what chris crawford debate?

This from todays Chicago Daily Herald,

QUOTE

Time to end Crawford trade saga
mcgraw
Posted Friday, July 30, 2004
By Mike McGraw

If there was ever a negotiation that needed to be put out of its misery, it's the endless, fruitless, misleading saga of Jamal Crawford and the New York Knicks.

As anyone who follows the Bulls knows by now, New York general manager Isiah Thomas wants to acquire the Bulls' restricted free agent. Since the Knicks are well above the salary cap, Thomas needs to work out a sign-and-trade deal in order to pay Crawford any more than the midlevel exception of $4.9 million.

The Bulls and the Knicks have been at this for nearly a month with no results. Thomas even flew to Chicago for a face-to-face meeting with Paxson on Tuesday and left without a trade in place.

A team official familiar with Tuesday's O'Hare summit characterized the meeting as little more than four hours of Thomas telling the Bulls why they should take guard Moochie Norris off his hands.

The Bulls are operating under the simple philosophy that there should be some benefit attached to trading their top scorer. The Knicks have no useful players to give back in a trade, but the Bulls are willing to accept a deal that provides economic relief.

One version has New York sending Shandon Anderson, Dikembe Mutombo, Othella Harrington and Frank Williams for a re-signed Crawford, Eddie Robinson and Jerome Williams. That combination would save the Bulls about $8.5 million in future salaries, plus whatever they would have paid Crawford.

Thomas has said he can't give up all his big men and is insisting that Norris, who has two years and $8 million left on his contract, be included instead of Mutombo or Harrington, who are both signed through next year.

The Bulls' response is they don't want Norris, don't need him and aren't sure he would be a good fit in the locker room. So why should they agree to take on a player who would do nothing but cost them more money?

What has made this ordeal even more ridiculous is the alarming amount of misinformation being spread.

This is just the latest example: One New York paper reported that Thomas and Paxson exchanged phone calls Wednesday, left the O'Hare meeting on good terms and are close to reaching a deal.

Paxson told the Daily Herald on Thursday that he has not spoken to Thomas since their airport encounter ended. The two sides are no closer to a deal than they were July 1.

If Thomas refuses to accept the Bulls' guidelines for a trade, why does this continue to drag on?

At first, Thomas probably wanted to stretch it out and keep the Knicks' interest in the papers every day, figuring the Bulls eventually would sour on the idea of bringing back Crawford and cave in to the Knicks' proposals.

By now, it should be obvious that Paxson is going to stick to his original plan.

Also floated in the papers have been a number of impossible salary figures the Knicks allegedly would pay Crawford. Anyone who has bought a car may recognize that ploy: Let Crawford get his hopes up for a great deal, then reveal the real numbers when it's time to sign the contract.

There isn't much difference between the Bulls' offer of about $39 million over six years and what Crawford would receive in a realistic trade to the Knicks.

Another theory is that Crawford's agent, Aaron Goodwin, promised his client more than the midlevel exception and refuses to let go of the Knicks trade, especially since no other team has shown serious interest in the 6-foot-5 guard.

The Bulls quickly are approaching the day when they put a stop to this nonsense. Paxson will tell Thomas to accept the Bulls' proposal or the offer is off the table.

It can't happen soon enough.

QUOTE

Sounds like Chicago is starting to lose paitence with IT's waiting approach. Maybe its time for US to say take it or leave it.

On second thought, noone really seems to know whats happening, so this article is probably just as full of cr*p.

why does everyone discount the value of Frank Williams?

And why should the bulls want a Moochie Norris?

Because all their other PGs are in diapers yet and it might behoove them to have a player who's at least been in the league longer than 3 years.

And- why do we have to take both JYD & E Robb? Maybe if Packhead had the trade be only Craw & E Robb or Craw and JYD he might get a better deal.

I'd love to get Crawford, but I am tired of other teams looking to dump bloated salaries on our team just because they think they can.

And since when are the Bulls a small market team that they need a Robber Ratner type budget?

Not every ex NBA'r is a good GM, I guess.

Posted by EnySpree:

That sports writer probably reads this forum.

If it isn't Crawford, it's Dampier, then Walker and Vince......

at least now, we're freed from all the bryant to ny, tmac to ny or shaq to ny stuffs, which is, at least a good thing.

In a few weeks, we won't have a single rumour to put a tooth on. all forums will look like graveyards.