# Crawford wants no part of Chicago



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/109057081950900.xml



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


Goodwin has it at 7 outta 10 that Craw is a Knick.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/109057081950900.xml
> 
> 
> ...


Kismet?


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

All of this coming from a New Jersey paper. :yes:

Fact is, until I hear the words coming directly from Jamal's mouth, I don't believe it. So far, wev'e heard from Jamal's agent and <b>not</b> Jamal himself.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

Good riddance. I wanted Jamal back, but this just flat out confirms to me that he's still immature. I'm sure all kinds of posts will go up here that the Bulls didn't show Crawford "any love", but it's a business. The Bulls are trying to get the best deal if they keep Crawford the same way that Crawford is trying to get the best deal for himself.

If Jamal was mature, he'd realize that and not jump to conclusions that the Bulls have no desire to bring him back. Just b/c the team has drafted other guards in recent years, doesn't mean that Crawford wouldn't have had a future with the Bulls. If he could stay consistent and outplay anyone in the long term, he'd be an important part of this team.

If Jamal's feeling are hurt and he thinks that the Knicks are showing him more respect in terms of money, that's fine. It's a ridiculous conclusion to draw and just shows that Crawford is always going to be searching for respect. News flash: you have to earn it. Shooting 40% or less isn't going to get it done when you jack up bad shots on a consistent basis (and don't defend well). 

I hope he enjoys riding the pine in NYC behind Houston and Penny. And hopefully Jamal grows up enough to deal with the NY crowd and fans, who are going to love Jamal's crossover and who are going to boo him mercilously when he keeps missing jumpers and doesn't move the ball.

The best part of this whole Jamal saga is that Curry is willing to stay with the Bulls long term even if Crawford leaves.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Uh...seems pretty clear to me that the Bulls don't want Jamal...they have been lowballing and drafting his replacement ever since they drafted him. Jamal has shown a lot of loyalty to want to remain a Bull, it sounds like this last slap in the face by the orginization of drafting Gordon and offering Jamal a tiny deal is it for him. I don't blame him. Hopefully he can go somewhere that isn't so damn bush league...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

hmmmm....looks like *KISMET* might have been on to something yesterday...




> *But there's a fly in the ointment. I've heard that JC doesn't like the idea of splitting time with Hinrich and Gordon. It seems Crawford wants to be the Bulls main man in the backcourt and won't be happy if it is any other way. So therein lies the problem...the Bulls envision Crawford as part of a three guard rotation. But he wants to be the Bulls featured guard with Kirk and Ben splitting most of their time between each other. Where does that leave Pax and the Bulls if Crawford isn't buying into their concept? I guess that while Chicago may be JC's "first choice" that would only be the case if it was entirely on his terms.*


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

C'Mon Ace...

This is part of the business. The Bulls have consistently said that they wanted Jamal back...but that it would be a level of compensation that the team could afford, it would be a tradable contract, and that it wouldn't be out of line with what the rest of the market said. Isaiah isn't "the market". 

So far all of that has held firm. 

He forgot he's a restricted FA, and not a UFA. Thats he and his agents fault.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

C'Mon Ace...

This is part of the business. The Bulls have consistently said that they wanted Jamal back...but that it would be a level of compensation that the team could afford, it would be a tradable contract, and that it wouldn't be out of line with what the rest of the market said. Isaiah isn't "the market". 

So far all of that has held firm. 

He forgot he's a restricted FA, and not a UFA. Thats he and his agents fault.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>onetenthlag</b>!
> 
> 
> If Jamal was mature, he'd realize that and not jump to conclusions that the Bulls have no desire to bring him back.


Hillarious to hear someone pointing out someone jumping to conclusions.

Ohhhh, also, my sister goes to USC and she heard Leinart say that they don't need or really want Mike Williams back. Does that make the Trojans immature also?

People are allowed to have feelings....thoughts.....and, dare I say it, Opinions. Express away my fellow SC fan.

Fight On Crawford.....


If we don't get Sweetney back in the deal, or get to dump JYD, E-Rob, and AD, we shouldn't do it.

I have warmed to taking back Anderson cause while Gordon gets eaten alive on the Defensive end we will need someone to step in and help out Hinrich.

If we get Sweetney back in the deal, we will still have a trading chip to fill whatever hole we will discover this season. Plus, it gives us solid insurance against Chandler leaving when we don't give him the max deal he will be expecting.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> C'Mon Ace...
> 
> This is part of the business. The Bulls have consistently said that they wanted Jamal back...but that it would be a level of compensation that the team could afford, it would be a tradable contract, and that it wouldn't be out of line with what the rest of the market said. Isaiah isn't "the market".
> ...


Pax has offered him the MLE with minimum raises. He may has well have pimp slapped him across the head. My question is why is it that a NY team is more interested in Jamal than his own team?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

One other point - This si the business side of the NBA.

We as fans hate the business side of the NBA cause it's not about talent, it's about dollars.

Each side has to make statements, present their best case and in the end after a deal is consumated, live with the impact on their businesses and life.

Hopefully Crawford and Paxson can move past this after it's done and take an example from these boards and not take everything so personal........oh wait.....bad analogy. :laugh:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

No love for Jamal, Stromile or Darius. RFA in all its glory....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Pax has offered him the MLE with minimum raises. He may has well have pimp slapped him across the head.


What about the rest of the market? What have they offered him?

[


> My question is why is it that a NY team is more interested in Jamal than his own team?


The team really isn't out there rooting for him. Last I heard, they were calling around for big men.

The GM? Jamal was third on his list too. The market he's playing in...he's *got* to throw some meat at the fans or they'll eat him alive.

My question for you:

What can Jamal guarantee this team next season that makes him worthy of a 50+ million dollar contract?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> No love for Jamal, Stromile or Darius. RFA in all its glory....


Don't forget Fizer was dumped too.

All around weak draft.


----------



## MagillaGorilla (Jul 8, 2004)

If the shoe doesn't fit, why wear it? It's bad for the shoe ( craw) and bad for the foot (pax). Neither really wants to be in this together unless they have no other choice. This is what's going on.

Pax would like to move Crawford, but only on his terms, which is to be expected.

Craw maybe doesn't feel like he's getting proper love. In which I have to say, no one else is offering big money, so maybe you're not as good as you think ( and some people on this board think).

I only hope this is resolved with Craw gone, and either a S and T that makes sense for us, or possibly re-signing craw for maybe a middle-ground deal and promising to trade him when they can.

This is all unlikely. He'll probably be a bull for one year and become unrestricted next year. So what?

In closing, sometimes you have addittion by subtraction.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> If we don't get Sweetney back in the deal, or get to dump JYD, E-Rob, and AD, we shouldn't do it


have you lost all sanity???????

Zeke wants JC and is willing to overpay him..It was an effective move by Zeke as you now have a disgruntled,pissed off Bull who feels disrespected..

The Bulls have the issue they have to resolve....

facts
Pax really doesnt want JC or he would not draft combo guards every year

he only offered him the MLE to match and because he knew he wouldnt sign it

EROb is a cancer

JC will become a cancer if he stays a Bull

Cancer spreads

Zeke played his hand wellThere is NO chance you will get TT and ther is absolutely ZERO chance you get Sweetney,who is probably better than any power foward on the Knicks or Bulls..

Face it,Zeke played this well.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MagillaGorilla</b>!
> If the shoe doesn't fit, why wear it? It's bad for the shoe ( craw) and bad for the foot (pax). Neither really wants to be in this together unless they have no other choice.


The Bulls have continually stated that they want Jamal back. They'll offer him long-term security too. But if he can't bring back a bigger contract, then he has to accept the one that they give him.



> This is what's going on.


Exactly.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> My question is why is it that a NY team is more interested in Jamal than his own team?


That puzzled Charotte fans in 2000 with Erob.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> 
> 
> That puzzled Charotte fans in 2000 with Erob.


Nice.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Truth is Crawford got treated like a crap player which he isnt. If crap players get the MLE then Crawford should just get the 6 million he is asking for which isnt that much. Truth is he wasnt invited back he was tried to get cheap and not for fair value.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Who else does Jamals agent have as a client. Marbury? Thomas? because it sure seems like his agent loves New York a lot.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> If we don't get Sweetney back in the deal, or get to dump JYD, E-Rob, and AD, we shouldn't do it.


I agree - if it ain't real good we'd be better just signing Jamal...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Isaiah is mad.


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

Question:

What is Jamals one unstoppable move? What move, when you see him gear it up, do you say "score" in your mind before the ball even leaves his hands? No matter who is defending him?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Im still looking for the part wher jamal says he wants no part of Chicago  :laugh:


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> have you lost all sanity???????
> ...


Facts

-Zeke wants Jamal for a long time and he approached us

-Allan Houston probably won't play much this season and if he does he won't be at his best - NY Badly need another scorer a sg.

- even if JC is a cancer for us the best option for us is just sign him (noone is offering more than mle - and that would be a good worthy contract for us)and trade him along with expiring ERob to get a much much better package than Zeke can even offer.thats why only if it benefits us greatly it is worth it

- Anderson is the WORST contract moving in the deal and it's going our side


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Im still looking for the part wher jamal says he wants no part of Chicago  :laugh:


Keep looking. Try a little ways under the big, square banner ad.



> Crawford, a restricted free agent who cannot escape from Chicago without the Bulls' blessing, no longer wants any part of Chicago. Paxson is aware of this, because Crawford told him so.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> 
> 
> That puzzled Charotte fans in 2000 with Erob.


Post of the day.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Amazing. Jamal has improved every year he has been in the league. And now he gets compared to a guy who got a big contract with the Bulls for having a few good playoff games in Charlotte? Hey, I was all for signing E-Rob, he has tons of talent, unfortunately he doesn't have much going upstairs. He could still be productive for us if he ever got off the bench. In any case, I don't see ANY similarity between Jamal and E-Rob.

It's amazing, AD is worth 13mil next season, JYD is worth 5.6mil, E-rob 6+, Pippen 5+ but we can't even offer Jamal a contract starting at 6? The guy was our LEADING scorer and second leading assist man.

If Paxson just wants to "go a different direction" regarding Jamal then he just isn't very bright and you can look forward to the Bulls sucking for a long time. Crawford is gonna blow up and you heard it here first. So when he is killing fools in NY and everyone is whining about why Pax didn't make a better effort to keep him..don't say I didn't tell you so. Bull=bush league. And thats depressing since I am a Bulls fan.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

The big difference with ERob, as I remember it, was that the Hornets did not have Bird rights and therefore could only offer him the money they had available under the cap or the MLE (I forget which was higher)-- which they did. All the Bulls had to do was exceed that by just a little-- which they did-- and they could be confident he would be theirs.

Any team that puts a sane offer sheet in front of Jamal has to at least half expect the Bulls to match it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> AD is worth 13mil next season, JYD is worth 5.6mil, E-rob 6+, Pippen 5+ but we can't even offer Jamal a contract starting at 6? The guy was our LEADING scorer and second leading assist man.


He was already paid for last season.

Whats now being discussed is how he'll be paid for the next 3-6.

Will he be the leading scorer for the next six seasons?

I don't think the Bulls are projecting that.


Will he be "The Man" in Chicago for the next six seasons?

I don't think the Bulls are projecting that.


Will he be one piece, among many?

I think the Bulls are projecting _that_.

A six year salary starting at 5.5 to 6.0 million isn't bad... But he's got to get these anti-team thoughts out of his head.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> He was already paid for last season.
> ...


Your right. AD should be the man and our leading scorer based on his salary. And if the Bulls aren't "projecting" Crawford to be the Bulls leading scorer then they need to get their heads out of their asses. BTW, Jamal might sign for a deal that started at 6 and had max raises. of course, all Pax has been willing to offer is a deal with the 4.9MLE and the lowest possible 10% raises....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Your right. AD should be the man and our leading scorer based on his salary


Talk about going to NY and ending up in Nevada...did you even read my post...or did you just quote it?




> And if the Bulls aren't "projecting" Crawford to be the Bulls leading scorer


I said."The Man" quite intentionally. This team is clearly placing the weight of winning on Eddy. Until that changes, Jamal is a piece...not the solution.

Like I said...he needs to drop these anti-team thoughts. Even in NY...well, lets just say that Zeke went after Marbury last season, not Jamal. He'd be at least number 2 there too...albeit a richer number 2.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, the conversation on this topic seemed to move to this thread, so I'll move my thoughts here too

Crawford, a restricted free agent who cannot escape from Chicago without the Bulls' blessing, no longer wants any part of Chicago. Paxson is aware of this, because Crawford told him so. 

"It's very safe to say that," Goodwin confirmed. "It's not a matter of not wanting to come back. He wanted to come back, but it was clear to Jamal that he was not being invited back with the same vigor that New York is trying to acquire him." 
 

http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/109057081950900.xml

That's about what I said yesterday, and I think it's true.

I mean, would you want to work somewhere where management gave every appearance of wanting you badly, and where you'd more likely than not be a starter, or would you want to work for a company that seemed to be pretty lukewarm (at best) about you now and in the future.

It's a no-brainer.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Well, the conversation on this topic seemed to move to this thread, so I'll move my thoughts here too
> 
> Crawford, a restricted free agent who cannot escape from Chicago without the Bulls' blessing, no longer wants any part of Chicago. Paxson is aware of this, because Crawford told him so.
> ...


Good way of looking at from the standpoint of the guy who has no say so this year.

Now what is the decision-makers viewpoint, and does it have any value?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> - Anderson is the WORST contract moving in the deal and it's going our side


can not argue there..Not only is he the worst contract,he is the worst player..

If you do get him you better make sure Skiles sits him down and explains to him you do not get 2 points for hitting the backboard.Apparantly Lenny never told him that,cause i dont think one of his shots hit the rim during the Net series



> I mean, would you want to work somewhere where management gave every appearance of wanting you badly, and where you'd more likely than not be a starter, or would you want to work for a company that seemed to be pretty lukewarm (at best) about you now and in the future.


Just wave goodbye..JC will be a Knick


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Good way of looking at from the standpoint of the guy who has no say so this year.
> ...


I don't understand what you mean. It's pretty clear that although Jamal doesn't have the final say, he has every right to try and get what he feels is the best deal possible for himself.

He obviously doesn't have the final say since he's restricted, but it'd be pretty foolish of him to not voice his opinion if it has any chance of getting him more money, more PT, and a more favorable working environment.

Does it have value from Pax's perspective? Well, it's a negotiation process. No one really has the final say, as far as I can see. Pax can force Jamal to stay for a year at the QO, but that's a fairly phyrric victory, since there's the potential for team dissension and the high likelihood that Jamal walks for nothing next summer.

Basically it's a 3-way game of chicken. At this point, I don't see that any side holds "all the cards". Everyone could end up winning or everyone could end up losing if things fall apart. Thus, you can expect to see lots of posturing and lots of back and forth. And if you want to understand what's going on, then yeah, the opinions of what's best for each side are pretty important.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Keep looking. Try a little ways under the big, square banner ad.


There is no quote from jamal in that article. :laugh: 

The writer says Jamal told Pax he wanted no part or Chicago but Pax hasnt confirmed. Its only the writer of the article asking a question and Goodwin saying its a safe thing to say not that those were even his actual words .

Jamal teling Pax hed like to go to NY because they are offering the most money is not him saying he wants no part of Chicago .If the Bulls offered him the same deal (I Know highly unlikely) then he would want to stay with the bulls .


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Keep looking. Try a little ways under the big, square banner ad.


Come on man, you know better than that. The man was looking for a direct quote... and there is none to be found.

I don't buy this story. The facts and opinions are all jumbled together -- the writer is trying to pass it all off as fact. Personally, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle (ie, JC might not be pleased with the Bulls' dealings, but has probably not told Pax that he "wants no part of Chicago"). Unfortunately, moderation doesn't sell papers.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I seriously don't get where everyone's getting worked up about this. It's par for the course of restricted free agent negotiations. If you go back and look at guys who were courted by other teams (especially for what seemed to be more money) they all say the same things... Elton Brand, Rashard Lewis, Jason Terry, etc, and those guys I think all ended up back with their old teams. Q Richardson is going to be headed back to the Clips even though he said he wants to go to Phoenix.

Point is, these kinds of things are to be expected because, given the nature of restricted free agency, players have to try and play for as much leverage as they can.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I want no part of Jamal in the future. 

He hasn't won the respect to demand that kind of money he wants.

He hasn't done enough to draw even this much of support from the fan or this forum's posters.

If anything, he had all the chances in the world and yet we are still debating his pros and cons, no team is so eager to roll out the carpet and Paxon doesn't want to pay him more than MLE. What in a nutshell should say the whole picture?

What exactly has he done for the last 4 years to win the respect in the league?

I am more than annoyed by his and his agent's antics so I even let him walk after one year QO. 

He will be whining baby through out his career. He will never be star like he visions himself to be. Never.

All but jump shoot from 3 point line with crazy streaky below 40% shooter with lazy *** on defense.

Good riddance.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Well, the conversation on this topic seemed to move to this thread, so I'll move my thoughts here too
> 
> Crawford, a restricted free agent who cannot escape from Chicago without the Bulls' blessing, no longer wants any part of Chicago. Paxson is aware of this, because Crawford told him so.
> ...


Hey Mike...what is it they say about "appearances?"

What I tried to point out yesterday is that the Bulls would very much like to re-sign Crawford if he accepts his role as being part of a three guard rotation. But Crawford wants no part of that concept. Crawford wants to be the team's offensive focal point...either as offensive option #1 or minimally option #1A with his friend Eddy. That is Crawford's mindset, plain and simple. 

That puts the Bulls and Crawford at an impasse. You and Jamal can catagorize Chicago's three guard rotation concept as a demonstration of "lukewarm" interest in Jamal. The fact is the Bulls drafted Ben Gordon #3 with the intention of making the Bulls backcourt an area of strength for the team and as protection in case they lost JC to an outrageous bid. A trio of guards comprised of Hinrich, Crawford and Gordon would be considered by most teams in the league as a strong backcourt rotation. That's the Bulls' vision. Crawford doesn't share that vision.

Those that believe that Crawford should be the face of the team moving forward because he led the team in scoring last year are going to consider the fact that he remains unsigned as an affront by the organization. But we're not talking about a singular issue here. It isn't the contract _exclusively_. Its also the Bulls vision of how they want to put this team together that has Crawford irritated. 

For whatever reason, and despite the fact that no one else besides the Knicks and Bulls have shown much interest in his services, he thinks the Bulls should be building around him. That simply isn't going to happen. The Bulls view him as a good player with his best days ahead of him. But he's no franchise player at least off of what he's shown over the past four seasons.

This isn't the first time players and teams have failed to agree on the player's role and it won't be the last. Is Jeff Van Gundy a bad guy for expecting Steve Francis to modify his style of play and take advantage of the presence of Yao Ming? With rare exception teams will always be constructed to suit a preferred style of play. Some players will adapt and remain...others will fight the philosophy and end up playing for someone else. And that, more than anything else appears to be the case here.

Do the Bulls want to keep Crawford? Sure they do, _if_ he's willing to modify his style of play and accept the role the organization has defined for him. Is he willing to do that? My understanding is that he's not. He wants to be "The Man." That's not how Paxson and Skiles are puting this team together. There is no one on this team good enough to wear that mantle, including Crawford.

So perhaps its time for the two sides to go their seperate ways. Some people think the stuff NY has offered in trade is, lets say, underwhelming. Guess what? Its all that's out there. Has anyone read of any better offers from another team? Maybe the Knicks' offers are all Jamal is worth. Now its up to Paxson to decide whether to accept a deal that benefits the Bulls in some fashion, or retain a player who doesn't want to be a part of the program as its been laid out to him over the course of the past year. Tell me, who wants to be married to a spouse for the next six years who's already told you he/she ain't buyin' what you're sellin'?


----------



## FrankTheTank (Jun 25, 2004)

screw jamal. let him go. He played one season where he did good every other game. We dont need him. bah! i dont understand what all this fuss is about over jamal crawford.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> I want no part of Jamal in the future.
> 
> He hasn't won the respect to demand that kind of money he wants.
> ...


I agree partially about Jamal and I also do not want him in our long turm plan.He is a good player but like Ricky Davis at 2/3 - tends to do more damage than good , at least for us.maybe he'd fit a better system better.

*but - * I still think the best move for us is just sign him for the mle , he is worth that , and he's crying out for the move to NY cause he knows he'll get a better offer , from a team that shows no real care for Luxury Tax...
at the moment noone is offering more , in a year that Derek Fisher got the full mle .

we should sign him unhappy or not and trade him next year out of byc status.unless Zeke can come up with a trade that really benefits us it's not worth making the move.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> 
> 
> Hillarious to hear someone pointing out someone jumping to conclusions.
> ...


I agree that jamal's entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't make his opinion right. Not to bite off another post, but I think Kismet hits the nail on the head here. Jamal's opinion (or false conclusion, whatever you want to call it) is that he should be the #1 or #2 guy on the Bulls. IMO, there's no way that he's good enough to fill that role today. So his opinion that he's worth so much more cash (and his decision to relate that cash to the team's desire for his services) is wrong.

Now, as several others have pointed out, there's no direct quote from Jamal. Maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one. If he didn't really say all the stuff that this article mentions, then my bad - plain and simple.



> If we don't get Sweetney back in the deal, or get to dump JYD, E-Rob, and AD, we shouldn't do it.
> 
> I have warmed to taking back Anderson cause while Gordon gets eaten alive on the Defensive end we will need someone to step in and help out Hinrich.
> 
> If we get Sweetney back in the deal, we will still have a trading chip to fill whatever hole we will discover this season. Plus, it gives us solid insurance against Chandler leaving when we don't give him the max deal he will be expecting.


I couldn't agree with you more on this one. Sweetney is the one player that I think would actually be worth acquiring in this trade. After seeing Mario Austin in summer league ball (and watching Davis and JYD last year), I think the Bulls need a decent backup or insurance policy for Chandler.

And GO SC!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Mike...what is it they say about "appearances?"
> ...


well said, as usual kismet.

:worship:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Mike...what is it they say about "appearances?"
> ...



You have to come better than that :laugh: 

If Jamal goes to the Knicks he will be a part of a 3 guard rotation.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

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


But not for long, if what is said about Houston's legs is true. He sees a possibility to be a confirmed starter. 

It's a promise that appeals to him. But we'll see if that is going to be the reality.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

If he plays for Knicks, he is in for the rude awakening. 

If he thought Chicago fans were too harsh on him, New York fans and media will eat him alive. In fact he will be eaten up by his second season as a Knicks because I can't envision any drastic improvement in his game (possibly gradual development much like here in Chicago. and it took 4 years to get this level. MY GOD!).

Good luck and good riddance IF he becomes a Knick.


----------



## katman17 (Jul 12, 2004)

It drives me crazy when people are saying that the bulls are lowballing jamal, they are not lowballing him at all. They offered him a reasonable deal, Jamal has not proven his worth to be paid more and if he did, he would be getting crazy offers like some of the other free agents out there. 

Jamal is a talented player but the bulls are doing the right thing here, he is a RESTRICTED free agent which means that the bulls have a right to match any offer, if an offer comes in, then the bulls will make the decision on resigning him, but until then, the bulls should just wait and see with Jamal. 

Why offer him more when we dont have to?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> What I tried to point out yesterday is that the Bulls would very much like to re-sign Crawford if he accepts his role as being part of a three guard rotation. But Crawford wants no part of that concept. Crawford wants to be the team's offensive focal point...either as offensive option #1 or minimally option #1A with his friend Eddy. That is Crawford's mindset, plain and simple.
> 
> That puts the Bulls and Crawford at an impasse. You and Jamal can catagorize Chicago's three guard rotation concept as a demonstration of "lukewarm" interest in Jamal. The fact is the Bulls drafted Ben Gordon #3 with the intention of making the Bulls backcourt an area of strength for the team and as protection in case they lost JC to an outrageous bid. A trio of guards comprised of Hinrich, Crawford and Gordon would be considered by most teams in the league as a strong backcourt rotation. That's the Bulls' vision. Crawford doesn't share that vision.
> ...


Kismet the Killer. Wow. Great Post. Just bowl 'em over...


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

When a player's agent says something assume its true......because if it's not.....the player will usually come out and say so.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

We don't need Jamal....period. If we can get rid of 2 of our 3 bad contracts and get a guy who can back Gordon up in Shandon Anderson.....do it.

Curry, Davis, Motumbo
Chandler, Harrington
Nocioni, Deng, Johnson
Gordon, Anderson
Hinrich, Duhon

Even without Jamal's 38% "talent" that team does mighty fine and has much more financial flexibility.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Mike...what is it they say about "appearances?"
> ...


Without calling you a liar... because I don't think you're being dishonest, I simply don't think it's that plain or simple.

It could be that the debate is being framed in those terms, but I don't think that's really the issue. I mean, I've seen little evidence that Jamal won't be content unless he's a #1 option. I never heard of him chafing at having Jalen Rose here, and I don't hear think he's going to go off the the Knicks and demand they trade away Marbury.

If anything, he's got a better chance playing next to Ben Gordon than next to Marbury.

Perhaps more to the point, what exactly does being the #1 or #1A option mean vs. being "a part of a three guard rotation"?



> That puts the Bulls and Crawford at an impasse. You and Jamal can catagorize Chicago's three guard rotation concept as a demonstration of "lukewarm" interest in Jamal. The fact is the Bulls drafted Ben Gordon #3 with the intention of making the Bulls backcourt an area of strength for the team and as protection in case they lost JC to an outrageous bid. A trio of guards comprised of Hinrich, Crawford and Gordon would be considered by most teams in the league as a strong backcourt rotation. That's the Bulls' vision. Crawford doesn't share that vision.
> 
> Those that believe that Crawford should be the face of the team moving forward because he led the team in scoring last year are going to consider the fact that he remains unsigned as an affront by the organization. But we're not talking about a singular issue here. It isn't the contract _exclusively_. Its also the Bulls vision of how they want to put this team together that has Crawford irritated.


I think this is closer to the mark, but it appears to me that it's about more than who gets shots. Jamal, if he's here, should continue to get a ton of shots, even well into the future. Curry is, as far as I can see, not going to be a guy that takes a huge amount of shots consistently because he's so hard to do anything with. You can't play through him at all because he can't pass to anyone, so all you can do is feed him. Especially because the Bulls don't have much in the way of other options to pass him the ball, and because they don't have guys that create much space for him at the forwards. whomever the guards are are going to have to feed him. By virtue of that, they're going to get lots of opportunities themselves because they'll be the guys with the ball in their hands. And of course, that's the best case scenario. My belief is that Eddy will never make a #1 option because he can't handle the ball. You simply can't have a #1 scoring option if it's an adventure every time you throw him the ball.

That's a long digression, but what I'm getting to is that, as presently constituted, I don't see any other role for Crawford BUT to be the main option, along with Ben as he comes along. Curry might end up getting his points, but contrary to conventional wisdom, I think it will come entirely off of those two guys' sweat.



> For whatever reason, and despite the fact that no one else besides the Knicks and Bulls have shown much interest in his services, he thinks the Bulls should be building around him. That simply isn't going to happen. The Bulls view him as a good player with his best days ahead of him. But he's no franchise player at least off of what he's shown over the past four seasons.


I agree that he's not a franchise player, but I don't think I see him as a 6th man... at least on the team the Bulls have assembled.



> This isn't the first time players and teams have failed to agree on the player's role and it won't be the last. Is Jeff Van Gundy a bad guy for expecting Steve Francis to modify his style of play and take advantage of the presence of Yao Ming? With rare exception teams will always be constructed to suit a preferred style of play. Some players will adapt and remain...others will fight the philosophy and end up playing for someone else. And that, more than anything else appears to be the case here.


OK, I think this is a very good example, but I'm not sure how it pertains to Jamal, because I don't see anyone on our team who even remotely resembles Yao in the Francis/Yao example. 

My sense of things is that a lot of this comes back to Eddy... hence my digression above. Do the Bulls really think (and I mean think... not just hope) that Eddy will be able to do what Yao would do if he got the ball more?

If they do, I think a big part of my disagreement is that I see them putting their eggs in the wrong basket. That's not to say I want Jamal and Ben dropping a zillion shots a game, but I don't look at Eddy and think he was under utilized in the way that Yao was under used.

More importantly, I don't see how you can look at Jamal's performance in the past and say he's played like Francis or Mobley in the sense that he's always passing up better teammates. Jamal mostly didn't have better teammates.

Now, I understand where Jamal might look at the Bulls and be saying "I want to be the #1 option" and the Bulls would look and say "we want you as part of the rotation", but my sense is that what's in both parties minds is not how things will or should play out.

Jamal has never appeared to me to be a selfish player on the court. He's not been the smartest, but calling him a selfish player for shooting a lot when he's largely been the only perimeter option does't strike me as correct. But, from a very legitimate manner of thinking, he has been and should continue to be the #1 option, simply because the Bulls don't have anyone else who can do what he can do. That doesn't make him a franchise talent, but it makes him the #1 scoring option. The Bulls shouldn't be saying "we see your role changing from that" because in fact, there's no reason to expect it will. If it does, based on his ability to coexist when he was playing with a guy like Jalen, I think Jamal will adjust.

This is all to say I think a lot of it is in the manner of perception. 



> Do the Bulls want to keep Crawford? Sure they do, _if_ he's willing to modify his style of play and accept the role the organization has defined for him. Is he willing to do that? My understanding is that he's not. He wants to be "The Man." That's not how Paxson and Skiles are puting this team together. There is no one on this team good enough to wear that mantle, including Crawford.


Again, just what would that mean? How exactly would Jamal need to change his style of play? Obviously we want him to have better shot selection and better defense, but in practice someone has to be "The Man". Even when you look at a "team-oriented" team, someone shoots the most, someone steps up in the clutch, someone handles the ball the most. Rip Hamilton and Chauncy Billups aren't the "Men" on the Pistons in the sense of being superstars or anything, but you could make a pretty coherent case that they're the stars in a real sense because they mostly seem to do the "Star" things. I think there's a lot in how things are sold and how much guys buy in.



> So perhaps its time for the two sides to go their seperate ways. Some people think the stuff NY has offered in trade is, lets say, underwhelming. Guess what? Its all that's out there. Has anyone read of any better offers from another team? Maybe the Knicks' offers are all Jamal is worth. Now its up to Paxson to decide whether to accept a deal that benefits the Bulls in some fashion, or retain a player who doesn't want to be a part of the program as its been laid out to him over the course of the past year. Tell me, who wants to be married to a spouse for the next six years who's already told you he/she ain't buyin' what you're sellin'?


No one, but it's also worth considering that there might be some valid reasons your spouse wants to leave. Speaking of that, my spouse does want to leave... we're going downtown for our (4th) anniversary, so I'm gonna have to cut this short!


----------



## lou4gehrig (Aug 1, 2003)

Kind of reminds me of when Grant Hill was traded. The Pistons didn't give him away for nothing, getting Ben Wallace and Chucy Atkins for him. Grant Hill was mad at the Pistons, but the Pistons didn't give in.

The truth is the Bulls have all the leverage. Not Jamal, not the Knicks. Thats to Paxson's advantage and he should sway to Isiah or Goodwin or Jamal no matter what. 

We shouldn't feel bad for the Knicks for being an irresponsible franchise that is $50M over the salary cap and can't sign free agents. We shouldn't have to give in 1% because Jamal is unhappy. The Knicks have alot more pressure in the upcoming season to be in the playoffs. We are still rebuilding and we can't make mistakes in the long term. 

If Jamal doesn't want to sign for us for the QO or if we don't want to sign and trade him, then let him sit out. Truth is he is a very gifted basketball player who doesn't really know how to play basketball. He is a 38% shooter, 31% from 3, doesn't play defense. He was the PG, but he never put up 8+ assists a night or ran the team.

And going back to Grant Hill (not to compare Jamal to him), but look who won the championship this year and who had the first pick in the draft? Goods teams beat great players anyday. And since Jamal is a decent, but not great player, then well you conclude the rest...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lou4gehrig</b>!
> Kind of reminds me of when Grant Hill was traded. The Pistons didn't give him away for nothing, getting Ben Wallace and Chucy Atkins for him. Grant Hill was mad at the Pistons, but the Pistons didn't give in.
> 
> The truth is the Bulls have all the leverage. Not Jamal, not the Knicks. Thats to Paxson's advantage and he should sway to Isiah or Goodwin or Jamal no matter what.
> ...


G.Hill was a unrestricted free agent free to do as he pleases .He basically agreed to do a S & T so that he could get the most money but also so that the new GM Joe Dumars would get some compensation for him in return as they had a good relationship.It in no way shape or form resembles Jamals situation . 

By some of thse posts it seems as many would be happy if we just renounced him because he no one would want him right ?  :laugh:


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lou4gehrig</b>!
> Kind of reminds me of when Grant Hill was traded. The Pistons didn't give him away for nothing, getting Ben Wallace and Chucy Atkins for him. Grant Hill was mad at the Pistons, but the Pistons didn't give in.
> 
> The truth is the Bulls have all the leverage. Not Jamal, not the Knicks. Thats to Paxson's advantage and he should sway to Isiah or Goodwin or Jamal no matter what.
> ...


Great perspective in this post. Losing Jamal certainly seems like a setback now, but long term I think the Bulls won't regret it.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

I have to say that I don't think this is a very bright move for Jamal to make. He may have thought it all along, but it doesn't make any sense to say it. I think he and his agent have made a tactical blunder given their position.

If I'm Paxson, I don't care whether Jamal wants to join ERob on the end of the bench as cancer #2, thats where I'll put him as opposed to taking on the Knicks garbage. From where I sit, Jamal risks his own value as an UFA next year by going down this avenue. He can just as easily wind up with 5-10 mpg this year with career lows in stats and be worth next to nothing in next years market. Ask yourself, how much will ERob be worth when his contract expires? And don't overestimate Jamal's ability to affect Curry's situation. You think Curry will throw away his chance at the mega millions because of Jamal? I wouldn't put my money on it.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> I have to say that I don't think this is a very bright move for Jamal to make. He may have thought it all along, but it doesn't make any sense to say it. I think he and his agent have made a tactical blunder given their position.
> 
> If I'm Paxson, I don't care whether Jamal wants to join ERob on the end of the bench as cancer #2, thats where I'll put him as opposed to taking on the Knicks garbage. From where I sit, Jamal risks his own value as an UFA next year by going down this avenue. He can just as easily wind up with 5-10 mpg this year with career lows in stats and be worth next to nothing in next years market. Ask yourself, how much will ERob be worth when his contract expires? And don't overestimate Jamal's ability to affect Curry's situation. You think Curry will throw away his chance at the mega millions because of Jamal? I wouldn't put my money on it.


Why would his value decrease ? The Bulls havent been able to keep him off the floor the past seasons.Why would he be a cancer?Paxson is not the coach Skiles is .Pip and Mj never spoke to JK but could play all day for PJ.

Why would he only play 10-15 mpg on this team ?Whether jamal averages 20 ppg pr 10 ppg wont increase or decrease his value its how efficiently he gets those points that will do it and how much he improves on defense .

Why would anyone compare Jamal to Erob in anyway when the situations are totally different ?

Skiles will play whoever can get him the win regardless of whatever happens in the front office about contracts .


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

IMHO it would be a huge mistake for JC to take a QO for two reasons. First, the number of teams under the cap next year will be less than this year so the big time contracts for weak players will be gone. Second, even as an UFA for any team, other than the bulls, to sign JC to a big contract will have to be under the cap so a team like the knicks is still out of the question.

Furthermore, the teams under the cap this year are likely to be the teams under the cap next year and they could offer JC enough to prevent pax from matching and they have shown no interest in JC. Much like damper i think JC should take the best contract he can get from the bulls with a option to opt out.

david


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Why would his value decrease ? The Bulls havent been able to keep him off the floor the past seasons.Why would he be a cancer?Paxson is not the coach Skiles is .Pip and Mj never spoke to JK but could play all day for PJ.


Aside from the normal risks inherent in playing on a QO, the talk in this thread has been that Jamal _could_ become a cancer if he were forced to return. If that were the case, it would be very easy for him to be positioned next to ERob in the newly rennovated (enlarged) doghouse. From there, one would assume it would be very hard to put up stats that would play well in next years free agent market.



> Why would he only play 10-15 mpg on this team ?Whether jamal averages 20 ppg pr 10 ppg wont increase or decrease his value its how efficiently he gets those points that will do it and how much he improves on defense .


I completely disagree. There is a great disparity in what a 20ppg scorer will command on the market vs. a 10ppg scorer. That said, Jamal could find himself nothing more than an insurance policy against injury to Hinrich or Gordon. I don't think it's likely, but anything is possible.



> Why would anyone compare Jamal to Erob in anyway when the situations are totally different ?


Again, some are suggesting he could return and be a cancer. Just about everyone here sees ERob as a cancer. If they're both cancers, well you get the point.



> Skiles will play whoever can get him the win regardless of whatever happens in the front office about contracts .


Scott Skiles? The guy who coached us last year? You know, Lint, Dupree, Shirley, etc. Scott Skiles, right?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

While i am not the biggest JC fan i JUST don't believe he would ever be a team cancer or disruptive. While i take issue with his bball IQ i think he works hard and really wants to win.

I have NEVER heard him trash talk paxson or skiles. Now what he says in private is his own business but if he is back next year, i think he will be, I have evey reason to think he will play is all to win and i am surprised anyone would think otherwise.

david


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

David, I agree with you.

There is ample room to criticize Jamal. I think he is a bit immature and overall, I don't think he's the...brainiest player to ever don a pair of baggy shorts.

But overall, I think his heart is in the right place. I don't think his thoughts about his role and the Bull'splans necessarily mesh, but if push came to shove, I think Jamal would rather play to the best of his ability in the role he is given rather than become a cancer. 

And even if he was tempted to be a cancer, I believe he IS smart enough not to decome a disruption or a distraction in his UFA contract year.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Tell me, who wants to be married to a spouse for the next six years who's already told you he/she ain't buyin' what you're sellin'?


Who says it has to be for 6 years ?

Divorce as soon as is practically possible to do so 

Jamal needs a green card to play in the NBA 

He might need to stay married to us for a while 

He can buck and scream in this short union or he can lay back and take it like the lady we know he is


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

in the (seemingly unlikely at this point) event that Jamal signs a longterm deal with us, I think it's in everybody's best interest to include a mutual opt-out after 3 years. If Jamal truly fulfills all the talent he has, he'll be worthy of a new deal from us or someone else. If he chafes at playing with Kirk and Ben and struggles, we'll be glad to have a chance to jettison him sooner rather than later.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Sure Dampier and Crawford are different players. Jamal is young and thats a real plus and Dampier is big and thats a real plus. The rest of their situations have a good bit of ironic similarity to one another. Reading this I just found it interesting how they may or may not be resolved differently.



> For the first time, Dampier acknowledged he may have to accept the $4.9 million mid-level exception if the Knicks can't work out a deal with Golden State. The under-the-cap Hawks have made an offer of a reported $40 million over four years, a total that just barely beats out a maximum six-year, $38M mid-level offer Thomas can make. Thomas was willing to give Dampier six years and $65 million in a sign-and-trade scenario.


Post Article


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Jamal is not a cancer. He is a young player still learing how to play the NBA game. I know many of you may be surprised by me defending Jamal since I was most critical of him thoughout parts of last season.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> For those of you who believe that the NBA summer spending spree is about to end now that almost all of the top free agents are locked up -- think again. Lost in the midst of the flurry of signings and trades over the past week was a quiet six-year, $37 million contract extension for Shane Battier.
> 
> Battier, the sixth pick in the 2001 draft, will be the first in a long line of third-year veterans looking to cash in this summer before the current collective bargaining agreement goes away. Fears that contracts will become more restrictive, with fewer guaranteed years and smaller max ceilings, along with fears that the luxury-tax threshold may become smaller, are forcing agents into action.
> 
> "I think it behooves everyone to get something done now," Battier's agent, Lon Babby, told Insider. "For the player, it may give them their last chance at a long, guaranteed contract. For teams, it may be their last poker chip to lock-up a guy they want long term."


Espn -Ford 


Should Jamal rethink the Bulls offer or work harder to get it bumped up a bit? If the Bulls offered 6/37, could Goodwin refocus his energies and try to get it into the 40s maybe mid 40s including incentives as Qs was reported to include? Would Pax give up a few more million to get a deal done or after seeing all that he's seen - does Jamal still think he should command a mega dollar offer?

Most here believe Jamal is heading for a bigger deal with NY in the S&T or the QO with us. But, doesn't the option above really make the most sense? Could Jamal and his agent not only be misreading the current market, but the future market?

I'm curious. There has been much talk of trading for Battier in the past. Seeing the deal he signed, what are your thoughts on his deal vs. what will become Jamal's ultimate deal. We're talking the 6 pick in 2001 vs. the 8 pick in 2000. If you could, would you trade Crawford for Battier even up - right now? 

Things that make you go hmmm.


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Espn -Ford
> ...


Chad Ford is a moron. I mean come on:uhoh:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Maestro</b>!
> 
> 
> Chad Ford is a moron. I mean come on:uhoh:


What Chad Ford is irrelevant both in reality and in terms of the post. What's important is whether you believe Lon Babby, Shane Battier or even Mark Cuban are as well since they all seem to believe what was reported. Both Babby and Cuban are on record stipulating to that belief and Battier signed and extension under that belief. So other than your opinion that *Ford* is a moron, do you have one concerning the subject of the post?


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Uh...seems pretty clear to me that the Bulls don't want Jamal...they have been lowballing and drafting his replacement ever since they drafted him. Jamal has shown a lot of loyalty to want to remain a Bull, it sounds like this last slap in the face by the orginization of drafting Gordon and offering Jamal a tiny deal is it for him. I don't blame him. Hopefully he can go somewhere that isn't so damn bush league...


Damn you loves this inconsistent, no D playin, whinin', street baller! The WHOLE league has taken a pass on paying him.....If IT really wanted him he'd do what it takes to get him. 

I agree with this thread's creator. IT is playin us..he hates the Bulls


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> What Chad Ford is irrelevant both in reality and in terms of the post. What's important is whether you believe Lon Babby, Shane Battier or even Mark Cuban are as well since they all seem to believe what was reported. Both Babby and Cuban are on record stipulating to that belief and Battier signed and extension under that belief. So other than your opinion that *Ford* is a moron, do you have one concerning the subject of the post?


Well that's right and I quote "What Chad Ford is irrelevant both in reality and in terms of the post". Huh:sigh:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
> 
> 
> Damn you loves this inconsistent, no D playin, whinin', street baller! The WHOLE league has taken a pass on paying him.....If IT really wanted him he'd do what it takes to get him.
> ...


He's inconsistent because he has young and has only played organized ball for like 6 years. His defense isn't great but once he adds the necessary strength to fight through screens it should improve a great deal. Jamal isn't a street baller. He just earned his street cred LAST year playing in the EBC. He never was raised as a street baller and the only people that want to call him a streetballer are the people looking to ridicule him without having an understanding of where he comes from or what he is about.

Incidentally, if the Bulls think Jamal should suddenly be put into some sort of lessened role, I think they are wrong. I mean, Curry should be the #1 option in the post and Crawford the #1 option from the perimeter. Gordon shouldn't be counted on to be the #1's perimeter option in his rookie season, Deng certainly shouldn't, and neither should Nocioni. If the Bulls resign Jamal he will be one of 4 players that can create their own shot (Gordon, Nocioni, and Deng being the others) some are good at it like Gordon and some aren't as good at it like Nocioni, nevertheless, Jamal is the ONLY one that won't be a 1st year NBA player. So, IMHO the Bulls as an organization are just being stupid if they want Jamal to suddenly take a lessened role. Sure, I can see him taking slightly fewer shots so we can get Gordon some burn but overall his game shouldn't change much other than improving on his defense, shot selection, and his strength.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> Does it have value from Pax's perspective? Well, it's a negotiation process. No one really has the final say, as far as I can see. *Pax can force Jamal to stay for a year at the QO*, but that's a fairly phyrric victory, since there's the potential for team dissension and the high likelihood that Jamal walks for nothing next summer.


Pax can NOT force Jamal to play for the QO. All Jamal (or Goodwin) has to do to get better than the QO is sign a contract with another team for more.

I DO think Jamal is worth AT LEAST the MLE. As I've said in this and other threads, though, I take exception with the way Goodwin is handling this whole affair. Shouldn't Goodwin be talking to other teams about potential contracts instead of Bullying Pax and bad-mouthing the Bull upper management to the press? Isn't there some sort of ethics board that Goodwin should have to answer to?

FWIW, I agree that Jamal will likely not become a cancer. For the first time last season I saw Jamal really open himself up to the instructions Skiles was giving. I think Jamal tries top do what he thinks is best to get a win when he is on the court.

I also don't think Jamal is very bright. The kid has all the physical tools to dominate, but just doesn't have the mental wherewithal to make things happen in the game. Between he and Big Ed, our BBall IQ has to be among the lowest in the league all wrapped up in our top two players. *Ace!* has often mentioned that Crawdaddy was our top scorer last season (and number two assist guy!), but *GB!* (I think) has countered that maybe that is not the role Pax sees him in in the future. I think I'm with *GB!* on this one. Crawdaddy just seems to make an awful lot of poor decisions on the floor. Last season, maybe this, and maybe next, he still may be the best we have for that role. For the future, though, I'm not sure I want him to be the guy making decisions when the game is on the line.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I DO think Jamal is worth AT LEAST the MLE. As I've said in this and other threads, though, I take exception with the way Goodwin is handling this whole affair. Shouldn't Goodwin be talking to other teams about potential contracts instead of Bullying Pax and bad-mouthing the Bull upper management to the press?


This is the point. This is why Pax is on top in these negotiations. Do you honestly believe Goodwin has NOT been beating the bushes trying to fins another team willing to pay Jamal more than the MLE, either an under the cap team or another team to do a S&T?

The fact that Goodwin is beating his head against the wall trying to get this protracted Bulls/Knicks negotiation out of stall goes to show you that there are no other teams biting.


----------

