# Jamal Crawford



## Interloper (Apr 14, 2004)

Bad game tonight.

There, the thread was made. Are people happy now? A lot of freakin' love on here after a win, especially when the Bulls got it taken to them the first pre-season game and people were ready to jump outta windows.

Man, what a pre-season win can do, even though this empire needs some more work wouldn't you say?


----------



## Snuffleupagus (May 8, 2003)

What were the stats?


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Snuffleupagus</b>!
> What were the stats?


I haven't seen the final boxscore, but when I last checked the Knicks were down by 20 pts and Crawford had 3 pts on 1-9 shooting...:sour:


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

*Jamal is still a inconsistent player*

he missed 8 out 9 shots against the jazz tonite, This is the main reason I don't see him becoming a all star soon. He has no consistency in his game


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

1 for 9 in 11 minutes. :|


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Bout on average for his career, right?


----------



## Interloper (Apr 14, 2004)

1-9 FG

0-3 3ptFG

4pts

3reb

*0 assists* 

Crawford will be just fine, its one game, you all realize that? Just like tonight's Bulls game. If they get annihilated in the next game it'll be back to suicide n' genocide around here.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

he also had 4 assists 2 steals and a block in those 11 minutes.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> he also had 4 assists 2 steals and a block in those 11 minutes.


DAMMIT PAX!!!!!

:banghead:


----------



## Interloper (Apr 14, 2004)

I wish ESPN would get their stuff right....no reason for it.


----------



## Interloper (Apr 14, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ShamBulls</b>!
> 
> 
> DAMMIT PAX!!!!!
> ...


Yeah I know, how come we couldn't pry Shandon Anderson off their hands as well...and oh yeah, maybe the rights to Fred Weis as well(if they haven't rennounced them as of yet...which incase they should of, but I guess adding this kills the sarcasm factor).


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Ahh, who couldn't see this coming? I don't miss Crawford's inconsistency one bit. We are talking about the same guy who scored what, 44 points one night, then 8 the next?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the 11 minutes cant be right i looked at the minutes for the team in the boxscore and it came to 133...ganes are 240.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2004101926


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

It was 23 minutes.

http://www.nba.com/games/20041019/NYKUTA/boxscore.html


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/games/20041019/NYKUTA/boxscore.html 

hey mods? whatever happened to the idea of the one all-emcompassing jamal thread? cause if we have a jamal thread every single freakin' game, that is just so wrong. 

movin' on.



:|


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> http://www.nba.com/games/20041019/NYKUTA/boxscore.html
> 
> hey mods? whatever happened to the idea of the one all-emcompassing jamal thread? cause if we have a jamal thread every single freakin' game, that is just so wrong.
> ...



We can't let Jamal's name fall ff this page, dammit!


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Bad nights happen, on any given night we're going to end up missing Jamal, then the next night be glad he's gone.

He'll be alright, I'm sure. I hope he does good, even considering how much I hate the Knicks. 

Bulls won tonight, thats all I'm concerned with at the moment.

And the Red Sox game, which is one out away from going to game 7.
:uhoh:


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

yes jamal played bad! that means we got equal value in othella harrington and frank williams for him! hes so damn inconsistent, its too bad hes 24 and wont ever improve.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Also notice in this game how unbelievably efficient Utah was. If Utah plays like that very often, they will be serious contenders in the West.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*one obvious question*

Why you all hatin on Jamal?


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

*Re: one obvious question*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Why you all hatin on Jamal?


Because everyone was ready to annoint him an All-Star after he had a couple good preseason games. Turnabout is fair play.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> yes jamal played bad! that means we got equal value in othella harrington and frank williams for him! hes so damn inconsistent, its too bad hes 24 and wont ever improve.


Wow... that's some serious hating!


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Jamal back to himself...


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: one obvious question*



> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> 
> 
> Because everyone was ready to annoint him an All-Star after he had a couple good preseason games. Turnabout is fair play.


Exactly. As long as people bump or create threads for every time Jamal plays well, someone will be sure to point out when Jamal lays one of his trademark eggs. Everyone needs to just let it be. The periodic progress report is obviously fine, since he's a former Bull and still has a lot of fans around here. But the nightly stat-line and arguments back and forth are going to get old in a hurry.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

So why isn't one thread at the top of the page worth having? One thread would deemphasize this whole affair in my opinion and help Bulls fans start to cope with the loss without polluting the rest of the board with constant Jamal talk.

Maybe since it pisses people off so much to have Jamal's name stickied to the top, we could just call it "Ex-Bulls and Current fans: The Pain that Never Stops"


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> So why isn't one thread at the top of the page worth having? One thread would deemphasize this whole affair in my opinion and help Bulls fans start to cope with the loss without polluting the rest of the board with constant Jamal talk.
> 
> Maybe since it pisses people off so much to have Jamal's name stickied to the top, we could just call it "Ex-Bulls and Current fans: The Pain that Never Stops"


its been suggested and the mods did comply ...and then the complaints came .

the people who complain would rather moan in thread after thread about jamal than have one thread to complain in.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW, there are SIX Nocioni threads on the front page. Are people able to discuss him enough? I didn't count the Deng ones, but probably about the same.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> its been suggested and the mods did comply ...and then the complaints came .
> ...


I stickied it per a request from Kismet, it made sense to me, some other mod must have decided to unsticky it because people were complaining. Personally I would have left it, after all, if you don't like a particular thread you don't have to read it. But I guess that makes too much sense.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> Ahh, who couldn't see this coming? I don't miss Crawford's inconsistency one bit. We are talking about the same guy who scored what, 44 points one night, then 8 the next?


That would explain his 17 ppg average. 25 points one game, 9 points the next. 25 + 9 / 2 = 17 = inconsistent. This is no different than what he did for the Bulls.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> FWIW, there are SIX Nocioni threads on the front page. Are people able to discuss him enough? I didn't count the Deng ones, but probably about the same.


In defense of that, Nocioni is a) a Chicago Bulls, and b) a new player who is the buzz of the team right now. There's good reason for alot of discussion on him right now. Same goes for Deng.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> That would explain his 17 ppg average. 25 points one game, 9 points the next. 25 + 9 / 2 = 17 = inconsistent. This is no different than what he did for the Bulls.


.................and the hate still continues


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> So why isn't one thread at the top of the page worth having? One thread would deemphasize this whole affair in my opinion and help Bulls fans start to cope with the loss without polluting the rest of the board with constant Jamal talk.
> 
> Maybe since it pisses people off so much to have Jamal's name stickied to the top, we could just call it "Ex-Bulls and Current fans: The Pain that Never Stops"



We discussed having a single Jamal thread, but decided against it. People post different Jamal threads about different topics. It would be unfair to expect everyone to keep track of the different topics combined in one thread.

Personally, I think Bulls fans need to let it go. As Dan says, a periodic update is fine, but this daily jabbering about Jamal, the ex-Bull is grating to me. But this is a message board and we want people to feel free to post about the topics that interest them.

Hopefully, the Jamal issue will die down as the season progresses and there are more current issues to discuss.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I stickied it per a request from Kismet, it made sense to me, some other mod must have decided to unsticky it because people were complaining. Personally I would have left it, after all, if you don't like a particular thread you don't have to read it. But I guess that makes too much sense.


I didn't unstick it, FWIW.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> In defense of that, Nocioni is a) a Chicago Bulls, and b) a new player who is the buzz of the team right now. There's good reason for alot of discussion on him right now. Same goes for Deng.


I agree. I don't suggest we merge all 6 into one big thread, though.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago N VA</b>!
> 
> 
> .................and the hate still continues


I don't hate Jamal, in fact he was one of my favorite Bulls to watch last year. But I'm fully aware of his drawbacks as well, and fact is he can shoot you out of games just as much as he shoots you in. I loved watching him shoot us in...I'll always remember his 50 point game fondly. But I definitely won't miss when he would go 1-10 from 3-point range. He...just...kept...shooting...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: one obvious question*



> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> 
> 
> Because everyone was ready to annoint him an All-Star after he had a couple good preseason games. Turnabout is fair play.


Who is everyone ? saying that if he plays well and his team wins he could make the all star team is not annointing him an all star  

So if he puts up 30 tomorrow we should bump the all star thread or start numerous posts about how great he is because after all

Turnabout is fair play  


This getting really silly .


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Lets put this in perspective and realize that Hinrich shot 3-13 last night too...not too much of an imporvement on a 1-9 outing, also Hinrich hasn't gone 10-12 or scored 25 yet IN the preseason.


----------



## Interloper (Apr 14, 2004)

For the record I only started this thread to poke fun at the people constantly hating on Crawford like everything bad that happened to this team last season was his fault.

I'm a big Crawford supporter and always will be. When its all said and done, he'll be a good NBA player and just might make an all-star appearance or two. He's only 24 and still has a lot to learn, but its better he learn it in NY then here. How many players has this current staff turned into good NBA players day in and day out. And don't say Hinrich either because his shooting was just as bad as Crawford's last year and he had 4 years of college ball.

Anyways, that's that. I'm done speaking on this matter. What's done is what's done.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Lets put this in perspective and realize that Hinrich shot 3-13 last night too...not too much of an imporvement on a 1-9 outing, also Hinrich hasn't gone 10-12 or scored 25 yet IN the preseason.


Actually Hinrich looked bad last night and took some poor shots.

I believe the Bulls went on a major run w/ Hinrich and Curry on the bench... which is semi-encouraging


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Crawford*: 15.7 ppg on 59.8% eFG shooting, 4.0 apg, 2.3 rpg, 1.7 spg, 2.3 topg in 28.0 mpg.

*Someone Else*: 8.0 ppg on 47.0% eFG shooting, 3.8 apg, 2.5 rpg, 0.8 spg, 1.5 topg in 23.3 mpg.

Just imagine the abuse Crawford would be taking on this board if he had started off this preseason (or last preseason) like "someone else."


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Well, that "someone else" played some defense. Which is more than I can say for JC. And tell me, how did Kirk do in the 4th quarter, when we needed him? Pretty good no?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> Well, that "someone else" played some defense. Which is more than I can say for JC. And tell me, how did Kirk do in the 4th quarter, when we needed him? Pretty good no?


Actually Jamals defense so far this preseason has been pretty good .You just cant seem to to grasp that this is a NEW season and are gonna try to apply everything that happened last year to this year as well.

If thats the case we cant look forward to that "someone elses " shooting percentage to go up now can we ?

Also when we talk of Deng,Chapu and Duhon lets remember Jamal never had the luxury of playing with last year .With the way we are looking right if we would have resigned jamal we would be looking like a STRONG playoff team by seasons end .I think having other guys to make plays would have helped him tremendously.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> Well, that "someone else" played some defense. Which is more than I can say for JC. And tell me, how did Kirk do in the 4th quarter, when we needed him? Pretty good no?


Hinrich did play pretty well at the end of last night's game, but opposing starting point guards have the following statistics.

15.0 ppg on 63.8% on eFG shooting, 4.8 apg, 2.5 rpg, 1 spg, 2 to pg in 24.0 mpg.

8.0 ppg on 47.0% eFG shooting, 3.8 apg, 2.5 rpg, 0.8 spg, 1.5 topg in 23.3 mpg.

That is hardly definitive about Hinrich's defense, but opposing point guards have been consistently very good against the Bulls this preseason. Hinrich has not.

That said, I like the fact that Hinrich has not tried to force much and is allowing Deng and Nocioni to play the role of scorer. Once Hinrich figures out how to adjust to the new way fouls are being called, he should go back to being a little bit better than average starting point guard.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually Jamals defense so far this preseason has been pretty good .You just cant seem to to grasp that this is a NEW season and are gonna try to apply everything that happened last year to this year as well.
> ...


No, we would be an average team, that would be horribly cap-strung with Jamal's crappy contract. Face facts, Jamal has been replaced and we managed to do so rather cheaply. As I said we would.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Hinrich did play pretty well at the end of last night's game, but opposing starting point guards have the following statistics.
> 
> ...


Some people are making it sound like Hinrich has actually played major minutes, which couldn't be further from the truth. Yeah, he's been in foul trouble, but Skiles has limited his minutes since he knows what Kirk can do. I don't expect to see the real Kirk Hinrich until he gets consistent minutes when the regular season starts. Nonetheless, he's still been racking up alot of assists and has taken care of the ball. That's as important as anything from your starting PG in the pre-season.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Also notice in this game how unbelievably efficient Utah was. If Utah plays like that very often, they will be serious contenders in the West.


I didn't get to see the game live but I followed it on yahoo gamechannel, and Utah's first unit did some serious damage to NY.

I was initially concerned that Kirilenko and Boozer's great ability to get opportunities around the rim would have an overlapping effect rather than a cumulative one but in this game there appeared to be great chemistry.

I think it's worth noting that NY has a very un-athletic frontcourt. They are also not realy gifted with alot of height. It will be interesting to see if the Jazz do well against similar frontcourts.

Can't wait until the season starts so I can watch some of their games.

/jazz


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> I think it's worth noting that NY has a very un-athletic frontcourt. They are also not realy gifted with alot of height. It will be interesting to see if the Jazz do well against similar frontcourts.
> ...


Not to get off topic, but this is right on, and very relevent why New York isn't going anywhere soon, other than a 1st round exit in the playoffs. They are very perimeter heavy, but very shallow in the frontcourt. To do anything in the league, you NEED good capable big men. Crawford may put up good stats, but he won't help this team do anything special unless they get a good big man or two. Sweetney is ok, but I doubt he's anything more than a 12-8 guy.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> No, we would be an average team, that would be horribly cap-strung with Jamal's crappy contract. Face facts, Jamal has been replaced and we managed to do so rather cheaply. As I said we would.



How would we be cap strung ? Nothing stops us from signing our own free agents besides our owners intent on keeping his pockets fat .

Whats to face ? the regular season hasnt started yet and your already making these dumb guarantees and predictions as if you have some magic eight ball.

Nothing about the regular season is guaranteed at this point .


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to get off topic, but this is right on, and very relevent why New York isn't going anywhere soon, other than a 1st round exit in the playoffs. They are very perimeter heavy, but very shallow in the frontcourt. To do anything in the league, you NEED good capable big men. Crawford may put up good stats, but he won't help this team do anything special unless they get a good big man or two. Sweetney is ok, but I doubt he's anything more than a 12-8 guy.


Well they do have Sweetney & Thomas which isn't awful.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

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


But it's ok to annoint Crawford as an "all star" as some have done so? Come on man. 

And did you honestly want to pay Jamal that much money? I sure didn't. And dont give me this garbage about how we didn't have to. I guarantee you, that jerkoff agent of his would have held him out of training camp to get what he wanted.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> But it's ok to annoint Crawford as an "all star" as some have done so? Come on man.
> ...


A contract starting at 6.7mil per year is imminently reasonable for a young up and coming player. I'm one of Jamal's biggest fans as you know and I'm not ready to "annoint him an all star", I just feel that eventually he probably WILL be one, he certainly isn't now but he has a lot of room to grow.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> A contract starting at 6.7mil per year is imminently reasonable for a young up and coming player. I'm one of Jamal's biggest fans as you know and I'm not ready to "annoint him an all star", I just feel that eventually he probably WILL be one, he certainly isn't now but he has a lot of room to grow.


Sorry, I believe in paying for performance. Not by what a player "may" do.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to get off topic, but this is right on, and very relevent why New York isn't going anywhere soon, other than a 1st round exit in the playoffs. They are very perimeter heavy, but very shallow in the frontcourt. To do anything in the league, you NEED good capable big men. Crawford may put up good stats, but he won't help this team do anything special unless they get a good big man or two. Sweetney is ok, but I doubt he's anything more than a 12-8 guy.


the main problem isn't that there is no depth its that they are all with the exception of kurt thomas are at this point weak starters/good reserves jyd, sweetney , vin baker , nazr mohammed all fit this discription. they have good depth baker , nazr, jyd all started last season at some point for different teams

unfortunately it looks like they may have to start sweetney and k.thomas at this point , unless they can somehow consolidate a couple of players and upgrade talent somewhere. In the end real talent wins , not depth.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, I believe in paying for performance. Not by what a player "may" do.


Ignoring potential is a surefire way to fail...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> But it's ok to annoint Crawford as an "all star" as some have done so? Come on man.
> ...


Who annointed Crawford an all star ?Do you have a link ? anything ? I dont think so . 

I will say this for the last time if his team wins and he puts up nice stats playing in the NY market he will be considered.I dont know whats so hard to comprehend about that unless you really just hate the guy blindly .

As for that much money Jamals making 5.8 million this year one million more than the bad back guy Chandler .His agent was good enough to get a 7th year player option added into the deal which pays him 10 million so his contract looks like more like Maggette or Q's 6 yr 45 million dollar deals with a twist which is because of Ny's desire to get younger and being well over the cap the only way to get a Jamal type talent was to make an offer they cant refuse and the Mle is not it.

and then here you go again with another guarantee :laugh: 

Can you name one player who held out of camp after signing a qualifying offer ?There is no way his agent recommends it and your trying to apply the SAR situation to Jamals and its just not in no way shape or form has even a hint of truth to it .And guess what SAR reported to camp on time and without any incidents .

Your dislike for Jamal makes you say some the most craziest stuff Ive ever heard .


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Ignoring potential is a surefire way to fail...


Yeah, but it could also bite one in the *** as well. Just look at E-Slob and the situation we're in with him right now. Krause signed that kid on his "potential".

Besides, we've had four years of Crawford. What in that four years told you that he would be a star player? As much as I wanted him to succeed, he failed. And keep in mind, I was a very big supporter of his when he first came here. I even talked to Jamal on the phone. I told him to keep his head up and just play hard when he got in. 

IMO, he simply does not do everything he can do. Therefore I question his heart.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, I believe in paying for performance. Not by what a player "may" do.


So what type of performance are you gonna pay chandler and Curry for considering we are not expected to win more than 30 games ?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Who annointed Crawford an all star ?Do you have a link ? anything ? I dont think so .
> ...


His agent has a history of doing that kind of crap. It's a fact.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> His agent has a history of doing that kind of crap. It's a fact.


with who ? who are the players ? Were they coming off rookie deals or max deals ?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> So what type of performance are you gonna pay chandler and Curry for considering we are not expected to win more than 30 games ?


First off, is the season over with? No. 

Secondly, I have NEVER questioned Tyson's heart and work ethic. He brings it as much as he can. How much would I pay him? I dont know, but I trust Pax to know how much he should be paid.

Curry? He worries me a bit. I do worry that he only became thinner because of his contract status. But I also believe that he will end up liking how much easier the game will be for him when he's in shape.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, but it could also bite one in the *** as well. Just look at E-Slob and the situation we're in with him right now. Krause signed that kid on his "potential".
> ...



Honestly, Jamal has improved on his game every year. He keeps getting better slowly but surely. He wasn't put in the best situation to suceed by the orginization IMO. Perhaps it is because he has a bad attitude, I don't know. In any case, it seems to me that at some point last season Jamal sort of "checked out" on the orginization for whatever reason. Probably because he felt like they didn't care much for him which obviously they didn't. 

Jamal has a lot of things going for him and he has a few things holding him back as well. He has very good handles and nice form on his jumper as well as deep range. He is good at feeding the post and passing the ball in general, he has good floor vision and a knack for finding the open man. Defensively he looks even more improved this season but he still has room to go. He needs to work on his shot selection and he needs to continue to add strength to his wiry body. He also needs to continue to improve defensively. If he does these things, as I beleive he will, he should be an all star or close to it. Remember the kid is just 24 with 17 college games & 2 years of hs.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> with who ? who are the players ? Were they coming off rookie deals or max deals ?


That doesn't matter. He has played hardball with SAR, Payton. He has a history of making these types of threats.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

ACE;

Have we replaced what Jamal gave us?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> First off, is the season over with? No.
> ...


But you dont pay for Heart or work ethic because you 



> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> Sorry, I believe in paying for performance


So no production no pay right or does this only apply to players you like ?



> Curry? He worries me a bit. I do worry that he only became thinner because of his contract status. But I also believe that he will end up liking how much easier the game will be for him when he's in shape.


Why would he worry you? if he doesnt put up numbers he doesnt get paid right


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> ACE;
> 
> Have we replaced what Jamal gave us?


I don't think we have. I mean, sure, Deng & Nocioni are very good and Gordon probably will be good once/if he adapts to the NBA. Still, Deng & Nocioni have an entirely different skill set IMO. Deng is a solid defender and is good at dishing the ball, he has even shown some scoring ability, but he doesn't have as good 3pt range as Crawford (I know he hit some shots last night) and doesn't have the same scoring mentality as of yet, besides he is a rookie and we are asking a hell of a lot out of him. Nocioni is a hustle hard nosed player but he really is completely different from Jamal.  

I just believe that this team would be MUCH better if we had kept Jamal in ADDITTION to some of the other guys we have and we could have easily done it too if management didn't get all cheap about it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*IT'S ALIVE!!!* 



i'm sorry you guys, but really...this is the frankenthread.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> But you dont pay for Heart or work ethic because you
> ...


So, do YOU pay players that dont perform? It's clear (to those that actually paid attention last season), that JC was out there doing his own "thing". Pete Meyers even said so. IMO, Jamal simply wanted to score points and get a contract. That's it. 

Curry and Chandler? I'll leave that to Paxson. He's the GM, and he's proven himself this offseason IMO.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> So, do YOU pay players that dont perform? It's clear (to those that actually paid attention last season), that JC was out there doing his own "thing". Pete Meyers even said so. IMO, Jamal simply wanted to score points and get a contract. That's it.
> ...


AD gets 13 million for 8 & 9, maybe Jamal should be getting 20million this year based on that lol!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> That doesn't matter. He has played hardball with SAR, Payton. He has a history of making these types of threats.



So now its a history of making threats but you didnt make that claim earlier you said 



> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> I guarantee you, that jerkoff agent of his would have held him out of training camp to get what he wanted.


and then when I quiestioned again why you would say that you said 



> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> His agent has a history of doing that kind of crap. It's a fact.


So his clients have never really done it and the clients you used as examples are former all stars and one if a HOF player who actually showed up on time and have both been non stories during their respective teams training camps.

this is what SAR had to say about the situation 



> Trail Blazers forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim said Tuesday that he will report to training camp next week, putting an end to one potential melodrama.
> 
> "I'll be there on time," he said.
> 
> ...


and more 



> A trade remains a possibility, but a holdout?
> 
> A trade remains a possibility, but a holdout?
> 
> ...


Goodwin never said anything but just backed up his client and GP made all the statements about retiring not but again if it helps the cause you have to use it right ?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> So, do YOU pay players that dont perform? It's clear (to those that actually paid attention last season), that JC was out there doing his own "thing". Pete Meyers even said so. IMO, Jamal simply wanted to score points and get a contract. That's it.
> ...


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bullnt16.html



> "Crawford is coachable, and he's a good team player,'' Bulls forward Antonio Davis said. "And in a situation where he can draw knowledge from two Hall of Fame guards like [Knicks coach] Lenny Wilkens and Isiah Thomas, he can't help but get better.''


thats from someone who actually was on the court with him and since weve now falen into pulling up Pete Myers and AD quotes 
:no: 

lenny wilkens 



> And the great thing about Jamal is, he's very team-oriented. He wants to win, he wants to learn, and when you've got that in a player like him, you've got something special."


believe Myers or believe a Hof coach and player 
:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Do you really think that Paxson is going to be able to do anything meaningful with the nearly inconsequential "cap relief" that the Crawford trade provided?

History indicates no.

Crawford already is a solid NBA player... and he's going to do nothing but improve.

This team would be better with Deng, Nocioni AND Crawford.

Try to look past the hate and think of the good of the team!


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

I have, and that's why I am happy Crawfraud is no longer a Bull.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> I have, and that's why I am happy Crawfraud is no longer a Bull.


And now ladies and gentlemen....hating until the grave! SHINKY!!!!!


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> And now ladies and gentlemen....hating until the grave! SHINKY!!!!!


Damn right! I hate ANY player that doesn't give 100% and do everything he can to help the TEAM.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Damn right! I hate ANY player that doesn't give 100% and do everything he can to help the TEAM.


you mean like being the teams leading scorer? No? what about second leading assist man? no? How about coming back from an acl injury early? No? How about being the second hardest offseason worker? No? How about changing positions to help the team?

On second thought....nevermind...you just don't get it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Damn right! I hate ANY player that doesn't give 100% and do everything he can to help the TEAM.


Right. You just don't like the guy. I don't think Crawford could ever really do anything on the court to change that.

He gets tons of assists for a shooting guard.
He somehow gets steals and blocks even though he apparently plays 0 defense. (i understand that he's deficient in other areas... but jeez)

Its a style thing.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> but he doesn't have as good 3pt range as Crawford


Problem is Jamal thinks like u and threw up a stagering 521 3p tries hitting only 165 - thats 0.317 and the worst in 1st 30 players putting up lots of 3's - untill u get to toine in the list 

Pure damage!

BTW - if u wanna go back to Jamal at 19 then lets GO - 0.327 at his half college season while Deng as a freshman and not at the backcourt position Jamal was hit 0.36 

FYI only ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Problem is Jamal thinks like u and threw up a stagering 521 3p tries hitting only 165 - thats 0.317 and the worst in 1st 30 players putting up lots of 3's - untill u get to toine in the list
> ...


Take a look at his career stats.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3407/career

Last season was his worst from 3 point land. 

Do you think he regressed as a shooter?

Or maybe its because he was thrust into the role of primary scorer after the Rose trade?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Take a look at his career stats.
> ...


Does not matter the reason - he still thinks he can shoot the trey better than he really can.


and 0.339 career is still low , for a guy that is supposed to be a good shooter.thing is - he Ain't.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Crawford is a good shooter technically. His weakness has always been shot selection.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Does not matter the reason - he still thinks he can shoot the trey better than he really can.
> ...


he is actually , people forget an awful lot of his 3s are 45ft heaves at the end of a period i would say he avg. at least an extra miss a game from it as he absolutely seemed to love taking them. 

i would say in his 1st 2 games this preseason ( i didn't see the 3rd game) 3 of his 4 misses were of that variety , thats 6-7 outside of the desperate heaves most players wont take because they are afraid of what it does to their shooting %


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Does not matter the reason - he still thinks he can shoot the trey better than he really can.
> ...


I don't think he'll ever be a premiere NBA 3 point shooter.

He's decent. 

Take a look at the stats from last season.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=PG,SG,G&conference=NBA&year=season_2003&sort=22

0.339 is better than TMAC and KOBE shot last year.


0.339 is also better than both Kobe's career 3 point PCT.

KOBE: 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3118/career


All I'm saying is... I expect his FG% numbers to improve in New York due to having better players around him.

He brings other things to the table other than shooting... such as playmaking.

Check out the assist leaders from last season.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=PG,SG,G&conference=NBA&year=season_2003&sort=27

How many of those guys ahead of him were not the PG of their team?


----------



## tha champion (Oct 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> No, we would be an average team, that would be horribly cap-strung with Jamal's crappy contract. Face facts, Jamal has been replaced and we managed to do so rather cheaply. As I said we would.


He's making 5.8 million this year. TC is making 4.8. How is that crappy?


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> http://www.nba.com/games/20041019/NYKUTA/boxscore.html
> 
> hey mods? whatever happened to the idea of the one all-emcompassing jamal thread? cause if we have a jamal thread every single freakin' game, that is just so wrong.
> ...


I don't agree with you. It is easier to have a new thread. That way I don't have to sift through tons of pages to find new up to date info. I have never understood limiting someone's desire to post a Headline based on subject matter. I think it's much easier to sift through the headlines.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

All this for a sub .400 chucker who's afraid of contact.

:no:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> All this for a sub .400 chucker who's afraid of contact.
> 
> :no:


Why u hatin on Jamal?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> All this for a sub .400 chucker who's afraid of contact.
> 
> :no:


the funny thing is he doesn't look afraid on the knicks ...i saw him throw his body into rasho nesterovic on a fast break, take the bump and put the ball in the basket over him.

i think he has finally grown into his body , people forget 3 years ago his playing weight was about 170 he avoided contact because he was scrawny and weak and thats he played growing up .

now he is doing things and is exploring things he never really did as a bull like posting up , there were a few articles mentioning how he has been trying to get posting up tips from penny hardaway, he has been playing sg for right now but that may become a staple of his game as he plays more pg.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> the funny thing is he doesn't look afraid on the knicks ...i saw him throw his body into rasho nesterovic on a fast break, take the bump and put the ball in the basket over him.


Two preseason games vs. an entire rookie contract with the Bulls.

Excuse me if I need more evidence.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Two preseason games vs. an entire rookie contract with the Bulls.
> ...


fear is an easy thing to quantify either you are or you aren't .

if he is afraid of contact he wouldn't have seeked it out .

if you are afraid of heights you dont go bungie jumping and if you are afriad of contact you dont jump into players who are listed at 80 more lbs that you are when you know they are going to hack you.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> fear is an easy thing to quantify either you are or you aren't .
> ...


:sigh:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_Money money money money, money 
Some people got to have it
Some people really need it
Listen to me y'all, do things, do things, do bad things with it
You wanna do things, do things, do things, good things with it
Talk about cash money, money
Talk about cash money- dollar bills, yall_




hey, who wants to go bungy jumpin' with the grinch?! lol.

oh, and lorgg? i have resigned myself to the fact we will have multiple jamal threads throughout the course of the season, so , no biggie!!

i am embracing it. 






:grinning:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

money didn't make e-rob and vince carter any braver...why would it for crawford?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Why u hatin on Jamal?


What U talkin bout Willis ?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

JC's game has not changed one bit and we need to stop with all this JC this and JC that. He is a wildly up and down scorer with a ton of skill on the offensive side of the court with little to offer on defensive. He will have great game(s) followed by an awful game(s) just like he did here.

I wish him well but frankly i am glad he is on the knicks and we have grodon, Noci, and deng. They are just my kind of players who work their butts of and hustle.

david


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> JC's game has not changed one bit and we need to stop with all this JC this and JC that. He is a wildly up and down scorer with a ton of skill on the offensive side of the court with little to offer on defensive. He will have great game(s) followed by an awful game(s) just like he did here.
> 
> I wish him well but frankly i am glad he is on the knicks and we have grodon, Noci, and deng. They are just my kind of players who work their butts of and hustle.
> ...


His game hasn't changed? So I take it you have been watching him in the preseason then huh? All I know is that in his first preseason game he was driving the lane and he was playing much better defense. He blocked Rodney Buford for a 24 second clock violation, had a couple of steals. 

People just want to think that all Jamal will ever be is what he was with the Bulls and thats not accurate at all. Jamal is still a young developing player and he will continue to improve over the next couple of seasons before he hits his apex. It's pretty obvious to me that he is looking good for the Knicks.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ISn't it funny that New Yorkers hadn't expressed a tenth of enthusiam about Jamal than what you guys did so far? And he is not playing for the Bulls.

I am pretty sure he's going to have 30 even 40 points a night and I am also absolutely sure that he's going to have one of those miserable performance in between much like he did in his Bulls days.

I really don't know what is there for new discussion for this same-old-same-old guy. When eveything is said and done at the end of his career, people will still talk about his potential and inconsistency. I don't need that in my Bulls roster. Period.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> People just want to think that all Jamal will ever be is what he was with the Bulls and thats not accurate at all. <b>Jamal is still a young developing player and he will continue to improve over the next couple of seasons before he hits his apex. </b> It's pretty obvious to me that he is looking good for the Knicks.


I am afraid that you will be using this same logic till he is in mid 30. So I am hearing you says exact same thing for the last 4 years and I am sure I will be hearing another 4 to 5 years.

I could be wrong and Jamal eventually become what you all envision. But there is also good chance that we all already saw the best of jamal can offer. I think it's still 50-50 in most people's eye. I just think that personally I don't have much faith in him. That is all. Just my opinion much like yours.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> I am afraid that you will be using this same logic till he is in mid 30. So I am hearing you says exact same thing for the last 4 years and I am sure I will be hearing another 4 to 5 years.
> 
> I could be wrong and Jamal eventually become what you all envision. But there is also good chance that we all already saw the best of jamal can offer. I think it's still 50-50 in most people's eye. I just think that personally I don't have much faith in him. That is all. Just my opinion much like yours.


And your certainly entitled to it. You could be right, obviously I doubt it but that doesn't mean it's not possible. And I don't know who these NY fans that aren't excited about him are...most NY fans I have talked to are absolutely thrilled...even the basketball analysts congratulate IT on what a great move it was....


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> JC's game has not changed one bit and we need to stop with all this JC this and JC that. He is a wildly up and down scorer with a ton of skill on the offensive side of the court with little to offer on defensive. He will have great game(s) followed by an awful game(s) just like he did here.
> 
> I wish him well but frankly i am glad he is on the knicks and we have grodon, Noci, and deng. They are just my kind of players who work their butts of and hustle.
> ...


Your view is pretty much my view, except for the last paragraph. I was for keeping him. Is Harrington/Piatowski the same as Crawford? We shall see as the season goes on. Until the celtics game, Piatowski was shooting terrible and I have been a Piatowski fan. 

Crawford does have some great games, trouble is he can string a number of awful games together as well.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I also think we should have kept him for all his shortcomings and was pleased whe it looked like his deal with the knicks fell apart. But he is gone now and like i said i wish him well but i should have said i am very pleased with our new additions thro we are still weak at SG at least now we have fixed the SF position and i think i some nights Noci can play some SG as long as he keeps the long range shoting to a minimum.

david


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Nobody's going to post Jamal's stats from last night?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> Nobody's going to post Jamal's stats from last night?


I'm bored. 

36 minutes  
14 points on 4-12 shooting, 0-3 3 pt, 2 rebounds, 0 assists, 2 steals, 4 turnovers

Maybe there was dust in his eye and the lighting at the AA center was too dim. Yeah, that's sounds about right :yes:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm bored.
> ...


Yea.... Welll.... He got to the line. If it wasn't for Jamal, the Knicks woulda lost by 50.

So..... THERE!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> Nobody's going to post Jamal's stats from last night?


Its only preseason.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

well its looking like the Bulls would have been better off keeping Jamal, drafting Deng at 3, and keeping next years pick in a draft chalk full of studs. But its way too early on Gordon. But is it just me or does he look like a poor mans Hersey Hawkins out there? He might still be a top player, but he is way out of position and to a certain degree, being set up to fail.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> well its looking like the Bulls would have been better off keeping Jamal, drafting Deng at 3, and keeping next years pick in a draft chalk full of studs. But its way too early on Gordon. But is it just me or does he look like a poor mans Hersey Hawkins out there? He might still be a top player, but he is way out of position and to a certain degree, being set up to fail.


I must say I'm a little anxious about Gordon's struggles so far, but I take comfort in seeing that Nocioni and Deng look like they might be able to shoulder some of the scoring load on a nightly basis. That should take the pressure off of Ben to score prolificly right away.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I must say I'm a little anxious about Gordon's struggles so far, but I take comfort in seeing that Nocioni and Deng look like they might be able to shoulder some of the scoring load on a nightly basis. That should take the pressure off of Ben to score prolificly right away.


if you watch Ben closely in college, he was at his best with the ball in his hands. I dont think that opportunity will be given to him here. I dont think it will work, but its way too early to call a verdict. Even Lebron struggled at times in preseason. But the Bulls need a high scoring Ben Gordon for them to have any chance at the playoffs this year. Nocioni and Deng are good players right now, there cant be any denying that. But neither guy has the ability to create their own shot in the mold of Ben Gordon now. However, it just isnt working out for him yet


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

On the other hand, if we still have Jamal, there is equal chance that we wouldn’t see this great performance out of Nocioni and Deng since major portion of ball goes to Jamal and tons of shots accordingly. 

It looks like more of equal opportunity in terms of shot distribution current offensive scheme and with Jamal on the floor together this might not be the case.

So it is 50-50. 

We could be even better with Jamal, Nocioni and Deng on the floor together.

Or we wouldn’t see this great performance from two rookie if Jamal is on the floor same time.

I don't think anybody can say which would be the case with any sort of certainty.

It's all speculation.

It's all speculation.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> On the other hand, if we still have Jamal, there is equal chance that we wouldn’t see this great performance out of Nocioni and Deng since major portion of ball goes to Jamal and tons of shots accordingly.
> 
> It looks like more of equal opportunity in terms of shot distribution current offensive scheme and with Jamal on the floor together this might not be the case.
> ...


Good point. It'd be either/or with Deng and Nocioni at the three. Then we have the Jamal v. Deng thread on the board and you just don't want to go there. If anything, not having Jamal as the SG has opened up opportunities for both as well as being able to see them on the floor together. So yes, its really hard to say how things would have shook out w/ Jamal still on this team


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Whats most amazing and stunning to me is that the same people now clamoring for us to "give jamal more time, since he's still young and developing" are some of the same individuals who last month were waving "goodbye" to Curry, with all their "trade curry now" propaganda.

I swear, you'd think it was partisan politics on here, as blind as some of us are......:upset:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> if you watch Ben closely in college, he was at his best with the ball in his hands. I dont think that opportunity will be given to him here. I dont think it will work, but its way too early to call a verdict. Even Lebron struggled at times in preseason. But the Bulls need a high scoring Ben Gordon for them to have any chance at the playoffs this year. Nocioni and Deng are good players right now, there cant be any denying that. But neither guy has the ability to create their own shot in the mold of Ben Gordon now. However, it just isnt working out for him yet


Sounds a bit like yet another pg who used to play for us, no??


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> Whats most amazing and stunning to me is that the same people now clamoring for us to "give jamal more time, since he's still young and developing" are some of the same individuals who last month were waving "goodbye" to Curry, with all their "trade curry now" propaganda.
> 
> I swear, you'd think it was partisan politics on here, as blind as some of us are......:upset:


who are these people ?

vague accusations seem a little weak.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> Whats most amazing and stunning to me is that the same people now clamoring for us to "give jamal more time, since he's still young and developing" are some of the same individuals who last month were waving "goodbye" to Curry, with all their "trade curry now" propaganda.
> 
> I swear, you'd think it was partisan politics on here, as blind as some of us are......:upset:


The rationale for trading Curry now is so we get something in return for him... as opposed to NOTHING for Jamal.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Hi rlucas4257,

Nice to have you back. I agree that Ben likes to have the ball in his hands but i think he is really struggling because in college he could use his physical advantages to do pretty much anything he wanted. But i the pros he is learning that he can do some things but not others and he has to adjust his game. I think once he figures this out he will really turn it on.

david


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Jamal Crawford's pre-season stats:

4 games
19-46 FG (.413)
2.25 RPG
3.0 APG
2.75 TO/GM
1.75 STL/GM
.5 BLK/GM
15.25 PPG


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Jamal Crawford's pre-season stats:
> 
> 4 games
> ...


Looks like the stats of a decent MLE signing.

Not the stats of a guy to cry in your beer about every night.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Looks like the stats of a decent MLE signing.
> ...


Personally, I don't have any more tears to shed--not after finally seeing a tape of two of our preseason games and seeing Ben Gordon's play.

Is Crawford's deal that much beyond a "decent MLE"? It's not, really. 

The dude could have helped us this year, big time, and if and when it came time to trade him, he would have fetched us something nice.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Looks like the stats of a decent MLE signing.
> ...


The stats of a guy that is replaceable, and done so rather cheaply I might add.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Tonight
1-11 (1-7 3Pt, 0-4 2pt)
2 reb
3 ast
1 turnover
4 points

in 27 minutes


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Tonight
> 1-11 (1-7 3Pt, 0-4 2pt)
> 2 reb
> ...


NY isn't going to be a pretty place for him if he doesn't straighten up fast.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

The bottom line is not if Crawford was better than we have now, the bottom line is if he was worth tying up 9 million a year for however many years. Can we sign a free agent in the future better than Crawford for that money?

We needed cap space in the future to hopefully get someone good in here. IT IS NOT SAVING REINSDORF MONEY THAT IS THE ISSUE, IT IS HAVING OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE TO SIGN SOMEONE BETTER.

It will happen eventually. No way you tie up all that cap space on a guy who is not going to help you significantly in the win column.

Pax was 1000% correct in not commiting that cash. I am sure if Crawford would of accepted 5 mil a year he would still be a Bull.

And personally, I believe when it comes to a players contribution in helping a team win games, Crawford won't be able to sniff Deng's or Nocioni's jock strap. I don't care about points or behind the back passes, I care about winning some games. Crawford is not someone who should take minutes from guys who play both ends an put maximum effort, especially on a team who doesn't have many full out effort guys.

Good riddance Jamal, and let's please move on to what we have. Why do people care so much about someone who contributed to about 22 wins a season in his time with the Bulls.

Move on!!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> The bottom line is not if Crawford was better than we have now, the bottom line is if he was worth tying up 9 million a year for however many years. Can we sign a free agent in the future better than Crawford for that money?


No. That's probably about the level of quality of free agent we'll be able to sign (if all the financial factors work out just right and we don't get desperate again and change plans again between now and 2006). Hence, we'd be better off just having signed Jamal. We'd get about the same quality, but we'd get help for these two years, and that makes it less likely we ruin our latest crop of kids the way we've ruined the last three.

We needed cap space in the future to hopefully get someone good in here. IT IS NOT SAVING REINSDORF MONEY THAT IS THE ISSUE, IT IS HAVING OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE TO SIGN SOMEONE BETTER.[/quote]

1. Jamal will make $5.8M this year, $6.5M next, and $7.3M the year after that. That's still a tradeable contract, so at worst we're giving up the possibility of a FA signing but gaining the possibility of a trade and the certainty of having a guy here for the next two years.

2. The likelihood of signing a guy who's better to come to this cluster**** is relatively slim unless we get really lucky. More likely than not we'll do something stupid before then to screw up the opportunity in the first place.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> No. That's probably about the level of quality of free agent we'll be able to sign (if all the financial factors work out just right and we don't get desperate again and change plans again between now and 2006). Hence, we'd be better off just having signed Jamal. We'd get about the same quality, but we'd get help for these two years, and that makes it less likely we ruin our latest crop of kids the way we've ruined the last three.
> ...


1. Jamal will make $5.8M this year, $6.5M next, and $7.3M the year after that. That's still a tradeable contract, so at worst we're giving up the possibility of a FA signing but gaining the possibility of a trade and the certainty of having a guy here for the next two years.

2. The likelihood of signing a guy who's better to come to this cluster**** is relatively slim unless we get really lucky. More likely than not we'll do something stupid before then to screw up the opportunity in the first place. [/QUOTE]

We respectfully disagree Mike.

I just don't see Crawford as being a guy who will help us improve in the win column. We just signed Nocioni for 3.5 mil, and he brings much more energy and attitude to the court than Crawford. We can find somone, or two, who will contribute more to our win column for that money than Crawford would, in my opinion.

Crawford had decent stats, but I just didn't see him as a positive on the court overall. Skiles and Cartwright obviously felt the same, as he would sit for long stretches. Why would these guys sit Crawford if they felt he was helping them win, or there wasn't some kind of work ethic/attitude problem?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 1. Jamal will make $5.8M this year, $6.5M next, and $7.3M the year after that. That's still a tradeable contract, so at worst we're giving up the possibility of a FA signing but gaining the possibility of a trade and the certainty of having a guy here for the next two years.


Juwan Howard was tradable at $25M a year. So I guess JC is too.

But will JC have a positive trade value with that contract?

IMHO, no, not unless he really picks up his game.

Pax may not be able to find a Nocioni every year, but I have confidence he will find something to do with the money that is at least as good as JC.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Interesting that the Knick and the Bull have the same pre-season record so far. I think we will be very pleased with the Bull once our team learns how to play with each other. As they continue to understand each other's strengths and weaknesses we will see a team of players who compliment each other well on the floor. Already all of our rookies have shown they are not afraid to shoot, and Andres and Luol are showing that they can hit shots on a regular basis.

What we've been hearing about Andres, Luol, Kirk, Ben, and Tyson is that they all take their weaknesses seriously and are the type of guys who will work hard to either compensate or correct.

Why post this in a Jamal thread?

In the years of watching Jamal as a Bull, I never got the sense that he ever took personal responsibility for the shortcomings in his game. Inconsistency is due to the coach, the system, the team mates, the GM, etc......... NY is going to find out soon enough, like Toronto is finding about about Rose, that these guys are not the kind of players who lead winning teams.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Interesting that the Knick and the Bull have the same pre-season record so far. I think we will be very pleased with the Bull once our team learns how to play with each other. As they continue to understand each other's strengths and weaknesses we will see a team of players who compliment each other well on the floor. Already all of our rookies have shown they are not afraid to shoot, and Andres and Luol are showing that they can hit shots on a regular basis.
> 
> What we've been hearing about Andres, Luol, Kirk, Ben, and Tyson is that they all take their weaknesses seriously and are the type of guys who will work hard to either compensate or correct.
> ...


Jamal's like a period. He might come out big once a month and actually be flowing for a couple days, but then disappears. Sure, there's some sick dribbling and he can pull the string on you, but there's very little penetration going on. Causes headaches... too whiney and emotional.


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Jamal will make $5.8M this year, $6.5M next, and $7.3M the year after that. That's still a tradeable contract, so at worst we're giving up the possibility of a FA signing but gaining the possibility of a trade and the certainty of having a guy here for the next two years.


Not to get too far off the point of the thread here, but the way you wrote that makes it sound like in a trade, a team only has to consider the first 3 years of Jamal's contract. If that were the case, then yeah, it's a very tradeable contract. Unfortunately it's not the case.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Why post this in a Jamal thread?
> ...


this is the part i take exception to. I actually dont remember crawford ever blaming management , coaching or anything else for his struggles , in fact to me he always seemed upbeat about his development, always talking about he needed to improve and was confident he would.

you are projecting what has been said by posters onto him.

and rose ...teams have actually won with him , and with him as motavating factor not in spite of him , so its not even conjecture it is wrong , but he is what he is , a #2 guy not a #1 and i think ultiamtely thats where JC will wind up being , only rose has a max deal and JC has a deal that is slightly above the MLE.

both tor. and ny should be very happy with what they got , and on the flip side what chicago has gotten for them is quite insufficient.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> and rose ...teams have actually won with him , and with him as motavating factor not in spite of him , so its not even conjecture it is wrong , but he is what he is , a #2 guy not a #1 and i think ultiamtely thats where JC will wind up being , only rose has a max deal and JC has a deal that is slightly above the MLE.


Any team with either Rose (as of this moment) or Crawford as the #2 guy will be in the lottery. Guarenteed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Any team with either Rose (as of this moment) or Crawford as the #2 guy will be in the lottery. Guarenteed.


Wow... a guarantee that the Knicks and the Raptors will not make the playoffs this year.

That's a bold statement.

I think both teams have a decent shot to make the playoffs in the weak east.

Chicago, Charlotte, Atlanta, Cleveland, Orlando... lotsa ?s.

I'll say that at least one of the the Knicks and the Raptors make the playoffs in the east.

And the Bulls won't.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal's like a period. He might come out big once a month and actually be flowing for a couple days, but then disappears. Sure, there's some sick dribbling and he can pull the string on you, but there's very little penetration going on. Causes headaches... too whiney and emotional.



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

*Solid game for Jamal tonight: 22 pts(9-15 FG), 4 assists, 0 turnovers and 3 stls in 28 mins.*

That makes it 3 really good games out of 6 games. Not bad, not bad at all. Definitely far better then anybody on the Bulls.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow... a guarantee that the Knicks and the Raptors will not make the playoffs this year.


JC is not supposed to the the 2nd option on the Knicks. He is supposed to be the 3rd guard. 

And if Raptors make a run, it's going to be b/c Bosh is a better offensive option than Rose. As well as Carter.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> *Solid game for Jamal tonight: 22 pts(9-15 FG), 4 assists, 0 turnovers and 3 stls in 28 mins.*
> 
> That makes it 3 really good games out of 6 games. Not bad, not bad at all. Definitely far better then anybody on the Bulls.


Deng has been FAR better than JC in the preseason.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Deng has been FAR better than JC in the preseason.


min. fg% 3pt% ft% reb. ast. st, bl. to. pf. pts
25.3 .451 .615 .722 5.5 1.3 1.0 .17 1.50 1.70 14.2 for deng

29. .402 .321 .909 2.2 3.2 1.7 .33 2.0 1.3 14.5 for JC

are you sure deng has been FAR better ?

shooting % look in favor of deng until you look closer and see how effective they truly have been.

points per shot 1.19 for deng (85 points 71 shots through 6 games) 

1.20 for crawford (87 points on 72 shots through 6 games.)

and the rest of the stats are pretty even to be honest. more boards and less to's for deng , and more steals, blocks, & assists for crawford.

I dont think any objective person can say there is a big disparity.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> JC is not supposed to the the 2nd option on the Knicks. He is supposed to be the 3rd guard.
> ...


Ah... so it was not much of a guarantee then. 

Gotcha.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Deng has been FAR better than JC in the preseason.


That's not the question.

Would the Bulls be better off with Jamal on the team?

Deng coming off the bench as 6th man would likely give him a comparable amount of minutes as he would as our so-called starting 2.

Clearly... the Bulls would be better off with Crawford, IMO. 

The way Deng and Nocioni look… this team would be a playoff team in the east if Paxson had not blown it up.

Instead we have “Through Thick and Thin.”


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> are you sure deng has been FAR better ?


Yep, especially considering the kid is 19.

Anyway, I was responding to a poster that said that JC was FAR better than any Bull in pre-season.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Ah... so it was not much of a guarantee then.
> ...


I don't really understand this post.

It's not a foregone conclusion that the Knicks make the playoffs. And if they do, it's not a foregone conclusion that JC is the #2 option.

I would say that if Houston is out all year and no one like Thomas or Sweetney steps it up to join Marbury as clearly better than JC, then they are likely to be a lottery team.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Clearly... the Bulls would be better off with Crawford, IMO.


 This isn't a one year question. And this really isn't a question that can be anwsered this pre-season. In fact, if anything, JC has shown that he will be as inconsistant as ever and not worth roughly $56M+ over the next 7.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep, especially considering the kid is 19.
> ...


really? i wasn't aware that a layup scored by a 19 year old was worth more(or far more as the case may be) than one by a 24 year old.

and whomever you were responding to doesn't make your statement right to say.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> This isn't a one year question. And this really isn't a question that can be anwsered this pre-season. In fact, if anything, JC has shown that he will be as inconsistant as ever and not worth roughly $56M+ over the next 7.


and to think you once called me a hypocrite....(and you quickly saw you were wrong of course) How in the world can you post that basically nothing can be seen in preseason as to his value and then say he has shown enough _in preseason_ that he will never be worth his contract.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't really understand this post.
> ...





> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Any team with either Rose (as of this moment) or Crawford as the #2 guy will be in the lottery. Guarenteed.


Its silly to discuss this with you.

If the Knicks make the playoffs, you'll argue Jamal was not the #2.

If the Raptors make the playoffs, its because of Bosh.

That's why I say its not much of a GUARANTEE. It does not mean anything.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> and to think you once called me a hypocrite....(and you quickly saw you were wrong of course)


please apologize or produce a link

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I could say the same thing.

How poorly would JC have to play for you to agree that Pax was right in letting him go?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing.
> ...


Pretty poorly. Something is better than the great big nothing we have at the 2 right now.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>! How in the world can you post that basically nothing can be seen in preseason as to his value and then say he has shown enough _in preseason_ that he will never be worth his contract.


Don't over analyze the post.

It's to premature to judge if JC will be worth the contract. But if we had to judge at this moment, JC has not shown enough improvement to show me that Paxson was wrong.

That's it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> please apologize or produce a link
> ...


and if i produce a link do I get an apology?

not just for the hypocritical statement on this thread , but also for calling me a hypocrite in the 1st place an apology you seemed pretty quick to ask for , especially considering when you did the same and no apology came from you.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't over analyze the post.
> ...


yeah o.k. 

 

I guess your idea of whats worth a deal and mine are different especially considering crawford and knicks management think of jamal as a developing talent, no one is expecting him to make good on a near 56 mil. contract anytime soon(he is supposed to be the 3rd guard in a 3 guard rotation after all) but you and some people who have been called haters,seem to expect him to throw in consistent 25 point nights in the preseaon or he has failed, what is for sure is that he is worth more currently than the players paxson traded him for...and since salaries have to match its more obvious the bulls got the short end of the stick on that deal.

the knick have had 6 games and in 3 of them crawford was the best player on either team on that night , the knicks are a team that is very deep they could easily have an 10-11 man rotation this season if they wanted possibly 12 if I.Thomas could get over his beef with shandon.

bottom line if JC is the best player on the floor 1 out of 6 games on a healthy knicks team it doesn't matter what he accomplished in the other 5, he has been playing to expectations , provided some excitement , led the team to a few wins in games lenny wilkens didn't really care about winning anyway (tonights game was the 1st win where stephon played more than 22 min. with a whopping 27, which is because lenny has been upping his min. all preseason i dont think marbury played in the 4th quarter against the mavs ) and basically the team is treating the preseason the way the bulls have just playing for the most part for the bench player to sort out their roles and crawford is just out there working on his game.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

I didn't see this posted. Maybe I missed it, maybe many here didnt WANT to post it....Here it is, enjoy...

A Cold-Shooting Crawford Has the Knicks Concerned By PAT BORZI 

Published: October 24, 2004 

They dressed in a minor league hockey team's locker room, in a building that formerly housed a Continental Basketball Association franchise. For a non-N.B.A. site, the Sioux Falls Arena in South Dakota offered roomier-than-expected, albeit spartan, digs for the Knicks. It gave Jamal Crawford plenty of room to spread out, ice his knees and talk about something unnerving: the sudden disappearance of his shooting eye. 

With Allan Houston nowhere near ready to play, Tim Thomas out with a sprained left ankle and Stephon Marbury given the night off, the primary scoring load for the Knicks on Friday fell to Crawford, the former Chicago Bull who stood out in the first two preseason games. 

But this preseason trip has proved as much of a disaster for the Knicks as for Crawford, who carried his shooting slump to a third city in four nights. Crawford shot 1 for 11 from the field in 27 minutes and managed 4 points as the Knicks completed an 0-3 trip with a 102-82 loss to Minnesota, a Western Conference finalist last season. 

The road trip showed the Knicks at their worst - disorganized on offense, inattentive on defense - the very opposite of the smooth-shooting, hustling crew that won its first two preseason games. 

It was a weeklong step backward, but Coach Lenny Wilkens saw improvement in Friday night's loss. The Knicks pulled within 3 points late in the third quarter before fading, and they did it without Marbury and Thomas, who will also miss tonight's home game against Dallas. 

"The whole thing is, I try not to get too high or too low," Wilkens said after yesterday's practice in Greenburgh, N.Y. "I treat the whole month as training camp. And I've always done that." 

The Knicks figure to get better in the final three games, if for no other reason than Wilkens probably will shorten the rotation and give more playing time to his veterans. To this point, he has used the games to experiment with lineups and play his prospects. 

"If we go out and were constantly going this way," Wilkens said, angling his right hand toward the floor, "then I'm really concerned. But I thought against Minnesota we came out and played a whole lot better. We didn't shoot the ball as well, but we didn't let them run away." 

Though Wilkens said he saw progress, that assessment did not include Crawford, who shot 6 of 32 (18.8 percent) on the trip. That includes 1 of 13 from 3-point range, 1 for 7 on Friday. 

This certainly was not what Isiah Thomas, the Knicks' president, was looking for when he acquired Crawford from Chicago in the Dikembe Mutombo deal two months ago. The Knicks won their first two preseason games with Crawford scoring 25 and 19 points. But with Crawford misfiring, the Knicks shot better than 34 percent only once on the trip. 

"No excuses; it's all me," Crawford said Friday night. "Tonight I missed two or three bad ones, but the rest were shots that just didn't go in." 

Before the game, Wilkens told Crawford that he thought he was pushing the ball when he shot, not letting it roll off his fingers. The talk did not help. Wilkens, though, was encouraged that Crawford took mostly good shots and did not appear hesitant. 

"He's struggling right now," Wilkens said. "But when you're open, you've got to take the shot unless somebody else is open. He's got to take it to come out of it. I'd rather he come out of it now." 

Isiah Thomas envisioned Crawford as part of a three-guard rotation with Houston and Marbury, similar to the situation Thomas had in Detroit with Joe Dumars and Vinnie Johnson. All three were consistent scoring threats for the Pistons. Crawford, who requested No. 11 in honor of Thomas, has yet to establish himself as one. 

Crawford's play becomes more important the longer Houston remains out with a sore left knee. Houston appeared on the court in shorts and a warm-up top before Friday's game, but Wilkens said he still did not know when Houston might be able to practice. Wilkens said he planned to meet with Houston, probably in the next day or two, to judge his progress. 

With the Nov. 3 season opener against Minnesota looming, Houston needs to begin practicing to have any chance of opening the season on the active list. "I hope that will happen," Wilkens said. 

Howard Beck contributed reporting for this article.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i guess i'll post an article that is actually current.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/245901p-210644c.html

Crawford finds range at home 


Jamal Crawford's shooting slump was gaining momentum on the Knicks' recently concluded three-game preseason road trip. The player already penciled in to replace Allan Houston in the starting lineup had shot 6-for-32 in the Knicks' previous three games, all losses.
"It's not going to be peaches and cream all the time," Crawford said. "There's going to be good times and bad times."

The good moments for Crawford always seem to come at the Garden. Last night, he made nine of 15 shots and scored a game-high 22 points in 28 minutes as the Knicks defeated the Mavs, 102-86. Stephon Marbury added 13 points while Penny Hardaway and Trevor Ariza scored 14 and 12, respectively.

Crawford had a brief talk with team president Isiah Thomas, who told the young guard to remain patient and keep shooting. Meanwhile, Lenny Wilkens keeps imploring Crawford to improve his shot selection.

"We talked about the kind of shots he should look for," Wilkens said. "He's such a good player. If he utilizes his quickness, it would be really good."

Crawford's long arms and quick feet resulted in three steals, including two on consecutive possessions. After going in for an uncontested dunk, Crawford finished a fast break with an over-the-head pass to Hardaway for a layup.



"I don't know if I'm starting," Crawford said. "When I came here I just wanted to be a piece of a big puzzle, even if Allan was here or not. Like Stephon says, we're just trying to hold the fort down until Allan gets back."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, regardless of the hot and cold performances (is anyone surprised by this?) he still appears to be a good pickup since (as I predicted) Houston still isn't healthy.

For the same reasons, it would have been nice to have him here... our other options at SG suck.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Didn't Paxson offer Crawford a contract but he refused it? I would have liked to keep Crawford too, but not by overpaying him. He is a nice player to have off the bench, but not much else. I can't imagine Paxson paying Crawford what him and his agent wanted being a good move. 

The unfortunate part of it all is that the only team interested in him at the price he wanted was the Knicks, who have nothing we needed. No other team was willing to pay Crawford what he wanted, which speaks volumes.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

As a Knick fan,i can see the dilemna that JC poses..He is John Starks with more talent and less fire...

He can look all NBA one night and look dreadul the next...The truth of the matter is he can not be THE man on the team.He just isnt ready for that.He is so much better when playing alongside marbury as opposed to when he is leading the team.

His biggest problem is he takes 2-4 HORRIBLE shots per game..If he can ever stop that and use his quickness to set up ther people,he will be special.Apparently the Knicks are all over him on shot selection


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

"i guess i'll post an article that is actually current."

October 24th was not current?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> who are these people ?
> ...


You seem awefully defensive...as usual. 

Learn the difference between an accusation and an observation.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> You seem awefully defensive...as usual.
> ...


i have no reason to be defensive i believe the bulls should keep curry until he is at least 25 so i am not a target of your_accusation_ . if anything i am very critical of pax for what i believe is a very calculated attempt to get the hometown kid out of chicago.

what you call an observation i call an accusation

observation
n 1: the act of making and recording a measurement
2: the act of observing; taking a patient look [syn: observance,
watching]
3: facts learned by observing; "he reported his observations to
the mayor"
4: the act of noticing or paying attention; "he escaped the
notice of the police" [syn: notice, observance]
5: a remark expressing careful consideration [syn: reflection,
reflexion]
6: explicit notice; "it passed without remark" [syn: remark]


accusation
n 1: a formal charge of wrongdoing brought against a person; the
act of imputing blame or guilt [syn: accusal]
2: an assertion that someone is guilty of a fault or offence;
"the newspaper published charges that Jones was guilty of
drunken driving" [syn: charge]

looks like saying posters are guilty of "partisan politics" is alot closer to that #2 under accusation than anything under observation, especially considering i never even remotely said trading curry was a good idea.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> "i guess i'll post an article that is actually current."
> 
> October 24th was not current?


its yesterday's news buddy.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i have no reason to be defensive i believe the bulls should keep curry until he is at least 25 so i am not a target of your_accusation_ . if anything i am very critical of pax for what i believe is a very calculated attempt to get the hometown kid out of chicago.
> ...


Heh...nice definitions. Actually, its closer to #4 in definition 1.....but whatever.



> looks like saying posters are guilty of "partisan politics" is alot closer to that #2 under accusation than anything under observation


Now that you've looked up the above definitions, look up "metaphor". The word guilt in my original post doesn't imply wrongdoing.....just responsibility for one's own actions. I leave the charge of actual wrongdoing for others to decide.



> especially considering i never even remotely said trading curry was a good idea.


You should also "consider" that I never said *YOU* did. Look beyond your own world 

(note--I was going to spit out something a bit more venomous here, but it hardly seems worth the effort to travel that road again....we already know where it leads.)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> Heh...nice definitions. Actually, its closer to #4 in definition 1.....but whatever.
> ...


i'll keep it civil and point out the obvious , saying i'm being defensive when both of us know i never said anything worth being defensive about, is to put it simply a reach and that is being nice.

maybe you should take what i said at face value , that being vague with whatever you want call it obsevation or an accusation . And not project what you think I actually meant by it.

it similar to me saying all duke players suck and i hate them , it accomplishes nothing and its very easy to disprove and all it can cause is trouble.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i'll keep it civil and point out the obvious , saying i'm being defensive when both of us know i never said anything worth being defensive about, is to put it simply a reach and that is being nice.


That is absurd. 

1) I said you SEEM defensive. Not you WERE defensive. Or is your problem with the word defensive? Would UNNECESSARILY BELLIGERENT sound more pleasing?? That seems to be a far more precise fit, since I was not addressing you, referencing you, etc....

2) YOU CONTINUE to SEEM defensive....and about an issue that had (AGAIN!!) nothing to do with you. If you know you had nothing to be defensive about (a point which I have agreed with, EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, during this exchange), then why comment at all? I wasn't talking to you, and it wasn't personal, so why make it so?



> maybe you should take what i said at face value , that being vague with whatever you want call it obsevation or an accusation . And not project what you think I actually meant by it.


Maybe you should follow your own advice.



> it similar to me saying all duke players suck and i hate them , it accomplishes nothing........and all it can cause is trouble.


Finally we agree. I stopped addressing you a long time ago, with reguard to any and every thread here.....*I usually don't even read your posts.* Something about dealing with know-it-all's (now there is my first personal reference to you), has always rubbed me the wrong way. So why you got the self-aggrandized idea that I actually cared enough about what you in particular may or may not have thought about Eddy Curry, is beyond me. Simply put: I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED YOU, TALKED ABOUT YOU, REFERENCED YOU, or even QUOTED ANYTHING YOU SAID IN MORE THAN A YEAR prior to today.....so why would I start now? I think its best that in the words of Mobb Deep "Do your thing and I'll do mine" 



Lets just stay out of each others way.

Back to the daily pastime of skipping your posts. It might serve you to do the same with reguards to mine.


--Cheers.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> That is absurd.
> ...


Do you know whats absurd, your need to blow this way out of proportion. i simply stated you should cease with the vague statements (we'll use that word now) that could put people on edge, and depite me saying i know the comments dont include me , you seem to think i'm defensive .

this is the pot calling the kettle black. 

having to write that you are editing yourself because you are _going to write something venomous_ is sad and well alittle childish , but i let that go without a comment before because i was trying get you to see that very easy point.

obviously you cant , you have hurt feelings or something and want to be upset about a comment from me just trying to help you avoid getting into flame wars, so you know what go ahead cry, moan, complain to your hearts content, telling me i should know the difference between word you obviously don't know the meaning of is an invitation to start comment you dont want to hear, so i put the definitions out there for you to see you are wrong.

and you were wrong, not just on that but for trying to be brusque in the 1st place, if you cant see that like i said just go ahead and chime away , but the words are in black and white for all to see.

you act as though i actually keep tabs on when i speak to you as if you mattered that much to me , the truth is i dont ever remember posting to you , i may have done it and you may have posted back , but i certainly never bothered to care , so your self-agrandized comment means nothing to me because i dont know where it comes from, and i dont really care so maybe you should check your ego and keep the pint sized rapper comments to yourself.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

Over paid what is that. All the players are overpaid. 

My question is who gets the money if the players don't . The owners and I fell even less kindness towards him. 

This Bulls team drafted Shawn Respert aka Ben Gordon. Ben is an awful ballhandler and medicore shooter. 

The thing is I am sick of watching this crap they call the Bulls. 

Now why do you care if we had to overpay him. He might have had his head up his butt sometimes but at least I believe their was sincere effort(Eddie Robinson). We will not sign any free agents and Eddy will get a nice contract offer. 

The bulls just want put more of your money in their pocket. 
They have raised prices last and then started to cry poor. 

The bottom line is we are hoping that Ben Gordon will give us what Jamal did. I for one do not see.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I just seen it on ESPN

[email protected] punchin haywood in his lower stomach/mahhood


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I know , i know its only preseason lets compare what crawford and JYD have given the knick vs. all the players the bulls got for them in pike, wilks ,griffin,trybanski,fwill and harrington. through 6 games
1st the players/capspace given to us by john paxson also known as eric piatkowski , mike wilks , othella harrington, cezary trybanski, adrian griffin and frank williams.

min. pts reb ast 3pts 3pt% ft's ft% fg fg% bl. st. to's pf
233 62 38 9 5-20 .250 25-31 .806 16-50 .320 4 7 14 33
38.2 10.3 6.3 1.5 .8- 3.3 4.2-5.2 2.3-8.3 .7 1.2 2.3 5.5

and now the duo of jamal crawford and jerome williams
min. pts reb. ast 3pt 3pt% ft's ft% fg fg% bl st. to's pf
251 101 29 23 9-28 .321 28-32 .875 32-84 .381 2 16 18 18
41.2 16.8 4.8 3.8 1.5-4.7 4.7 5.3 5.3-12.0 .3 2.7 3.0 3.0

some how it still seems we got the short end of the stick.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> I know , i know its only
> some how it still seems we got the short end of the stick.


I admit that those 2 suck a bit less than ending or 2 year contract guys we got.

But I would expect the Knicks to get a litte something extra as they will be paying an extra 70 Million for those 2 over the next several years.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I admit that those 2 suck a bit less than ending or 2 year contract guys we got.
> ...


yeah, that little something extra is called a bargain.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

After 7 pre-season games, Crawford is shooting .388 for the Knick (up .002 from last season!), which is worse than any Knick getting more than 15 minutes per game except the rookie, Ariza (.362). Meanwhile, he has jacked 80 shots -- 20 more than the next closest (again Ariza, with 58 attempts). He is scoring an average of four more points than anyone else on the team. Some people like this. I don't.

Compared to some members of the Bull:

Crawford .388 -- 80 FGA -- 13.4 ppg -- 28 mpg

Curry .459 -- 74 FGA -- 14.8 ppg -- 23 mpg
Deng .451 -- 71 FGA -- 14.2 ppg -- 25 mpg
Nocioni .418 -- 55 FGA -- 11.2 ppg -- 28 mpg

Hinrich .298 -- 47 FGA -- 8 ppg -- 24 mpg
Gordon .216 -- 51 FGA -- 6.2 ppg -- 21 mpg

These are raw numbers. According to numbers only Crawford is outperforming both Hinrich and Gordon. However, all three of Deng, Nocioni, and Curry are outperforming Crawdaddy. The quesion has been asked many times "Who will replace Crawford's scoring?" 

Take your pick.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

Those hinrich stats have to better than that after his 32 point outburst.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> Those hinrich stats have to better than that after his 32 point outburst.


Player stats at bulls.com


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> After 7 pre-season games, Crawford is shooting .388 for the Knick (up .002 from last season!), which is worse than any Knick getting more than 15 minutes per game except the rookie, Ariza (.362). Meanwhile, he has jacked 80 shots -- 20 more than the next closest (again Ariza, with 58 attempts). He is scoring an average of four more points than anyone else on the team. Some people like this. I don't.
> 
> Compared to some members of the Bull:
> ...


You think its fair to compare guard FG% to C/PF FG%?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You think its fair to compare guard FG% to C/PF FG%?


In this case, yes. 

Every shot that Jamal takes is a shot that his C/PF does not take. His goal, and that of his team, should be to get the ball to the player who has the highest chance of making the shot. In the case of the Knick, that means that Marbury, T. Thomas, K. Thomas, Sweetney, Hardaway, Mohammed, and Baker should all be taking more shots than Jamal.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> In this case, yes.
> ...




Yah... but that's not how basketball works ... you know that.

Sure.. let's put a team of 5 centers out on the court. They have the highest FG%. They will be unstoppable!


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Yah... but that's not how basketball works ... you know that.
> 
> Sure.. let's put a team of 5 centers out on the court. They have the highest FG%. They will be unstoppable!


Not 5 centers. 1 center would be fine. Especially if he is a more efficient scorer than the chucker on the perimeter. Sweetney and K. Thomas are both very efficient scorers.

Ditto Eddy Curry.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Not 5 centers. 1 center would be fine. Especially if he is a more efficient scorer than the chucker on the perimeter. Sweetney and K. Thomas are both very efficient scorers.
> ...


Right... but do you attribute Eddy Curry's lackluster season last year to his not being fed the ball enough? Surely not, right?

Did you see Curry in a nice position in the post with hand raised while Jamal ignored him and hoisted up a three? That's not the season I remember. And... if this was the case... then why wasn't our PG Hinrich getting the ball to the efficient Curry? Hinrich was taking shots as well.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

wynn are you seriously suggesting crawford was the reason curry wasn't scoring more?

that is silly , if anything you would have to blame kirk , after all he was the pg .

but the real reason was of course eddy , he was out of shape , he failed to make the needed improvements in his game, such as learning how to pass (he has 2 assists in 7 preseaon games ) hitting the boards harder and running the floor, that and of course holding his position in the post better , both JC and kirk wasted many precious seconds on the shot clock waiting for eddy to be ready because he often does not fight hard enough for position.

who will be the scapegoat this season ? 

skiles is already pulling eddy early from games , will it still be crawford's fault?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I admit that those 2 suck a bit less than ending or 2 year contract guys we got.
> ...


those guys get paid more for playing now. what they aren't doing is giving more production for it. If you are saying crawford should be earning his 2010 year $ this year i am going to have to disagree he has been paid upon the belief he will improve, he needs only justify the year he is being paid,just like the people he is being traded for.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> those guys get paid more for playing now. what they aren't doing is giving more production for it. If you are saying crawford should be earning his 2010 year $ this year i am going to have to disagree he has been paid upon the belief he will improve, he needs only justify the year he is being paid,just like the people he is being traded for.


Out of all the players the Bulls received incl the subsequent Houston deal, they have $3M commited past the end of the season.

The Knicks have $70M commited.

The trade was primarily a financial trade for the Bulls.

*So to compare the stats of the Bulls players from the trade to the stats of the NYK players is hopelessly naive or disengenuous Take your pick.*

IMHO, Paxson is betting that several players out of the group of Hinrich, Chandler, Curry, Deng, Gordon and Nocioni will contribute more to a winning team than JC. That's how Pax should be judged.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Out of all the players the Bulls received incl the subsequent Houston deal, they have $3M commited past the end of the season.
> ...


And Pax is right in thinking so.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> IMHO, Paxson is betting that several players out of the group of Hinrich, Chandler, Curry, Deng, Gordon and Nocioni will contribute more to a winning team than JC. That's how Pax should be judged.


Meanwhile... the Bulls are a joke for 2 more seasons.

Nice job Pax.

Oh that's right... players like Marshall, Rose and Crawford are useless.

The teams where they are key contributors will be much better than ours this season.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Out of all the players the Bulls received incl the subsequent Houston deal, they have $3M commited past the end of the season.
> ...


i was of the belief that it was the goal of the bulls to win basketball games , if they choose to make money instead thats their business , but you shouldn't be defending it as a basketball move , you are trying to play both sides.

its " well they have replaced him" or they made a shrewd financial move.

chances are its neither winning brings in money too and while JC may not be able to make a team a winner by himself (no player can do that) he can obviously help.

the truth is you can say pax believes the group of player you mentioned i believe 6 in total may help the bulls win , but its unlikely all 6 will be more of a motavating factor for winning than crawford seeing as none of them have done so thus far, and the one who shows the most potential for winning is all of 19 and very much untested when the games count .

i compare the stats of the traded players to prove one simple fact , 

they are inferior to what was traded away.

the bulls won all of 23 games last season they aren't going to get better by replacing players , they will get better by upgrading them, by building with them, until the bulls make that their method of operation they will continue to lose. If next year they decide to replace tyson and eddy it wont make them better unless they get better players in return , they can always get other players from different avenues but until you actually improve all you are doing is spinning your wheels , treading water and wasting time.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i compare the stats of the traded players to prove one simple fact ,
> 
> they are inferior to what was traded away.


Paxson would be the first to admit this. It was done to ensure we had the money to spend on better players than Crawford later.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson would be the first to admit this. It was done to ensure we had the money to spend on better players than Crawford later.


Gosh, I hope he is right.

Last time the Bulls had cap space they were forced to overpay for Ron Mercer and Eddie Robinson... since the top free agents didn't want to play for a cold weather/losing team.

For some reason many people here think things will be different this time.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Last time the Bulls had cap space they were forced to overpay for Ron Mercer and Eddie Robinson... since the top free agents didn't want to play for a cold weather/losing team.


Well, funny that you mention that overpaying for crappy players is a problem.......:grinning:


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, funny that you mention that overpaying for crappy players is a problem.......:grinning:


It was probably better that we put the money to someone who had experience with the team and was already going through lots of crap instead of finding a player of his exact ability and then going through lots of crap again.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'll be shocked if the Bulls get a FA that is better than Crawford will be when the time comes. And copmparing post players fg% with perimeter players is disingenious and really has no place in a basketball discussion IMO. MAyBE it would have some merit if Jamal didn't average quite a few assists or deliver the ball down low effectively but he does so I don't see the point.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> In this case, yes.
> ...


cmon.. baker? even mohammed? you trying to tell me that no matter how bad the player is, as long as he plays PF/C he should be getting the shots? or is that just another reason to hate on jamal?

PF's and C's usually play closer to the ring. a SG is going to spend most of his time on the perimeter. who's likely to have a better FG%?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> It was probably better that we put the money to someone who had experience with the team and was already going through lots of crap instead of finding a player of his exact ability and then going through lots of crap again.


I'd agree with this. Clearly Pax thinks he can find better team players (Deng, Gordon, Nocioni). Is he right? This is how Pax should be judged.


----------

