Balkman/Walker/Douglas for Jamal? Ok, I'd do it.

The Knicks are not just gonna send away Iman. The kid has too much talent. If you notice they've been trying to hide Iman a bit. They never mention him really and have been waiting to sign him. I think this would be a good move.

SupremeCommander wrote:Who the **** is Alex Kennedy?

I see his name from time to time and usually what's under the byline is bull****

I thought the same thing. I don't how we can possibly sign J-Craw unless he takes less money.

Knicksfan wrote:If this is our answer to our PG need, this is the wrong direction. Crawford, for all the excitement he brought and the heart he showed, isn't really a PG. He is a volume shooter 2-guard.

Now, as a shooting guard, I must say the option is intriguing. I agree that he isn't the kind of guard I'd like to have with Carmelo and Amare, but as a shooter with range he would be an upgrade over Fields, who would slide as a backup SG/SF and will still have a chance to shine.

I think that, as with Bibby, there are better options to be explored. One thing to note, if the right PG can be had, TD is tradeable. Its hard to see TD become something else than the shooting guard in a point guard body he is. He brings great play everytime, but we need a starting PG and in order to really contend, I don't think he can be that.

I don't necessarily think he would be the answer to the Knicks PG need but Crawford IMHO certainly fills a bunch of holes, one of which is the PG position (whether backup or whatever).

Dynamic scoring off bench when Amare, Melo sit or get into foul trouble not bad either.

I am up and down on this type of move. If S&T is for Walker/Balk/TD, I would miss TD but getting the 6th man scoring intangibles would be interesting. He would also be a decent backup PG.

Let's throw logic and reason out the window so we can be fanboys of a guy who does crossovers and then takes contested fadeaway jumpers.

Childs2Dudley wrote:No, actually, allow me to jog your memory on this chuck master:

11 game under D'Antoni does not make a career.

A career 41% FG percentage makes a career. A career of absolutely awful defense makes a career. A career of absolutely awful shot selection and all around low basketball IQ plays makes a career.

Jamal Crawford is 32 years old and provides nothing to this team that we don't already have, except he'll make it worse with his defense. Toney Douglas provides more to this team than Crawford would and that's saying something.

i agree with this 100%.

how is he a good fit? STAT & MELO are volume scorers....and so is crawford. i loved crawford as a player. at the time we had nobody who could create their own shot, and he hit several game winning shots. i just don't see how he fits in on this team. he does not run or initiate offense, he dribbles and shoots.

two people i can think of who would be thoroughly opposed to this move are stoudemire and melo. less shots for them, less touches for them. i can see melo looking over to MDA after a typical crawford possession of fancing dribbling, an out of control drive, and a turnover, and melo being like "dude get this guy out of here. i'm all the offense we need."

what NEED does crawford fill? the fact that he can moonlight at point for a few minutes?

i would MUCH rather have douglas. guy can hit the open 3 (lead the league in 3s post-AS break last year), is a gritty and tough player, plays excellent D on opposing guards (crawford is a terrible defender), and will NOT need the ball to score (unlike crawford, who is about the farthest thing from a catch and shoot PG).

nychamp wrote:I like bringing Craw back as a 2. Especially if it's for Balk, Walker and TD. He can play some point at times, but mostly he is a proven outside threat who can get real hot at times. In addition, he has become a smarter player since leaving the Knicks. I wouldnt expect the same flaws we saw years back. He can defend as well. Bibby and Iman would need to cover the point, which is risky, but overall the move gives us more scoring and defense, and would let Landry develop as a bench player at the 2 and the 3 spots, with significant minutes. Getting Craw would require getting Bibby though.
I like TD, but he is not a PG, and he's small for a two. Jamal is a far superior player overall.

Who plays point then? Bibby? A rookie?

I'm not opposed to JC, but he'd HAVE to play point with that "rumored" trade. And I'd rather have TD run the point than Craw

ATrain wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:No, actually, allow me to jog your memory on this chuck master:

11 game under D'Antoni does not make a career.

A career 41% FG percentage makes a career. A career of absolutely awful defense makes a career. A career of absolutely awful shot selection and all around low basketball IQ plays makes a career.

Jamal Crawford is 32 years old and provides nothing to this team that we don't already have, except he'll make it worse with his defense. Toney Douglas provides more to this team than Crawford would and that's saying something.

If TD wasn't involved would you be more receptive to the idea? Balkman and Walker for Crawford sounds good to me.

Can this even happen if TD isn't involved?

No.