Posted by bobs3304:

That and several other advantages make Hughes better than Jamal, yes.

lol.

larry hughes is not better than jamal.

Yes he is. But it's not as big a margin as it was two years ago when he put up 22 ppg, 6 rebs, 5 asts, 3 stl. But I think most on the board would take a Jamal Crawford for Larry Hughes trade.

Posted by bobs3304:

no he's not.


and his contract sucks monkey balls.

I'm not going to respond with another yes he is. Matter of opinion, I guess. For another matter, Crawford's contract isn't good either.

Regardless, what does Larry Hughes have to do with this conversation? Clearly, Artest over Crawford attitude-aside.

This post is Exhibit A in why you can never compare stats alone.

Jot that down now.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by bobs3304:

no he's not.


and his contract sucks monkey balls.

I'm not going to respond with another yes he is. Matter of opinion, I guess. For another matter, Crawford's contract isn't good either.

Regardless, what does Larry Hughes have to do with this conversation? Clearly, Artest over Crawford attitude-aside.

Solace, wouldn't you rather have Crawford taking the last shot or Hughes. Artest's contract is probably the best in the NBA (one of the worst contracts from a player standpoint).

Different question. There's 47 minutes and 40 other seconds in the game. Sure, Crawford has shown that he's clutch (he's missed some too) and winning to take the big shot. I don't think anyone here would argue that. But those are (although important) specialist qualities. Hughes is a better all around player. Personally, if Crawford stays or goes isn't a big deal to me -- other than we desperately need a shooter (which Hughes isn't either). We have a lot of flaws on the team and Crawford is the least of them. I like him better than most of the rest of the team, even if he is somewhat of a chucker.

As for Artest's contract, his contract is great... except the attitude issues, which take away from that value.