and you're the third wheel" when they should have said, "Jamal, you were the starter last year and I don't see any reason you won't be for the forseeable future. No guarantees of course, but you were our guy last year and there are plenty of minutes to go around".

"And oh yeah, Jamal is a better option at guarding twos than either Ben or Kirk, so that alone helps ensure you will get your share of minutes."

-------------------------------------

The bottom line is that the Bulls aren't going to say the right thing here because they're too honest and the honest truth is they really don't like Jamal very much. They _want_ to go with primarily Ben and Kirk. Making some sort of insinuation that it's unreasonable for Jamal to see this when everyone else can is pretty non-constructive IMO.

And in doing so, the Bulls continue to erode their leverage. The deal they are being offered offers no discernable salary cap relief, very little in the way of healthy, useful players, and basically gives Jamal to them. It's the epitome of a face-saving move to be able to say they "got something" instead of letting Jamal walk for nothing.

Yuck. No deal. Better to force Jamal to play for the QO. Even with Bringing Noicini on board they can do that, stay under the luxury tax threshold and stay competitive. That's the better move for the Bulls.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i have said all along, IT is the best GM in the NBA. he somehow makes the knicks involved with any rumored deals out there and he has absolutely craps to offer. 
look at the rumor of vince to knicks, what the hell do the knicks have to offer to get vince, i know its vince wanting to play in NY, but man, vince is gonna grow some brain. no way toronto gives him up for likes of deke,anderson,moochie. then theres the sign/trade for dampier, i would rather let dampier walk then giving him up for some scrubs like harrington. 

the knicks are capped out, IT is trying to build it through pure talents collection without regards to team chemistry and cap space. which i think its a wise and ONLY way to make the knicks contending again.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>willieblack</b>!
> Respectfully, what or whom is your source concerning Crawford's feelings about being part of a three guard rotation?


I'm just guessing that Kismet will not reveal his source. However, when he passes along a nugget of information in this way, I believe him. He suggested to us that the Bulls might acquire the Suns' #1 pick before it hit any media. I didn't think that made any sense for the Suns, but then it happened.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

As a New Yor Knick fan,I fully realise my team may not ,make the playoffs,but I know will we will run away with the highly coveted "Most Rumored Team Not To Make a Deal"award. Zeke is on a mission and so far he is flawless:yes:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> i have said all along, IT is the best GM in the NBA. he somehow makes the knicks involved with any rumored deals out there and he has absolutely craps to offer.
> look at the rumor of vince to knicks, what the hell do the knicks have to offer to get vince, i know its vince wanting to play in NY, but man, vince is gonna grow some brain. no way toronto gives him up for likes of deke,anderson,moochie. then theres the sign/trade for dampier, i would rather let dampier walk then giving him up for some scrubs like harrington.
> 
> the knicks are capped out, IT is trying to build it through pure talents collection without regards to team chemistry and cap space. which i think its a wise and ONLY way to make the knicks contending again.


He'd be the best GM in the NBA if he actually pulled off some of these moves. So far I'm not seeing that happen. Last year I was with the program up until the Van Horn for Thomas trade. Van Horn looks to be the better player there to me, even if he's not what we'd call a clutch performer. In any case, the Knicks seemed better with him than Thomas. The Marbury trade looked pretty effective though.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> What it looks to me like is that the Bulls probably said something to the effect of "Kirk and Ben are the future and you're the third wheel" when they should have said, "Jamal, you were the starter last year and I don't see any reason you won't be for the forseeable future. No guarantees of course, but you were our guy last year and there are plenty of minutes to go around".











*Mikedc...a/k/a The Amazing Kreskin* 

WOW! Amazing! How could you have possibly known that when Paxson and Skiles made seperate phone calls to Jamal it was for the expressed purpose of assuring him that he's their designated "Third Wheel?" I guess thats why you're _The Amazing Kreskin._


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm just guessing that Kismet will not reveal his source. However, when he passes along a nugget of information in this way, I believe him. He suggested that the Bulls might acquire the Suns' #1 pick before it hit any media. I didn't think that made any sense for the Suns, but then it happened.



Except when it comes to jamal Crawford who he is known to not be a objective point of view on .

Since when did everything printed in the newspaper suddenly become the absolute truth ?

Do we really believe the Knicks offered to take back Pippen? :laugh: 

Mikedc nailed it on the head everyone here knows what the deal real deal is .Jamal has played this game for 2 seasons in a row I doubt he is gonna be taking anyone in the Bulls roganization at there word when it comes to what his role on the team is and minutes distribution when a high rookie draft pick is involved .


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



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


Maybe they aren't promising anything aside from the MLE contract offer itself.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe they aren't promising anything aside from the MLE contract offer itself.


I think they would have to .Do you you they could convince him to come back happily if the goal is to develop their rookies ?I sure dont.If the goal is to try and dvelop Gordon and Deng at a fast pace with intentions on winnings in 05-06 .I cant see anyone voluntering to do that with as much losing as we have done the past 5 years.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> I think they would have to .Do you you they could convince him to come back happily if the goal is to develop their rookies ?I sure dont.If the goal is to try and dvelop Gordon and Deng at a fast pace with intentions on winnings in 05-06 .I cant see anyone voluntering to do that with as much losing as we have done the past 5 years.


Maybe so. I always wonder about how much coaches and management promise the players they are signing. Obviously, I have no idea what usually goes on.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> WOW! Amazing! How could you have possibly known that when Paxson and Skiles made seperate phone calls to Jamal it was for the expressed purpose of assuring him that he's their designated "Third Wheel?" I guess thats why you're _The Amazing Kreskin._


Oh give me a break dude... you're REALLY trying to play both sides of the fence here if you're trying to say (and you seem to be by disagreeing with me) that the Bulls see Jamal as a guy they really like and really want and see as a long term solution when you've been pushing pretty much the opposite line for the last year or so 

And just independently, if *YOU* were Jamal, wouldn't you want as much convincing as you could get if you were in his shoes? Lets see the Bulls draft Jay, draft Kirk, then draft Ben, and then the GM gives you a much publisized and totally unprofessional ranting in the locker room. He's also, along the way, made other public comments that consistently leave you in the second or third sentence (if at all) when discussing the team future.

On the other hand, you've got the Knicks, willing to offer you more money and as many minutes now and more in the long-term, playing on a bigger stage with a better team.

And of course, there's the oft-unstated but generally widely understood fact that people like to be liked. If you had Jamal's history with the Bulls and you saw the opportunity to play more for the Knicks, and for more money, are you in any way trying to argue (as you seem to be) that Jamal is at all wrong for wanting to go there? That he wouldn't and shouldn't need a fair amount of convincing and a decent vision of what role the Bulls envision for him is? That defies credibility to me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Since the supposed salary for Jamal in this deal isn't "really not much more than the MLE," I don't suppose Kismet would mind giving me that difference in money. I could use it.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't want to include Pippen. Let him fester on the Bulls bench and become trade filler come February.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Mikedc nailed it on the head everyone here knows what the deal real deal is .Jamal has played this game for 2 seasons in a row I doubt he is gonna be taking anyone in the Bulls roganization at there word when it comes to what his role on the team is and minutes distribution when a high rookie draft pick is involved .


I guess short of Kismet's ridiculing the notion, this makes the most sense.

I obviously don't think they _literally_ said "Jamal, you'll be the third wheel", but given their obvious intentions and the history of things, not saying anything, not offering a plan and a solid vision would be tantamount to saying it. Hell, after last year it's debatable that Jamal wouldn't believe (and would be right not to believe) pretty much anything that would be said.

That doesn't mean the Bulls shouldn't try to sell him on the idea. Look, I'm not in love with the idea of having Jamal back for Jamal's sake, I want it because I think it's the best option for the Bulls. Having him under a multiple year deal starting at $5-6M is, to me, the best case scenario (at least compared with the crap the Knicks are offering). If it takes a hell of a sales pitch to get him to agree to that, then they ought to be working on a hell of a sales pitch instead of being milquetoast about it. Having him at the QO is a distant second because it gives a lot more room for dissension.

The other thing to consider is that the Bulls seem to be relying on Jamal and his agent to go out and find a suitor... if they really want to make a trade (and I think they do), there's no reason they shouldn't try to be agressive themselves. Call up Atlanta or LA or Charlotte and see if they're at all interested. Maybe Jamal thinks he's only interested in playing for the Knicks now, but if a real offer prospect came along he'd consider it. As usual, the point would be to leave no stone unturned, because currently I see us being backed into a set of not very good options.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe so. I always wonder about how much coaches and management promise the players they are signing. Obviously, I have no idea what usually goes on.


Im not implying that they will promise him minutes we know that Skiles wont do any such thing.  

But I do think they would have to convince him about the direction the team is going and how he is apart of it .

I do think Jamal would respond to Skiles but probably not to Pax .I dont think Skiles as handling things the way BC did either .I also can see Skiles wanting jamal back more than Pax .I cant imagine Skiles would be looking forward to opening night with Gordon and Kirk in the starting lineup backed up by Anderson and Pargo. :laugh: 

Im sure he would rather jamal come back even if its with a chip on his shoulder out to prove people wrong .Which is what I think the phone call Skiles made was about .Im sure Skiles let him know that his contract situation in no way effects mine and yours relationship.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

I'm beginning to think I.T. is truly delusional. He is such a blowhard. I'm still waiting for him to sign Rasheed to the MLE. After that, they are supposed to set their sights set on Kobe, who would surely play for less money in NY than anywhere else. Who else is he said to be after, Antoine Walker and Dampier? This guy suposedly has his hands in so many deals he has been unable to complete any of them. Oh I forgot, wasn't he also interested in acquiring Eddy Curry? Sorry if I sound like I'm rambling, I am just amused at the fact I.T. has been after so many players with so little to offer.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Since the supposed salary for Jamal in this deal isn't "really not much more than the MLE," I don't suppose Kismet would mind giving me that difference in money. I could use it.


I drew my conclusions based on the following information:

From the Bulls' perspective the best combination that works under salary cap and base-year compensation rules would be to send the four Knicks with one year left on their contracts - Dikembe Mutombo($4.5 mil), Othella Harrington($3.2 mil), Cezary Trybanski($1.8 mil) and Frank Williams($1 mil) - to the Bulls for Jerome Williams($5.6 mil) and Crawford, whose starting salary could be no more than $5.46 million.

The Bulls would be willing to accept 6-6 swingman Shandon Anderson ($7.3 mil) if the Knicks take both Williams and Eddie Robinson($6.8 mil) in return. Robinson is owed about $14 million over the next two years.

The Bulls' preferred combination would be Anderson, Mutombo, Harrington and Frank Williams, with Crawford's starting salary $5.5 million.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?intID=3817891
http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm
http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm

And the point I was trying to make was that $500,000 isn't an unovercomable amount when the Bulls are free to sign him for more than the MLE.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Why are we even bothering with IT any more? We have Jamal's rights. We can resign Jamal fair and square if we want and trade him during the season. Or keep him. Why is it that because IT has some kind of fetish for Jamal we have to get caught up in every little permutation of his wet dreams?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess short of Kismet's ridiculing the notion, this makes the most sense.
> ...


On the revised "offer" from Thomas, it's worse than all the other offers he's made. Honestly, I think Thomas is not all that interested in Jamal this season. He's got his sights set on next season if/when Jamal is a UFA. Maybe IT and Goodwin are doing their level headed best to paint the Bulls organization is such a negative light. See all the great offers that Goodwin and Thomas came up with to give Jamal his "fair market value"? It's the big, bad Bulls that have held Jamal prisoner.

On this whole third whell thing - when, if ever, does Jamal become accountable for the player that he is? No player, especially one as incomplete as Jamal is, should have to be assured of playing time or anything else. That's how the whole systems works. If playing time is worth it to you, work for it. Maybe it's time Jamal looks in the mirror and starts to wonder why, over the last three seasons, players have been drafted using high picks at the position(s) he plays. This is a league of "what have you done for me lately" people. Jamal, frankly, hasn't earned the ability to be assured of anything. Nobody on a 23 win team should be so assured.

I give Crawford a lot of credit for how he's carried himself while he's been here. I'm sure it hasn't been easy. If he thinks the grass is greener somewhere else, he's probably in for a lot of disappointment when he finds out the wolves are a lot more viscious in NY and there ain't a whole lot of grass there in the first place.

Finally, I don't think any of the parties involved (Crawford, Thomas, Goodwin and Pax) have played this out very well.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Im not implying that they will promise him minutes we know that Skiles wont do any such thing.
> ...


I agree. And I also think in the long run the best option may be to have Ben and Jamal as the starters... two guys who can create their own shot and guys who at least provide adequate physical matchups on defense.

This last season, when Kirk and Jamal were out there, it would have been just as feasible for Kirk to guard 2s as Jamal, right? But most of the time it was Jamal who was tasked with this. 

From that I can only conclude that the Bulls felt more comfortable with Jamal guarding the other team's bigger guard. I don't see why we should expect that to change now or in the future.

I hate to bring it up because it will be an instant flame fest I'm sure, but in that respect the best long-run combination for playing the majority of the minutes would seem to be Ben and Jamal. They offer more offensively than a Kirk/Jamal combo, and while I think Kirk is better positionally on opposing PGs than either of them, a Ben/Jamal combo (at least after Ben gets his feet wet) seems to me the most effective defensive combo, all things considered.

That is the argument I'd be making to Jamal, and I think it's a pretty good one. But I digress....

... what I was going to mention was the few times I heard people say (notably KC Johnson) things to the effect of "Skiles and Jamal like each other but Pax doesn't like Jamal very much and would be just as happy to have him gone".

I think a lot of this comes down to Pax's outlook on things. I think he sees that Jamal is talented but doesn't like him. He'd like to chuck him but can't afford to chuck a talented player.  At best, Jamal is a marriage of convenience, and that's all he'll EVER be in Paxson's eyes. I could, of course, be wrong, but that's my conclusion.

It's my wish, but not my expectation, that Paxson would be more open-minded when it comes to making the most of players. Utilize the talent first and don't get some hung up on the other stuff. That's what people do when they pay more than lip service to phrases like "it's a man's game" and "it's a business".


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Crawford will be a Bulls the knicks have nothing to offer us outside of expiring contracts, marbury, thomas, and sweetney. Isiah is trying to low ball Paxson and Paxson just wont budge which is good.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> I drew my conclusions based on the following information:
> ...


I'm not sure exactly how it works to trade a player who's already received a trade bonus (a kicker) but I think that will bump JYD's salary up by another $5-600k (further reducing the amount that could be given to Jamal in such a deal).


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> On this whole third whell thing - when, if ever, does Jamal become accountable for the player that he is? No player, especially one as incomplete as Jamal is, should have to be assured of playing time or anything else. That's how the whole systems works. If playing time is worth it to you, work for it. Maybe it's time Jamal looks in the mirror and starts to wonder why, over the last three seasons, players have been drafted using high picks at the position(s) he plays. This is a league of "what have you done for me lately" people. Jamal, frankly, hasn't earned the ability to be assured of anything. Nobody on a 23 win team should be so assured.


surely you jest, flash...

JC, the Second Coming [tm], being accountable for the player he is? how can you hold JC accountable for a career .397 shooting percentage? or for continuing to jack up ill-advised threes with more than 3/4 of the shot clock remaining? or for fundamental lapses in defense over and over and over again?

that's not JC's fault. that's because the Bulls are showing him no love. 

i'm not in the "dump Jamal no matter what" camp, but i sure am sick of people saying he's the best Bull, we should pay him what he's worth, we're disrespecting him, blah blah blah Bull Crap of his fan club here. get off his freaking jock already. he's a nice player, but he's not a superstar. hell, right now he's not even a star.

if he gets an offer from a team that can pay him the money he wants, then maybe he's got a gripe about the Bulls low-balling him. right now only _one_ team has a legitmate offer out to him, and that's the one he's played for over the last four years.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> On the revised "offer" from Thomas, it's worse than all the other offers he's made. Honestly, I think Thomas is not all that interested in Jamal this season. He's got his sights set on next season if/when Jamal is a UFA. Maybe IT and Goodwin are doing their level headed best to paint the Bulls organization is such a negative light. See all the great offers that Goodwin and Thomas came up with to give Jamal his "fair market value"? It's the big, bad Bulls that have held Jamal prisoner.


This offer makes no sense and I doubt its true.Didnt the Post name the wrong man on the frontpage no doubt as kerrys runing mate ?Now they are the fortess of truth ? :laugh:



> On this whole third whell thing - when, if ever, does Jamal become accountable for the player that he is? No player, especially one as incomplete as Jamal is, should have to be assured of playing time or anything else. That's how the whole systems works. If playing time is worth it to you, work for it. Maybe it's time Jamal looks in the mirror and starts to wonder why, over the last three seasons, players have been drafted using high picks at the position(s) he plays. This is a league of "what have you done for me lately" people. Jamal, frankly, hasn't earned the ability to be assured of anything. Nobody on a 23 win team should be so assured.


No one here is saying we should be placating Jamal but the fact remains hes a free agent if this is the type of attitude Pax has towards free agents then we will be bad for a long time because no one will want to play here .In the nba free agency is about recruitment and selling your idea and philosphy to the players regardless of what there team record is .

Its in the Bulls best interest to try to get everyone on the same page and the best teams even manage to get EVERYONE believing there role is just as important as everyone elses .

We drafted Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant and we had Brad Sellers and Oakley .We drafted Stacey King when we had Horace Grant ,BC,and Will Perdue .How long has it been that the bulls have ben duplicating positions its means the same thing now as it did then .Absolutely nothing :laugh: 

Its the nba and the reality is that no player is gonna reup longterm with a team that cant or wont even try to convince him thats hes a part of there future .


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> 
> surely you jest, flash...
> 
> ...


Then why with this line of stuff?

Because, as far as I can see, this line of _resentement_ feeds the (incorrect) notion that Jamal was somehow part of the problem. 

I'm not saying he's great, but I do think I'm being reasonably objective when I say that although he often made "bad" decisions, there were often no "good" decisions to be made when you're on the court with a rookie PG, when you, yourself are playing at a new position and guarding bigger players, when you're often playing with a couple of guys who wouldn't even make another team's roster, let alone its starting lineup, and when you're the only guy on the team who can really think about creating his own shot.

All of that doesn't make him the second coming and and it doesn't excuse the fact that he's WAS NOT able to lead the team to more than 23 wins, but they are facts that need to be considered objectively. 

All they do say is that Jamal is not the savior. If he was, he would have been good enough to lead us to a better record in spite of all of that.

It seems to me then, that in fact when people are complaining about him "not being the savior", they are complaining about him being unable to overcome all of these obstacles. It seems kind of contradictory to me at least... we implicitly conclude a guy is nothing special because he couldn't win the day in an absolutely hopeless situation? That's silly.

Hell, Michael Jordan could only get to 37 wins playing with a more talented group of guys for two years than the Bulls had last year. No one is going to look like a superstar if they have to play 35 minutes next to Ron Dupree and Lint.

The truth of the matter is that Jamal was neither as good nor as bad as his statistics state. I'm sick of the cognitive dissonance that goes on here... some guys point to the good stats (points, assists, steals) and ignore the crappy shooting pcts, and others do the opposite and imply it means he's garbage. The truth to me is that he appears to be a good player who was put in what was largely a no-win situation. Talented yes, but not talented enough to overcome the lack of talent around him.



> but i sure am sick of people saying he's the best Bull, we should pay him what he's worth, we're disrespecting him, blah blah blah Bull Crap of his fan club here. get off his freaking jock already. he's a nice player, but he's not a superstar. hell, right now he's not even a star.
> 
> if he gets an offer from a team that can pay him the money he wants, then maybe he's got a gripe about the Bulls low-balling him. right now only _one_ team has a legitmate offer out to him, and that's the one he's played for over the last four years.


But what you're saying here just isn't realistic under the restricted free agency system. I agree that no one is (or should) offer him $10M a year, no one is arguing that. But is somewhat disinginuous in my opinion to be making this argument about his "value" when we all know that there is the additional factor of his restricted status. For guys in the middle of the road like Crawford, Miles, and Stromile Swift (rather than a superstar like KMart, for example), it's pretty clear the restricted tag is an obstacle. It's not a total obstacle, but it's enough of one that making some sort of definitive pronouncement about what his value is appears to be pretty rash because it gives teams a strong incentive to not "waste" their time and lock up their cap room on him.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Then why with this line of stuff?
> ...


are you chatting about the double standard that exists? The one that says that Jamal stinks, but Kirk Hinrich is the greatest one since slice bread? If so, count me as a member of the club. Im not a Jamal fan per se. But he is nowhere near as bad as this board makes him out, as Kirk is nowhere near as good as this board make him out to be. The boom bust cycles that exist are completely crazy.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> are you chatting about the double standard that exists? The one that says that Jamal stinks, but Kirk Hinrich is the greatest one since slice bread? If so, count me as a member of the club. Im not a Jamal fan per se. But he is nowhere near as bad as this board makes him out, as Kirk is nowhere near as good as this board make him out to be. The boom bust cycles that exist are completely crazy.


I don't think there is any double standard.

It's very easy to project Hinrich to improve and be a very nice third or fourth option on a very good team. And Hinrich WOULD accept that role.

Craw has played the best when he is the number one option at point guard. He is not a great defender. Probably a liability if he can't cover the other PG. He might make a great sixth or seventh man. But my concern is whether he would accept that role. Most guys that are like Crawford and do accept that type of role are on their third or fourth team BEFORE they GET IT. So there is the concern.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> are you chatting about the double standard that exists? The one that says that Jamal stinks, but Kirk Hinrich is the greatest one since slice bread? If so, count me as a member of the club. Im not a Jamal fan per se. But he is nowhere near as bad as this board makes him out, as Kirk is nowhere near as good as this board make him out to be. The boom bust cycles that exist are completely crazy.


Well, not really, because I've always thought that was more a matter of your perceptions and your labeling entire groups of people, which tends to irritate the hell out of me and inaccurately portray some abstract, antagonistic group of "them" here as buying into some kind of simplistic thinking when, in fact, that is precisely what's being done when one creates an arbitrary group and accuses it of that kind of groupthink. 

Of course, that seems to be a minority point of view, perhaps because it would require so much additional thought on everyone else's part :grinning:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, not really, because I've always thought that was more a matter of your perceptions and your labeling entire groups of people, which tends to irritate the hell out of me and inaccurately portray some abstract, antagonistic group of "them" here as buying into some kind of simplistic thinking when, in fact, that is precisely what's being done when one creates an arbitrary group and accuses it of that kind of groupthink.
> ...


And I just went cross eyed

:sour:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> are you chatting about the double standard that exists? The one that says that Jamal stinks, but Kirk Hinrich is the greatest one since slice bread? If so, count me as a member of the club. Im not a Jamal fan per se. But he is nowhere near as bad as this board makes him out, as Kirk is nowhere near as good as this board make him out to be. The boom bust cycles that exist are completely crazy.


100% agreement with this post.

if crawford is traded i am going to be very curious to see who is blamed for the bulls record next year when people find out that Gordon doesn't appear to be very good at creating a shot out of nothing , like crawford is, and hinrich will be forced to take more of those % draining prayers that he and JC shared so often last season.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> 100% agreement with this post.
> ...


um, u must not watch gordon ball...he's GREAT at creating his own shot...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Chi_Lunatic</b>!
> 
> 
> um, u must not watch gordon ball...he's GREAT at creating his own shot...


not when its just him and a defender alone , he generally passes the ball or waits for a pick , he is great at creating stuff when he gets the ball on the move, but in the nba you dont always have that option when the shot clock is near its end , and in those situations i have seen nothing in summer league to say he is in the league of JC or even close to kirk in his ability create something in those instances.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> 100% agreement with this post.
> ...


As for blame for next years record - it's always the coaches fault. 

As an aside, I'm equally curious to see the new and creative excuses that people come up with to explain Jamals continued 40% shooting, lack of decent permiter defense and lack of attacking the basket even though he'll be in a better situation.

See, this double-standard thing works both ways!


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

I could care less if we have Jamal on the team next season. He is not, nor will he ever be a special player. Jamal Crawford is a nice player and will have a long career in this league. But he lacks "it" and you cannot teach "it"


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> As for blame for next years record - it's always the coaches fault.
> ...


the thing is i have never had a problem with JC not driving to the hole more , he can take all the jumpshots he wants , but when he is shooting well its generally because those 22 fters are now 15-18 ft. J's . I think he needs to be more forceful in the way he gets shots and that he should force the issue a little more , not so much change his style of play.


in a better situation i will of course hold him to a more consistent aggressive approach , but almost no players at this point in their careers change so dramatically unless they are going from star type players to role players. he's played very well before for a consistent stretch and that was the difference , he didn't take it to the hole then either , I think alot of people are holding him to unfair standards that aren't that plausible (like gaining weight so he can be a post up option when he has only shown marginal desire to post up in any way shape or form),my mentality is with players is to do what got them where they are , just do it better.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

I hope you squeeze Zeke for every last drop. No way I do his proposal. Pax has the hammer, not him.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

[email protected] GORDON not being in jamal's league...

I gurantee you GORDON becomes an all-star before JAMAL..and has a BETTER career...


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I'm not a Jamal fan - I think he harms the team.He's the one crying out for respect - he does not understand respect is something U get and not take.

But still - I'd be happy if we signed him , since nobody is offering big money (seems now also Zeke is not going to offer much more than MLE) he's surely worth the MLE - and would make excellent trade bait along with one of our expirers next season out of byc status...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> are you chatting about the double standard that exists? The one that says that Jamal stinks, but Kirk Hinrich is the greatest one since slice bread? If so, count me as a member of the club. Im not a Jamal fan per se. But he is nowhere near as bad as this board makes him out, as Kirk is nowhere near as good as this board make him out to be. The boom bust cycles that exist are completely crazy.


No doubt. I just don't get it. Its not like Hinrich shoots the lights out.... and my opinion is that Jamal has more upside... if he can fix a couple very correctable flaws.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> I could care less if we have Jamal on the team next season. He is not, nor will he ever be a special player. Jamal Crawford is a nice player and will have a long career in this league. But he lacks "it" and you cannot teach "it"


If he is a nice player and will have many years in the league... wouldn't you want him on the Bulls? Why would you get rid of such a player?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> No doubt. I just don't get it. Its not like Hinrich shoots the lights out.... and my opinion is that Jamal has more upside... if he can fix a couple very correctable flaws.


I love how Kirk will get better, but Jamal is maxed out when they are the same age and Jamal has basically only played one full season as a starter. There is a clear double standard. We bash one guy, when he plays out of position for the year and praise another when his per minutes stats were worse then the previous rookie, who everyone hated, Jwill. Its a nasty double standard. My issue has never been with Kirk, its been with the double standard


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess short of Kismet's ridiculing the notion, this makes the most sense.
> ...


What you said about Jamal is the way I feel. Exactly. I may not be communicating it the way I want, but you summed it up nicely


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I love how Kirk will get better, but Jamal is maxed out when they are the same age and Jamal has basically only played one full season as a starter. There is a clear double standard. We bash one guy, when he plays out of position for the year and praise another when his per minutes stats were worse then the previous rookie, who everyone hated, Jwill. Its a nasty double standard. My issue has never been with Kirk, its been with the double standard


Jamals roof might be higher , but it has nothing to do with talent imo.

It's about atitude - Kirk is a player I'd love to have on my team , while Jamal is all about himself , and does more harm than good.

I'm not among the guys who say Kirk is the next stockton , but even if he turns out just a good role player , I'd still take him anytime over Jamal cause he at least tries to play hard , to win , not to look good and cry about not getting respect - he gotta earn that , not take.Jamal is just a negative personality to have on a sports team , unless U're playing in his back yard imagining U're Mike , or if the game is Tennis where U have no teamates...


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> For guys in the middle of the road like Crawford, Miles, and Stromile Swift (rather than a superstar like KMart, for example), it's pretty clear the restricted tag is an obstacle. It's not a total obstacle, but it's enough of one that making some sort of definitive pronouncement about what his value is appears to be pretty rash because it gives teams a strong incentive to not "waste" their time and lock up their cap room on him.


Mike, and then there is another school of thought on the exact three players you mention.



> But in the case of Crawford, the young restricted free agent, he's finding the market for his talent isn't exactly what he had hoped for -- which is more than the mid-level exception. The Bulls aren't too keen on keeping him around anyway, but they certainly aren't going to match any major multiyear deal starting at that mid-level figure. In fact, some of his fellow young restricted free agents, like Stromile Swift in Memphis and Darius Miles in Portland, are finding bushels of cash aren't going to be heaped upon them regardless of their status in the upper echelon of the lottery when they were drafted.
> 
> What they are experiencing is the backlash from poor and very young drafts that brought young talent into free agency before anyone is sold on their heads for the game. Are they willing to work hard to improve, or are they still legends in their own minds, lost in little worlds of entitlement?
> 
> Those are key factors that have become more significant as the league gets younger.


Sportsline


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamals roof might be higher , but it has nothing to do with talent imo.
> ...


 perhaps theres a reason why the "double standard" could it be because JC is indeed aint all that? perhaps kirk is indeed better than JC. I odnt understand why some people think that, remmeber this is NBA. some teams will go out and offer some pot-smoking crackheads, rapists... max contracts, this is a league in dire need of always searching for "talented, good" players. if u r good ON the court, we will want you. basically it has nothing to do with double standard, its just Jc isnt that great. 
if u break down JC, first of all, he does NOT have a sick handle. his handle is very unstable, if he plays PG full time, hes going to cause alot of turnovers. now u look at him as a SG. hes WEAk physically despite his height. he doesnt drive to the hoops for simple fact of he cant finish it. now if u r talking about ben gordon's def vs SGs, just think of this way, will ben gordon be able to guard the opposite 2's better than JC who was our starting 2 last season? i think so. jc is absolutely one of the worst defender ever. yes he has quickness, yes he has long arms, but anyone can blow by him so easily, he just cant stay with his man. and anyone whos remotely strong can post him up. the only role i want JC on this team is to provide the instant offense punch off the bench as the 6th man.


----------



## katman17 (Jul 12, 2004)

I agree that its all about the attitude. Jamal is not a leader and we need a PG that is a leader. Kirk has that attitude and from how Gordon has presented himself (i know its only summer league) but he has that leader's mentality. Jamal seems to be more concerned on his stats and his performance that getting Wins. He takes way too many dumb shots (1 on 3 fast break pull up threes) and does not get his teammates involved enough. 

If the bulls are ever going to be a team to be reckoned with, I hate to say it but Curry needs to become a man and play like a force that we all hope he will become. We need our guards to get our big men involved consistently.

If Jamal was such a hot ticket, dont you think that more teams would be going after him at MLE? I think that the Crawford fans are finding this hard to swallow and although I do believe Crawford has a possibility of being a solid player, he will have to do it under a differnt team because he has worn out his welcome with the bulls management.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Mike, and then there is another school of thought on the exact three players you mention.
> ...


Well, there is no doubt that Miles, Swift and Craw would be getting more offers if they weren't restricted. 

They other guys have significantly higher QOs. $5.5M for Miles and $5.9M for Swift. They could take a hard look at re-upping for one more year.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> 
> 
> perhaps theres a reason why the "double standard" could it be because JC is indeed aint all that? perhaps kirk is indeed better than JC. I odnt understand why some people think that, remmeber this is NBA. some teams will go out and offer some pot-smoking crackheads, rapists... max contracts, this is a league in dire need of always searching for "talented, good" players. if u r good ON the court, we will want you. basically it has nothing to do with double standard, its just Jc isnt that great.
> if u break down JC, first of all, he does NOT have a sick handle. his handle is very unstable, if he plays PG full time, hes going to cause alot of turnovers. now u look at him as a SG. hes WEAk physically despite his height. he doesnt drive to the hoops for simple fact of he cant finish it. now if u r talking about ben gordon's def vs SGs, just think of this way, will ben gordon be able to guard the opposite 2's better than JC who was our starting 2 last season? i think so. jc is absolutely one of the worst defender ever. yes he has quickness, yes he has long arms, but anyone can blow by him so easily, he just cant stay with his man. and anyone whos remotely strong can post him up. the only role i want JC on this team is to provide the instant offense punch off the bench as the 6th man.


well I have only one counter. The Bulls have only given Jamal one real chance at playing the PG spot and that was over the second half of 2 years ago. And frankly, his stats, and the teams production, was far better then the production under the golden boy. If the Bulls would be patient, and give Jamal the damn ball, like they did over the second half of that year, he will be a top flight PG in the NBA. I still have the game where the Bulls beat NJ from 2 years ago, and watching Jamal outplay Jason Kidd was really fun to watch. But they pulled him back in this year, changed his spot, and handed the job over to a kid 10 games into the year. And Jamal is still a loser?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I agree Sith - I've said it for a long time Jamal is most fit for instent scoring off the bench (like in his backyard).

But Jamal is sure he's fit to lead a team , be it's star and that everybody should love him for what he does for us.

Still - best thing is to sign him , let him play 6th man for a year and trade him and his atitude out of byc.Those Zeke offers get worse everyday.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> well I have only one counter. The Bulls have only given Jamal one real chance at playing the PG spot and that was over the second half of 2 years ago. And frankly, his stats, and the teams production, was far better then the production under the golden boy. If the Bulls would be patient, and give Jamal the damn ball, like they did over the second half of that year, he will be a top flight PG in the NBA. I still have the game where the Bulls beat NJ from 2 years ago, and watching Jamal outplay Jason Kidd was really fun to watch. But they pulled him back in this year, changed his spot, and handed the job over to a kid 10 games into the year. And Jamal is still a loser?


that was when the whole team was playing so greatly that most of people predicted bulls woud be a playoff team on 04. it was not just JC, dare i say, curry was dominating? he was shooting some ungodly FG%, and the bulls were rolling. JC had some good games here and there, but anyone marginal decent is capable of out playing Jason kidd in the NBA for 1 game. rmember earlier on 02-03 season when Jwill dropped a triple/double on Jason kidd and bulls won? it was like his 10th game or so in the NBA.
ask for pulling him back this season, look at how we played the first 10 or so games, we SUCKED bad!


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> well I have only one counter. The Bulls have only given Jamal one real chance at playing the PG spot and that was over the second half of 2 years ago. And frankly, his stats, and the teams production, was far better then the production under the golden boy. If the Bulls would be patient, and give Jamal the damn ball, like they did over the second half of that year, he will be a top flight PG in the NBA. I still have the game where the Bulls beat NJ from 2 years ago, and watching Jamal outplay Jason Kidd was really fun to watch. But they pulled him back in this year, changed his spot, and handed the job over to a kid 10 games into the year. And Jamal is still a loser?


Do U have the tape of Delk scoring 50???

RL - not questioning Jamals talent , I think if there were a 1 on 1 league he'd do just fine , he's just not a *person* I'd want around my team.he don't care about defense , although he has all the tools to be a top defender , he don't care about how his teamates play , not pushing them by showing them - yes , i'd dive for the ball , yeah , I'd take the charge , yeah , I'd go strong to the basket and get to the stripe - I'd show everyone how good I am effortlessly - why make the effort when I'm so good.No heart , no BB IQ , Not a team player - but yes , very talented.


And U start sounding like a kirk hater - yes , he's Skiles and perhaps one of the boards goldenboys - but he earned it more by effort , less by talent (which he has).Jamal thinks he has to get respect , while Kirk understands he has to earn it.Thats the world that puts them miles apart in my list.

What did Kirk do to make U hate him - did he not play hard every minute on the floor (jamal certainly hasn't).He's the goldenboy because of hard work.A diamond is a guy that also works hard and also has tons of talent (Tin D,KG) and just another player is a talented guy who does not make an effort to be a diamond.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> If the Bulls would be patient, and give Jamal the damn ball, like they did over the second half of that year, he will be a top flight PG in the NBA.


Not to be rude, but given the interest by GMs around the league, this doesn't seem to be the general opinion of those in the know.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to be rude, but given the interest by GMs around the league, this doesn't seem to be the general opinion of those in the know.


Exactly - he's only one heart of being a top 10 player , and that U can only get in transplant.The talent is there , the ego kills it.

I bet Kirk took more chages in his 1 season than Jamal took all 4 years...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

shiny new jaguar 

:thinking: 




but i digress...

remember last sunday when it was reported in the tribune by KC that the talks were all but dead (_sunny von bulow time_) and the bulls were preparing to bring jamal back? 

and there was the quote about how they were "hopeful" he would remain a professional no matter what the circumstances. not "confident" or "assured" but "hopeful" - this is why skiles called him.

i think if there is even a shred of truth to what kismet reported in the very first post of this now flamin' thread, then we should be "hopeful" too. frankly, i am concerned but am willing to see what happens. 

yes, believe it or not, _i am willing to give jamal the benefit of the doubt_. 

but consider this due warning jamal crawford, yeah, that's right, i am talking to you. if i hear one quote from you this year (this assumes you return) about "there was a lid on the basket"...i will personally fly to chicago to throttle you myself. and it won't be pretty. 

and as far as isiah goes, well, i think he must be drinking, and heavily, cause this latest "offer" is lame. really lame. beyond lame. valley of the lame. 

go bulls.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Mike, and then there is another school of thought on the exact three players you mention.
> ...


Yeah, I read that article, but I don't buy the general thrust of it. I mean, I think it might be a slight factor, but I think if these guys were UFAs I think they'd all have received MLE type (or better) offer from someone at this point.



> But in the case of Crawford, the young restricted free agent, he's finding *the market for his talent isn't exactly what he had hoped for -- which is more than the mid-level exception. The Bulls aren't too keen on keeping him around anyway, but they certainly aren't going to match any major multiyear deal starting at that mid-level figure.* In fact, some of his fellow young restricted free agents, like Stromile Swift in Memphis and Darius Miles in Portland, are finding bushels of cash aren't going to be heaped upon them regardless of their status in the upper echelon of the lottery when they were drafted.
> 
> What they are experiencing is the backlash from poor and very young drafts that brought young talent into free agency before anyone is sold on their heads for the game. Are they willing to work hard to improve, or are they still legends in their own minds, lost in little worlds of entitlement?
> 
> Those are key factors that have become more significant as the league gets younger.


I also found the passage I bolded to be pretty poorly written. The way the rest of it reads, it's almost like like the "aren't" in the last sentence should be "are". I mean, look at the train of logic-

1. Jamal wants more than the MLE
2. The Bulls don't want him that much *BUT*
3. Aren't going to match a MLE offer.

#3 seems at odds with #1 and #2. It would make more sense to me if it were a typo at least. Of course, it would also somewhat undercut the second part of the story.

Anyone want to email them and ask?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Do U have the tape of Delk scoring 50???
> ...


Bullet, read my posts man. Where have I ever said I hate Kirk? I said I have no problem with Kirk, what I have a problem with is the clear double standard that exists in regards to him. He is not as good as you guys think he is, and Jamal isnt as bad as you guys make him out to be. Again, what Jamal did 2 years ago is called results. And frankly, not one person can say what Kirk did this year was truly better then what Jamal did, when he was in competition with Jay. So why do you hate Jamal and label him with a lot of rants that you no nothing about? Wasnt Jamal in the Berto every day last summer, after leading the Bulls to their best season in 6? And how was he rewarded? By being dumped. And people like you question his integrity? Get real


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamals roof might be higher , but it has nothing to do with talent imo.
> ...


But I think you have to seperate what has actually been said by these guys and how it's been interpreted.

I don't see where the Jamal "wanting respect" thing comes from. He's entitled to go out and try to find the best job he can, isn't he? I don't see him crying in the media about getting respect, but I do see him trying his damnedest to get the most money and on the team that seems like they have the best spot for him in the long run.

Sure, you can put that in terms of "respect" but you can also put it in terms of common sense.

And how about this past season? Sure, I'd love if Jamal suddenly turned into a top notch defender and suddenly started taking it to the rack like Reggie Miller, but he's not that good. He has, however, solidly improved in those facets over each of his seasons. But what I was really going to say is that he didn't seem to cry or ***** about anything last year, despite having to play in a role that probably wasn't his ideal and getting a public lashing from the GM. In most every instance where there was a contraversy, in fact, he seemed to be a voice of reason. Jamal doesn't have to be the leader and he doesn't have to be the go to guy. We've got more fiery guys like Gordon, Deng, Chandler and maybe Kirk to set the tone. While I'd agree that Jamal has a different mindset than those guys, I think don't think he's a bad guy. I don't think he's a ***** and i don't think he's a cancerous personality. I think he's a guy who wants to play and win.

I don't want to get into an analysis of Kirk, but I'll also say that I heard some things from him that, while they didn't really alarm me, don't fit within his reputation as a take no prisoners always give 110% guy either. I like his attitude, a lot, but don't over-sell it.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Bullet, read my posts man. Where have I ever said I hate Kirk? I said I have no problem with Kirk, what I have a problem with is the clear double standard that exists in regards to him. He is not as good as you guys think he is, and Jamal isnt as bad as you guys make him out to be. Again, what Jamal did 2 years ago is called results. And frankly, not one person can say what Kirk did this year was truly better then what Jamal did, when he was in competition with Jay. So why do you hate Jamal and label him with a lot of rants that you no nothing about? Wasnt Jamal in the Berto every day last summer, after leading the Bulls to their best season in 6? And how was he rewarded? By being dumped. And people like you question his integrity? Get real


sorry RL I failed to connect my post to the double standard.I agree there is double standard but in every debate on this board it exists.
What I meant is I think the D.S is because of the personality on court of both players - while Kirk shows strong personality and plays as hard as he can , Jamal shows no hard play and does not have a good "team personality" - thats why most people will give Kirk more breaks than Jamal.

Now - U included me in the D.S group - U can't just put people in groups cause it ain't what I'm saying.I do like Kirk much more than Jamal and like to have him on my team more , but I do think that if wer'e talking about talent Jamal has the edge - he just doesn't care enough to play his full potential - and I think since he has a ****ty team personality he will never reach his roof.

And I thought U hate Kirk since U cynicly called him the goldenboy , looks like there is some anger there.

And if wer'e talking double standard I'll show U how in your post there is just as much D.S - How come U give Jamal the credit for 2 seasons ago when he played for a totally different team while this season when he played a bigger role and took most shots in the team U choose to blame Kirk - By your standard U should Be blaming Jamal even more for the last season - when he was clearly our main man on offense.I'm not attacking or anything I'm just saying every debate has it's own D.S...

Peace mate


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think it's pretty funny the shots that people take on Jamal. I hear "he's not a leader" or "he has a bad attitude". Frankly, I don't even know where these sorts of statements come from. Do some of you KNOW Jamal personally? Are you an asst. coach or an executive on the Bulls? An advance scout maybe for another team? Because certainly those types of statements can't be backed up simply by watching the games. I recall two separate occassions where Jamal Crawford had new career highs in points and assists and he was interviewed after both games. He was asked specifically about his OWN new highs and what did he do? He went on to praise his teamates...specifially Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry and someone else, and in the other interview he praised Krause (it was right after his retirement). Hmmm...that sounds like a team player to me. A guy who would rather praise his teamates accomplishments than talk about his own? Wow. pretty rare. Doesn't really sound all that selfish to me. In fact, it sounds like a LEADER. And I have seen Jamal be vocal in games before and call a little mini huddle and get things together. I think the crux of the matter is that the Bulls had a VERY poor team and Jamal was called on to do A LOT and he did a lot, just not as well as he probably would have on a REAL team. Anyone who doesn't see that is walking around with blinders on (watch out for that table!  ) Jamal is a good young player and he is getting better. If the Bulls let him go for something stupid IT will come back to bite them in the ***.

Also, someone mentioned how Jamal doesn't really have "sick handles" and would commit a lot of turnovers if he handled the ball more. Uhhh, Jamal handled the point a lot for us and was second on the team in assists and had a GREAT asst/t/o ratio, he has never been turnover prone so I have no idea what that person is talking about and apparently neither do they.


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

You're right ace, Jamal's always been a teamplayer, sure he jacks up a lot of shots, but that's at least part of what he was supposed to do, he needs to work at his shot selection, but hey he's young, he'll learn. Often, where other players would finish themselves he throws a nice assist for a teammate. He's not the one that goes for a triple double with a game on the line he wants to win.
I'd rather have Jamal back instead of adding NY-scrubs. I don't think it's smart letting him go and I think it would be ok to sign him for a bit above the MLE for 3 or 4 years.
Remember the whole summer long contract talk with Rashard Lewis? I hope Jamal ends up back with us just as Lewis ended up being a Sonic at the end of summer.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Lets count the contradictions here for a second

Jamal doesnt work or play hard

Jamal played Jordan everyday 3 summers ago learning from the greatest ever before tearing up his knee

Jamal comes back from his knee surgery 3 months earlier so he can help the Bulls in the last month of the season.

Jamal plays with Jordan everyday after knee surgery and the Bulls picking Jwill

Jamal leads the Bulls to their best stretch in 6 years after being named a starter. 

Jamal ties Trent for most appearences at the Berto Center last year. This is the same Trent that set the record the summer before and almost set it again

End result

Jamal yanked 10 games into the year inspite leading the team in pts and assts. After getting yanked, the Bulls are no better, statistically for the rest of the year. Ahhh yes, Bullet, I see, Jamal doesnt work hard AND Kirk made the Bulls a better team? Give me a break


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Lets count the contradictions here for a second
> 
> Jamal doesnt work or play hard
> ...



:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i think John Paxson/Scott skiles are alot more knowledgeable about JC both on and off the court than all of us here. they have a far greater understanding of his basketball skill level than all of us here also. now we can speculate all we want, but the fact is, the management/coach team do not like JC. theres got to be a reason why hes not well liked. you know in the NBA, if you are indeed good in basketball skills, people will LOVE YOu regardless if u r a rapist,pot-smoking crackheads.. u got skills, we will put u on the court, u make the team wins, we will do anything to put u on the court.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> i think John Paxson/Scott skiles are alot more knowledgeable about JC both on and off the court than all of us here. they have a far greater understanding of his basketball skill level than all of us here also. now we can speculate all we want, but the fact is, the management/coach team do not like JC. theres got to be a reason why hes not well liked. you know in the NBA, if you are indeed good in basketball skills, people will LOVE YOu regardless if u r a rapist,pot-smoking crackheads.. u got skills, we will put u on the court, u make the team wins, we will do anything to put u on the court.


He has done everything that they have asked him too and then some, and hasnt been rewarded at all. And to say he plays for himself or that he doesnt work hard, is ludicrous. Does Skiles know anything? Is Pax more knowledgable then say Jerry Krause on how hard Jamal worked to come back from the knee? I am not sure they are so knowledgable in regards to this. Everything I pointed out is a fact


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> i think John Paxson/Scott skiles are alot more knowledgeable about JC both on and off the court than all of us here. they have a far greater understanding of his basketball skill level than all of us here also. now we can speculate all we want, but the fact is, the management/coach team do not like JC. theres got to be a reason why hes not well liked. you know in the NBA, if you are indeed good in basketball skills, people will LOVE YOu regardless if u r a rapist,pot-smoking crackheads.. u got skills, we will put u on the court, u make the team wins, we will do anything to put u on the court.


i find the premise of your post funny in a way its almost like your saying because they are right because they are closer to the situation, if that were the case why did pax do the rose for AD trade?

his explaination was that he thought crawford and curry were ready to lead the team.well curry was out of shape (something you would think he would have known) , and crawford couldn't do it alone.i found their insider knowledge lacking, to be honest.

i find no reason to think otherwise now.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Jamal yanked 10 games into the year inspite leading the team in pts and assts. After getting yanked, the Bulls are no better, statistically for the rest of the year. Ahhh yes, Bullet, I see, Jamal doesnt work hard AND Kirk made the Bulls a better team? Give me a break


But thats not what I'm saying - U where saying double standard , so I showed U D.S in your post.

Kirk did not lead us nowhere last season , but I'm saying Jamal was in the same boat exactly , and taking more shots , so he's also responsible.

U can't give him credit for a year he played less and say he has no blaim in the season he played more.
also there R 2 veterans in the team that had something to do with it (Yell and Rose) so different team different story.

At the moment I see no GM offering anything to Jamal so we'll have to wait and see what offers Kirk will get - and once again , I'm not even trying to take a side here , it has been talked over and over a zillion times , and from experience it is the never ending arguement anyway - so don't count me on Jamal/Kirk side in any argue , But I'm willing to say that I'd pick Kirk if I were Coach , just because he's more the kinda player I'd like on my team , not to lead the team neceseraly , but to play in it!

U R intitled to prefer Jamal , We all know already this debate has reached beyond hopeless on our board


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Lets count the contradictions here for a second
> 
> Jamal doesnt work or play hard
> ...


it's all in the past rlucas....

what should be considered here isn't what did you do for me then, but what can we expect you to do for us in the future.

i would think you would know that better than most. 

jamal at the berto last summer is old news. yesterday's headline lining the kitty litter box. non-recyclable matter. 

and it isn't always what you are worth, but what you can negiotiate.

has goodwin or jamal approached the bulls and earnestly tried to negotiate something or is it, as we are led to believe by the media and mr. goodwin, all about the knicks or nothing?

i think it's been the latter for a lot longer than just the past few weeks.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> it's all in the past rlucas....
> ...


That is to prove that Jamal is not lazy. Consider it proven

Now after all Jamal has done to make the team and himself better, how has he been rewarded? Hmmmm, as Pax even made an offer?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Now after all Jamal has done to make the team and himself better, how has he been rewarded? Hmmmm, as Pax even made an offer?


So rlucus, would you give this guy $60M over 6 years? Seems like that is what Crawford is holding out for. I have not heard one mention from the Crawford camp about a shorter contract.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> That is to prove that Jamal is not lazy. Consider it proven
> ...


consider _what_ proven??

honestly, who cares if he worked out more than any other bull last summer. what i am saying is that is all in the past. 

pax made him an offer of the MLE. told him to go out and set his own market if he thought he was worth more. jamal thought he was worth more and so far, nada.

if he really had made himself _that_ much better and made the team _that _ much better then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, now would we?

and what i am saying is that he seemingly has dismissed the bulls outright not the other way around.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> So rlucus, would you give this guy $60M over 6 years? Seems like that is what Crawford is holding out for. I have not heard one mention from the Crawford camp about a shorter contract.


would you give Kirk the max? cause I believe our white Pg GM and our white PG coach would.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> would you give Kirk the max? cause I believe our white Pg GM and our white PG coach would.


Avoiding the question?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> would you give Kirk the max? cause I believe our white Pg GM and our white PG coach would.


wow!

 

so tell us how you REALLY feel rlucas! is that what you think this is about? if so, you are

edited. That was unnecessary, although I tend to agree that the line of thinking presented by rlucas is 1) 100% wrong and 2) evasive of the question he was asked.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> wow!
> ...


sorry TB#1 but that comment from him was just completely unwarranted and wrong imo.

and yet i am the one being edited. ok.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> would you give Kirk the max? cause I believe our white Pg GM and our white PG coach would.


I think I will. At the end of his rookie contract.

Why not? By then we will know by fact that he has worked his *** off for the last 4years for the Bulls and improved his game every years. What's not to like?

IMO he will be worthy of every penny of his max contract.

Now you got my answser.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> sorry TB#1 but that comment from him was just completely unwarranted and wrong imo.
> ...


That was me that edited it. I didn't exactly let him off the hook either. I think his comment, while wrong, evasive, and totally incorrect, is acceptable. That is, if he wants to throw out there that it's all about racism, then he can do it if it's not breaking the rules. It will, however, lead me to seriously question his judgement, but that's no basis for editing posts. Calling people names, however, is not acceptable.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> That was me that edited it. I didn't exactly let him off the hook either. *I think his comment, while wrong, evasive, and totally incorrect, is acceptable.* That is, if he wants to throw out there that it's all about racism, then he can do it if it's not breaking the rules. It will, however, lead me to seriously question his judgement, but that's no basis for editing posts. Calling people names, however, is not acceptable.


ok my bad. (i'm not sure why i thought it was tb#1 anyway) but it was a clever play on his name, you have to give me at least that!

  :laugh:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knicks New Offer*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> But I think you have to seperate what has actually been said by these guys and how it's been interpreted.
> ...


In the back and forth debate that is Jamal Crawford vs. all other guards on any particular year of the Chicago Bulls, I find your assessment of the situation to be the most fair and balanced. 

Does Jamal pizz me off when he won't take a charge, dive for a ball or jacks up an ill-advised three? Oh, absolutely. Does Jamal look like he isn't giving it 100% out there? Sure, plenty of times. Is Jamal getting a rap for his handles today? Indeed. Some of this is simply - Jamal. It's who he is. 

Jamal is never going to be a defensive stopper. Add him onto the rest of the heap that accounts for about 99% of the NBA. There is however, no reason to believe he can't be an adequate defender and he's already show marked improvement IMO. I'm willing to bet he'll be more than adequate with new contract in hand and playing under the tutilage of the much maligned Skiles. Will he get after it a little more? Take that charge, dive for that ball? Well, he'll never be confused with Rodman, but I think he'll be more aggressive. How about giving 100%? Well, as he learns the game better and understands more of what is expected of him on BOTH ends of the court I think this knock will go away as well. Jamal can be deceiving as well. Some players - usually the finesse guys - seem to do things so smoothly they don't really look like they're trying. I see it in Jamal. Lets face it, the more physical you are the more intense you generally look. He's not a physical player and never will be. Same knock could apply to half the NBA. Just for grins I threw in the reference to Jamal's handles previously alluded to in the thread. There is no doubt that Jamal is a very good ball handler. There is also no doubt that from time to time Jamal will get his pocket picked like you rarily see in an NBA game. I can only assume this hit is coming from those "boneheaded" plays. Hey, everybody makes boneheaded plays.  As for his shot selection, the Bulls finally have more suitable offensive options from which to choose. No longer is it between a shot for Jamal or a shot for Eddy. You'll have Gordon whose gonna want his share of looks along with Deng and hopefully Nocione. Heck, even Chandler's got that perimeter game working now. :laugh: Not only won't Skiles let Jamal get carried away with the wild shots, his teammates won't either. This is a factor that really hasn't been addressed, but I'm sure will exist in the coming year. Jamal will be asked to do less, because the supporting cast is better. 

Now we can argue all we want on the subject, but one thing that is undeniable to all posters here is that Paxson, Skiles and BJ Armstrong appear to be in agreement that Hinrich and Gordon are the backcourt of the future. Even the media shares this view. Regardless of how strongly we hold our beliefs, we must cede that they clearly know more than we do. I guess only time will tell if they are right.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

If we have to keep a player...it's got to be JYD...unlike Robinson he cares at least. At least he'll play.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> would you give Kirk the max? cause I believe our white Pg GM and our white PG coach would.


Ouch. You may be upset at the debate RL, but you know this isn't the case. Are you suggesting Paxson and Skiles are racists? Man, I need some hard proof to buy into that. Krause LOVED Jamal from what I could tell, but he seemed pretty damn giddy when he got to draft JWill. The board seemed to split pretty evenly for or against JWill and Jamal. Exit JWill and enter Kirk. I don't see any change in the dynamic. With Jamal it's always been either your fer him or agin him around here. To suddenly invoke racism into the equation is quite suspect and requires more explanation to be credible IMO.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

I like Kirk a lot...he's not worth the max, won't get the max, and probably won't NEED the max to substantiate his ego.....I'm sure Pax could offer 6 million per and Hinrich would be like "ok"


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> So rlucus, would you give this guy $60M over 6 years? Seems like that is what Crawford is holding out for. I have not heard one mention from the Crawford camp about a shorter contract.


Where is it beeen said that jamals wants 6yrs 60 million ?:laugh: 

The knicks offered that but who is to say that if the Bulls offered something besides the Mle (without even full raises no doubt) that Jamal wouldnt be open to that .The odds are that jamal and we all know that Paxs Mle offer was the only and final offer for jamal in regards with the Bulls .So why not try to get more.


----------



## 2ndBalcony (Jun 25, 2004)

"I don't see him crying in the media about getting respect" 

After today's article, it's clear he has his agent for that


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Looking or waiting for a direct quote from Jamal is somewhat naive. Thats what his agent is for. His agent is quoted as confirming what was said. I'm not sure why anything more than that is necessary. Now, if Jamal comes out and says my agent doesn't speak for me, I will disregard what was said. 



> Crawford, a restricted free agent who cannot escape from Chicago without the Bulls' blessing, no longer wants any part of Chicago. Paxson is aware of this, because Crawford told him so.
> 
> "It's very safe to say that," Goodwin confirmed. "It's not a matter of not wanting to come back. He wanted to come back, but it was clear to Jamal that he was not being invited back with the same vigor that New York is trying to acquire him."


If there can be any debate over the fact that Goodwin is confirming Jamal does not want to come back to Chicago then all I can say is the debate over Jamal on this board will go down to the very last post!

You can argue whether everyone says it during negotiations, but I don't see how you can argue it hasn't been said. Unless of course we're still wondering what the meaning of "IS" is.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Where is it beeen said that jamals wants 6yrs 60 million ?:laugh:
> ...


It Craw's agent that has been scoffing at 6 years for $37M. 

Goodwin's been doing so much talking that he certainly tell Pax if his MLE offer is close.

I sure ain't hearing that.

All I am hearing is that Craw and the Bulls are still very far apart.

Sounds like 6 for $60M to me. 

:yes:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

It did sound like Pax admitted in one of those quotes from the papers today (I'd have to dig back through and find it) that the Knicks had made a 6/$60M offer to Jamal.

yeah, here it is, from freakin Paul Ledewski

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/232sd1.htm



> "(The Knicks) believe that if they sign Jamal to a big contract (6 years, $60 million), they will do us a big favor," Paxson said. "We don't see it that way. We've said all along the only way we would trade Jamal is if we received absolute financial relief in return."


I was previously pretty skeptical that the Knicks actually offered it, but this seems to be some confirmation.

It's also an offer the Bulls should have some serious trepidation about matching. That puts Jamal's starting salary about about $7.5M. Yeash, I'm not too sure I would go for that.

In response, the Bulls only have so many options to sign Jamal long-term. They could give him less money but a seventh year, which he might like, or a shorter contract. But what really needs to be done is the best sales job possible. It's probably out of reach at this point, and maybe was always out of reach in the face of that kind of contract offer, but the Bulls can somewhat legitimately argue that it's a bogus deal in the first place. It's a pretty tough case to make, especially when I don't think the Bulls are really all that eager to make it.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> "(The Knicks) believe that if they sign Jamal to a big contract (6 years, $60 million), they will do us a big favor," Paxson said. "We don't see it that way. We've said all along the only way we would trade Jamal is if we received absolute financial relief in return."


Technically, the quote would likely read:



> "They believe that if they sign Jamal to a big contract, they will do us a big favor," Paxson said. "We don't see it that way. We've said all along the only way we would trade Jamal is if we received absolute financial relief in return."


The writer is adding the implied meaning. So while I believe Paxson was likely alluding to it, it's not a guarantee he was specifically referring to a 6/60 deal. If the writer is worth anything, the 6/60 has to be from an earlier portion of their conversation. If it's just the writer's idea of what Paxson considers "a big contract" then the writer is irresponsible. Maybe Paxson considers 6/45 or 6/50 a big contract. What we do know is he must not think his 6/37 would be considered "big".


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Technically, the quote would likely read:
> ...


This is a good point... especially since Ledewski isn't exactly the top Bulls writer in town.

Still, I read it as a direct quote since it was in parenthesis and in the quote. I would agree more with you if it were in brackets, but I do think it's pretty much impossible to get a definitive read. He really ought to be kicked in the *** for being such a bad writer :|


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> This is a good point... especially since Ledewski isn't exactly the top Bulls writer in town.
> ...


You might be on to something if the Knicks had been in brackets and the 6/60 in parenthesis. But, since it's not, I would say No Excuses is right.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

I hope Pax will not collapse in his negation with IT. It seems to me that Tomas is almost threatening Pax with Jamal’s unhappiness and possible disturbances.

Bulls cannot afford to loose that “game”, because it will have a big negative impact on a future team’s contract with our youngsters. 

Pax needs to make the decision regarding Jamal and move on and do it fast. IMO he got a three choices to make:

1.Sign a short time contract, under which Jamal get paid (whatever reasonable money he wants) and in return will accept any role Bulls may find appropriate.
2.Sign and trade Jamal for something valuable in return, not just for the sake of Crawford or any NBA team ambitions. We have to change the perception that Bulls are not smart in trading.
3.If first two options are not working, unleash him for free. He is not a first or last player that team had lost since rebuilding. 


We have to get over it , because any delay from now on is hurting not only Jamal, but Bulls as well.


----------

