Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Would you give up the #7 pick and take back $18 mil in salary just to get Jamal? If I was taking back that much money, I'd have to be *getting* not giving up a lottery pick!

I think something that many fans cannot value correctly is their own players. LA is a team that is in position to turn it around quickly--they were hurt by injury more than any other team. What would you rather have as a princible of the team--Tim Thomas and a draft pick @ 7 or Jamal Crawford. My bet is 25/30 GMs are going to say Jamal. In our situation it's not going to workout having Jamal here--the timing--his contract--it's just not going to work. We need to expedite our rebuilding process as fast as we can. I think this type of deal makes great sense. The money really is not an issue because you would be paying TT and that 7th pick for the next two years and the draft pick in the third year. They are substantially under the cap that last year. I go on the Dallas Mavericks board--Josh Howard stinks--go on a team's board and read what the fans say---fans dont get it most of the time.

I have to strongly disagree. Actually, has a veteran of Jamal's caliber ever been traded for a mid lottery pick? I think you'd see GMs trading mid lottery picks for mediocre veterans much more often if your 25/30 figure was accurate.

Well there are plenty of examples starting with last year. Charlotte aquired J rich for pick 8. If we look at statistical difference J rich and JC are close--giving the nod to J rich but not by much. This is not including that we are taking back a bad contract that= out the $ part of the trade in TT which would make up for any difference.

If your sole purpose was to win games now--and you understand the Clippers roster who they have upfront how thin and frgile they are in the backcourt their salary structure and how they do things----is adding Jamal Crawford a better choice to win now than Tim Thomas[who can be replaced by Thorton this year] and a draft pick? And can you fin a reasonable deal that trumps this with a backcourt player?

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Would you give up the #7 pick and take back $18 mil in salary just to get Jamal? If I was taking back that much money, I'd have to be *getting* not giving up a lottery pick!

I think something that many fans cannot value correctly is their own players. LA is a team that is in position to turn it around quickly--they were hurt by injury more than any other team. What would you rather have as a princible of the team--Tim Thomas and a draft pick @ 7 or Jamal Crawford. My bet is 25/30 GMs are going to say Jamal. In our situation it's not going to workout having Jamal here--the timing--his contract--it's just not going to work. We need to expedite our rebuilding process as fast as we can. I think this type of deal makes great sense. The money really is not an issue because you would be paying TT and that 7th pick for the next two years and the draft pick in the third year. They are substantially under the cap that last year. I go on the Dallas Mavericks board--Josh Howard stinks--go on a team's board and read what the fans say---fans dont get it most of the time.

I have to strongly disagree. Actually, has a veteran of Jamal's caliber ever been traded for a mid lottery pick? I think you'd see GMs trading mid lottery picks for mediocre veterans much more often if your 25/30 figure was accurate.

Well there are plenty of examples starting with last year. Charlotte aquired J rich for pick 8. If we look at statistical difference J rich and JC are close--giving the nod to J rich but not by much. This is not including that we are taking back a bad contract that= out the $ part of the trade in TT which would make up for any difference.

If your sole purpose was to win games now--and you understand the Clippers roster who they have upfront how thin and frgile they are in the backcourt their salary structure and how they do things----is adding Jamal Crawford a better choice to win now than Tim Thomas[who can be replaced by Thorton this year] and a draft pick? And can you fin a reasonable deal that trumps this with a backcourt player?

Shan Battier--pick 7 Shane is a very marginal player in this league
Sebatsian Telfair main piece for pick 7

shane battier is a very highly thought of player in this league.

but i think the clippers would do this trade. crawford is pretty highly thought on in this league, too. a lot of teams like him.

people who scoff and say, "no one wants crawford!" should remember that there were people here who were excited about jared jefferies. washington wizards fans over at realgm were laughing their butts off and thanking the lord that they got rid of jefferies.

the grass is always greener, craw is a good piece on a good team. i think he can start for a lot of teams and he'd be a perfect sixth man for most of the league. could dallas have used craw? yes. could san antonio plug him into their system? yes.

he's good on this team, he's just being asked to do too much. he's being asked to be chris paul for this team, which he isn't.

[
--->He doesn't need the ball and is a very good role player.


You got it--that's what he is -- a role player-- marginally talented NBA basketball player. There is no other term for him. He was traded straight up for pick 7--Houston did not take back a bad contract either. Shane Battier is nothing more than average NBA talent.

I really wanted to skewer this trade at first, but the more I look at it, the less far fetched it seems to me. I doubt this proposed trade would happen though, as how can you sell giving up a lotto pick for a career loser to the fanbase while swapping a comparable player with a better contract?

Personally, I think Jamal Crawford for Cuttino Mobley and #7 would have a better shot of happening. And I would pull the trigger on a Craw for Mobley, #7 deal.

Posted by Anji:

Tim Thomas is comparable to Jamal??? I know some of you guys don't like him as a player, but come on, ya'll sound like senile white hicks when you have comments like that about our team.

Underachieving score-first players, don't play any defense, mentally weak, failed to live up to lotto potential, etc. Yeah, I'd say they're comparable. Obviously they aren't when comparing pure play because, well, they don't play the same position and are different size. But I didn't realize my analysis should state the obvious.

But, hey, I'd rather sound like a senile white hick than actually sound narrow-minded.

Failed to live up to lotto potential, there is something like 30 lottery picks during Jamals Career that aren't even in the NBA anymore..... can you define lotto potenail please instead throwing some meaningless assertion.

What does half of that even mean??? What is weak minded about Jamal??? Because isn't some vision of what you think a 2guard should be means he is weak minded??? You sound like these talking heads that think being a slick talk new york former point guard is all the requirements to be running the team these days. LOL, you don't like him which is fine, but Thomas's career as player is no where near Jamals. You are narrow minded if you think not liking a player means they are weak minded. And he eats babies too because he shoots 41 percent... right.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Would you give up the #7 pick and take back $18 mil in salary just to get Jamal? If I was taking back that much money, I'd have to be *getting* not giving up a lottery pick!

I think something that many fans cannot value correctly is their own players. LA is a team that is in position to turn it around quickly--they were hurt by injury more than any other team. What would you rather have as a princible of the team--Tim Thomas and a draft pick @ 7 or Jamal Crawford. My bet is 25/30 GMs are going to say Jamal. In our situation it's not going to workout having Jamal here--the timing--his contract--it's just not going to work. We need to expedite our rebuilding process as fast as we can. I think this type of deal makes great sense. The money really is not an issue because you would be paying TT and that 7th pick for the next two years and the draft pick in the third year. They are substantially under the cap that last year. I go on the Dallas Mavericks board--Josh Howard stinks--go on a team's board and read what the fans say---fans dont get it most of the time.

I have to strongly disagree. Actually, has a veteran of Jamal's caliber ever been traded for a mid lottery pick? I think you'd see GMs trading mid lottery picks for mediocre veterans much more often if your 25/30 figure was accurate.

Well there are plenty of examples starting with last year. Charlotte aquired J rich for pick 8. If we look at statistical difference J rich and JC are close--giving the nod to J rich but not by much. This is not including that we are taking back a bad contract that= out the $ part of the trade in TT which would make up for any difference.

If your sole purpose was to win games now--and you understand the Clippers roster who they have upfront how thin and frgile they are in the backcourt their salary structure and how they do things----is adding Jamal Crawford a better choice to win now than Tim Thomas[who can be replaced by Thorton this year] and a draft pick? And can you fin a reasonable deal that trumps this with a backcourt player?

Shan Battier--pick 7 Shane is a very marginal player in this league
Sebatsian Telfair main piece for pick 7

I'd gladly trade Jamal for J Rich or Shane Battier. I don't think any GM views Jamal and J Rich as being comparable. And Battier can fit in on a winning team better than Jamal can or ever has. Telfair is not relevant to the discussion. (I asked about GMs trading lottery picks for *veteran* players. Sure, GMs take poor gambles on young players, but that's another topic.) Battier is a fairly good counter example; I'll give you that, though. You did come up with one example in the history of the league.

Posted by Anji:

Failed to live up to lotto potential, there is something like 30 lottery picks during Jamals Career that aren't even in the NBA anymore..... can you define lotto potenail please instead throwing some meaningless assertion.

What does half of that even mean??? What is weak minded about Jamal??? Because isn't some vision of what you think a 2guard should be means he is weak minded??? You sound like these talking heads that think being a slick talk new york former point guard is all the requirements to be running the team these days. LOL, you don't like him which is fine, but Thomas's career as player is no where near Jamals. You are narrow minded if you think not liking a player means they are weak minded. And he eats babies too because he shoots 41 percent... right.

I don't want you to think I'm choosing to ignore this or something, because the bottom line is trying to follow your "logical" argumentative flow made my brain hemorrhage. Doctors literally just saved my life... and I have to make this response quick, or my brain will continue to violently bleed until I expire.

Failed to live up to lotto potential, there is something like 30 lottery picks during Jamals Career that aren't even in the NBA anymore..... can you define lotto potential please instead throwing some meaningless assertion.

Well, I think it's safe to say JC "failed to live up to lotto potential" when he was traded by his original team for EXPIRING CONTRACTS and that he has never made the playoffs. Sorry there isn't some tangible measure of this, but he, like Tim Thomas, failed to live up to their perceived potnetial.

Furthermore, what makes this a "meaningless assertion"? That my OPINION doesn't match-up with your OPINION?

What does half of that even mean???

You want me to define the terms or break it down into the metaphysical or something?

What is weak minded about Jamal???

He jacks up shots and doesn't drive when he should, he doesn't add muscle when he says he will, he also doesn't exert energy on defense (that is from the SCOUTING REPORT in that New York Magazine article). To me, that's mental and has nothing to do with him physically.

For instance, I can run a six minute mile. I have never run over six miles though and when someone doesn't commit themselves physically it typically is mental. Again, that's how I see it and my opinion. And, yes, it is shaped by my personal experience.

Because isn't some vision of what you think a 2guard should be means he is weak minded??? You sound like these talking heads that think being a slick talk new york former point guard is all the requirements to be running the team these days. LOL, you don't like him which is fine, but Thomas's career as player is no where near Jamals. You are narrow minded if you think not liking a player means they are weak minded. And he eats babies too because he shoots 41 percent... right.

I don't like calling opinions "meaningless assertions," but I fail to see how that contributed in any way, shape, or form to anything relating to basketball discourse.

What does THAT rambling diatribe mean? I'm really, really interested. Please, explain to me how you logically constructed that. Please, explain how you got that from what I've said now or in the past (mind you, I was a Crawford supporter until this season! He was one of the few players I defended during the Isiah Era!). Please, explain what your topic sentence even is... is it about my vision? You mention he's a shooting guard, then talk about NY point guards, Thomas (how the heck did he get into this conversation?), me being narrow-minded, and Crawford's shooting percentage in three lines... How does any of that relate to anything I've said?

Was THAT a failed attempt an humor (I hope it was, because at least then your failure to make anyone laugh makes that statement make *some* sense)?

[Edited by - supremecommander on 05-04-2008 11:25 PM]

Posted by crzymdups:

to say Jamal hasn't lived up to his potential is one thing, but to say he's comparable to Tim Thomas is ridiculous. Tim Thomas is a certfied moron. Jamal is a good basketball player who has never been part of a good team - you can place the blame squarely on his shoulders for that, but I don't think anyone would argue that the circus surrounding him in NY is his fault.

That said, I'd do this trade, draft Russell Westbrook at #7 and waive Tim Thomas.

Fair enough. I do think Crawford is worth more than Thomas, but I think the two are comparable. I don't think Crawford is so much more valuable that he'd fetch the #7. Like I posted previously, I think he could get the pick for him if the Knicks were willing to downgrade from Crawford to Mobley.

That was all I was trying to say before.