Posted by nyk4ever:

I know Utah needs a PG but I think you can cross them off the list, I don't think Jerry Sloan would EVER want someone like Jamal on his team. Sloan is the epitomy of a no-nonsense guy and him having Jamal would be impossible for him.

EXACTLY. But you think Brown would...?


I could see Crawford ending up in Portland or ATL, maybe even Cleveland if they can't land Jaric. You never know.

NYK....I'm gonna start a thread of possible Crawford trades using REALGM's Trade Checker.

Take a look when you get a chance, lemme know what you think...

I would nOt trade Crawford, no way. I like the way Crawford played at the end of the season and if Larry can get him to continue to play that way, he's to valuable to trade. We have Taylor Sweetney Frye Malik etc.. at PF, Al Harrington with his knee problems isnt good enough for Crawford. I like Crawford talent much more, I think Larry Brown will work hard with Crawford and I think Craw should be receptive to some needed discipline in his game. Craw=better talent than harrington IMHO.

Posted by BRIGGS:

I would nOt trade Crawford, no way. I like the way Crawford played at the end of the season and if Larry can get him to continue to play that way, he's to valuable to trade. We have Taylor Sweetney Frye Malik etc.. at PF, Al Harrington with his knee problems isnt good enough for Crawford. I like Crawford talent much more, I think Larry Brown will work hard with Crawford and I think Craw should be receptive to some needed discipline in his game. Craw=better talent than harrington IMHO.

i don't get why anybody would trade crawford now either. forget the #'s b/c they're good. this guy is STILL DEVELOPING. and as killa said, we have the best teacher in the game. i can't believe how everybody is giving up on him already. and for al harrington? tim thomas v1.5? come on fellas.

and we NEED 4 guards. what, every team is supposed to have only 3 guards and use that as a rotation? that's what happened last year and look at how that turned out. in fact, i see craw FLOURISHING under brown.

yes, craw is a better talent than harrington. in fact, it's a pretty bad trade b/c there's no fit here for him. i could argue that a sweetney/frye combo would be better for us than al.

in fact, i actually see Q being traded before crawford.

some people are sick of marbury deals on this board. well guess what, CRAWFORD is ISIAH'S GOLDEN CHILD. he spent two full months trying to acquire him. he WANTED TO GET HIM at the deadline the year before but didn't have the chips for chicago. he was pursuing him BEFORE marbury. crawford is not getting traded and that's based on ISIAH's actions, not my hunch.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07/30/2005 20:09:36]

Posted by gunsnewing:

Briggs I'm with you 100% on this one. For Al F'N Harrington!! give me a break!!! Harrington went to school where I grew up and I still could careless about him. He's the kind of player you add to a championship calibur team. Not even because he's not a very smart player. Trust me Al Harrington will drive you crazy every other night when he goes 3 for 14 with 7 turnovers!
[Edited by - gunsnewing on 07/30/2005 20:14:58]

I don't totally disagree with what you said but I mean how many times did people complain about Jamal Crawford last year on this board about him and his shot selection. Seems like Jamal drives us crazy as well, I'd rather have Harrington to score from 18 feet in then Crawford chucking 3's all over the court.

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 07/30/2005 20:32:44]

Posted by gunsnewing:

Crawford has a much higher ceiling. He's got the tools. He can penetrate and create and he's fast and can push the ball. He needs a no nonsense coach who demands respect like Larry Brown. He is no longer in a losing situation like Chicago. He has no choice but to change his ways and Larry will make sure he does or he will sit. He's surrounded by guys who want to win like brown, steph, jyd, isiah, & rose not a team of rookies where he was a senior on. I find it more likely that Crawford changes rather than refuses to and gets benched.

[Edited by - gunsnewing on 07/30/2005 20:40:04]

Well he better but all I'm saying is that the Knicks are taking a huge gamble. Brown was able to work with Allen Iverson because he's such a special player, Rick Carlisle had already started the reformation of Chauncey Billups before Larry got there. I don't think Jamal is good enough for Larry to be totally worrying about him, especially not when he's got his hands full with Stephon and guys like Ariza, Nate and David Lee who are going to be extremely eager to learn and ALREADY play a team style game.

This is a case of Knick fans being bigtime homers. Now, I can understand from the talent standpoint why you guys would want to hold onto Crawford. I really do. But maybe you don't understand what Larry coming to NY means. It doesn't mean Larry will turn garbage into treasure, like some of you think he did in Detroit. What he does is preach, teach, and preach some more. He's all over you like glue, and if you listen to him and try to adjust your game to what he thinks will help the team, you'll be better for it.

Larry said on the day of his induction that he always jokes around with Rip about doing what you do best (for him - coaching). Well, guess what Crawford does best -- break down the defense and distribute the ball, and in order to do that, he needs to play the point. But Crawford has never been known as even an average defender, and if Brown puts Marbury at SG, that would literally be a mess b/c you'd have two players that NEED the ball to be effective. At least Rip is the type of Sg that can produce off screens, etc., and who has ALWAYS shot consistently high from mid-range.

If you guys REALLY like Crawford that much, then it would be in your best interest to want Marbury outta here. That way, Crawford could play the point like he should, and Larry could bring in a defensively-solid 2-guard, just like he did in Philly and Detroit (Billups and Snow, although they were the ones playing the point).

The other thing to look at is how both Marbury and Crawford never responded Skiles, who is considered a very good coach. Just look at what he did for Chicago last year. Personally, it's either one or the other. Pick your poison. I think the only way to go is Crawford, b/c Marbury is the heart and soul of the team, and his contract is nearly untradeable...

Take it for what it is.

Posted by gunsnewing:

oh and I hate Crawford by the way. Just wouldn't trade him for someone worse with a lower ceiling like Harrington. I'm a huge Crawford basher. your SG can't be 6-5 180, play no defense and shoot 39% He can if he's a PG utilizing his strengths of size, penetrating & creating and pushing the ball and overplaying the passing lanes for steals

read previous post please...

Posted by gunsnewing:

maybe he will teach Crawford to move without the ball like Reggie Miller. Remember when Jamal made that comment after someone on MSG asked him what will he remember most about Reggie and instead of saying how well he moved without the ball like no other he said he was never afraid of taking the big shot. That was right after that game where Crawford took a 3 with a ton of time left on the clock than the other team came back and scored and won the game. That just goes to show his head isn't right but a coach like Larry Brown will fix that mentality.

Listen I like Larry Brown alot but why does everyone just assume that he is this magic worker? I think the media gives Larry Brown the credit for making Chauncey into the player he is but take a look at what Rick Carlisle did for Chauncey the year before Larry got there, his stats went up bigtime, I don't know I think Larry gets waaaaaay to much credit for that. The next guy is Allen Iverson. I know Larry and Allen never got along and Larry got to a finals with Iverson but Larry had no choice, Iverson was one of the best players in the NBA before Larry got there was continued to be one of the best players in the NBA while Larry was there and after he was gone, Larry had no choice to coach him becuase he was that good.

What my point is, everyone is just expecting Larry Brown to come in here and "Fix" these players. There is no doubt in my mind that Larry is going to make some players better, I think the guys that will benefit the most from Larry are the guys who are already intangibles players. By the way this has been Bobs argument the past few days but he's dright. The guys who are going to flourish under Larry are Ariza, Lee, Frye, Nate. Larry Brown has a MAJOR job on his hands right now, between Stephon, Q, Jerome James, Tim Thomas, Larry has to figure out how to get the most out of all these guys whom most people would call primadonas to begin with. Stephon isn't going to be a problem he puts up great numbers and people only question his leadership, that will change and it will be becasue of Larry Brown. I think too say Larry is going to get Jamal Crawford playing the right way is a huge gamble because it hasn't been done before. Crawford was regarded as a knucklehead coming out of Michigan and he has not been able to lose the title yet and its his own fault. I know what I saw from Crawford last year; a flair for the dramatic, extremely streaky, bigtime chucker. To think Larry Brown is going to come in here and be able to get Jamal Crawford to play exactly how he wants with all the other players he has to "fix".. I just don't see it happening.

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 07/30/2005 20:59:15]