Crawford coming to Hawks
by jrauch on Jun 24, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
63 comments
ESPN's reporting Speedy Claxton and Acie Law IV are on their way out of Atlanta, for Golden State's Jamal Crawford.
Full story here.
Crawford, as the story notes, has been in Don Nelson's arbitrary dog house for some time. He would appear to fit the mold Woodson likes, a high-volume shooter who never met a shot he didn't like. But he may not stretch defenses the way Mike Bibby did for the last two years, as he's only a 34 percent career shooter from behind the arc, not exactly the eagle eye sharpshooter you might want at that position.
His lack of defensive commitment during his career is also puzzling when his new head coach is one committed to defense-first. It would seem unlikely, as well, that they'd play Crawford as a back-up at the #2 guard behind Joe Johnson.
Of course, some of that may be exacerbated by the fact he had to play for Isiah Thomas and Don Nelson the last few years.
But in the big picture, does this mean the Hawks won't be bringing back Bibby and we've found our point guard of the future (for now)? Is this a signal we might be looking for a big at #19 tomorrow night?
Finally, it may not have been possible, but Acie and Speedy appear to be headed into a team who might be more dysfunctional than their previous one.
0 recs |
63 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I'm surprised
I don’t think I do this trade if I’m ATL, but then, I don’t follow you guys that much. Seems to me like Crawford is just Johnson with a higher contract and lower shooting percentage and not a good a defender. But that is just my viewpoint from a long way off.
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
by frankenhoops on Jun 24, 2009 4:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i like it
first of all crawford costs about the same as acie/speedy combined….at least for 09-10
second of all we traded 2 guys who dont play for one guy who does, makes sense to me
we can do a lot with this
resign bibby, play him at 1, jamal at 2, joe at 3, marvin off the bench
or jamal at 1, joe at 2
or find another PG other then bibby to go in the first scenario
although i do want to draft a PG i dont want to have a rookie running the point
by StottsEra on Jun 24, 2009 5:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i like it
except for the 10 million he is owed in 2010-2011 and i do not like that at all.
by hawksdawgs on Jun 24, 2009 5:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
resigning flip though
would mean al horford will never see another shot again.
by hawksdawgs on Jun 24, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a diehard Warriors fan...
and Jamal Crawford was my least favorite player on the team since about 2 weeks after we got him. Let me explain…
Jamal is a very accomplished scorer who can get as hot on a given night as anyone is basketball. He scores and then scores some more. He’s better at drawing fouls on a 3-pt attempt than anyone I’ve ever seen play the game. He’s a fantastic free throw shooter. He has great handles and a devastating cross over. He likes taking big shots and makes a good number of them, too. He’s also one of the classiest guys in the league. He is a good person, he cares about the fans, he gives a nice interview, he’s a good teammate, etc. Hell of a guy.
But, he is not a point guard in the sense that he doesn’t do the things point guards do. He is not good at setting up the offense. He is a very, very streaky shooter who can just as easily score 10 points in a game as he can score 40 points in a game. He does not like contact at all and rarely gets to the rim if he’s going to get fouled. He is not a good passer, nor does he have a passer’s mentality.
Most importantly, IMO, he is the single worst defensive guard I have ever watched play regularly. He is horriffic on defense – I can’t stress enough how bad he is at this part of the game. He lets opposing guards get by him without really even putting up a fight. By the end of the year I would just yell and be angry watching his D, or lack thereof. I say this as a fan of maybe the worst defensive team in the league. On a team with bad defenders, his horrendous defense shined brighter than anyone’s. Just bad, bad, bad on D.
In looking at this deal I have no expectations that either Law or Claxton will be good. I feel, though, that if neither of thsoe guys plays for a single minute, the Warriors still made a successful trade. I’m not saying the Hawks got a bad deal, just that most of us Warriors fans will not miss this guy at all.
by Neon on Jun 24, 2009 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Law will be a decent backup in Nellie’s offense. he can get to the hole and dish. There’s no room for that kind of horseplay in the Iso-Joe offense of Corch Mike Woodson, genius innovator that he is (some have dubbed his intriguing approach “Stagflation” or “The One Corner”).
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s being written that before Law got drafted Don Nelson was really big on him and even wanted the Warriors to trade Monta Ellis for his rights in the draft. I could see it going either way with Law and Nellie.
Do you think Speedy Claxton will ever play again? Is he terrible at this point in his career?
by Neon on Jun 24, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He played like one game but he did not look very good. I hate this trade simply because Acie will become, at the least, a starter in a couple years once someone gives him playing time. I guess this is good bye buddy
by acie4mvp on Jun 25, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This deal will kill the Hawks
all you have to do is read comments from Knick fans and Warrior fans to know that Crawford is hot garbage.
Add a guy who shoots that much to Josh Smith and Mike Woodson on a one-year deal, and this has meltdown written all over it.
I am sick this morning, and I have this deep, deep fear that we draft BJ Mullens tonight. I think I am about to throw up.
by Fred Pen on Jun 25, 2009 7:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you and me both
If we draft Mullens, I might become a closet fan again.
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 8:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defense?
Have you seen Bibby play? At all?
If we are looking at adding Crawford as a 1, then we are basically just dumping Speedy’s salary and saying that Acie isn’t our future PG (which Woody clearly has proven by playing him less and less), because a streaky in-consistent shooter with poor defense is exactly what we had at the 1 with Bibby. This would also mean that we aren’t looking at resigning Bibby and will be drafting a PG at #19.
The problem I have with that is that I don’t believe Crawford to be a 1, but more of a 2. If we are looking at him playng the 2, then wow does that ever F up the lineup, because there is no way he comes off the bench. I would assume that this would also mean we are looking at resigning Bibby. And the more I look at this the less it makes any logical sense, so it has to be the first scenario that we would be trying to accomplish.
But, to me, in the end this trade just doesn’t make sense on a few levels. First, Crawfords contract is more than the combined amounts of Speedy and Acie, so we aren’t exactly making space available to help resign our FA’s and/or draft picks. Secondly, unless we are looking at not resigning Bibby and making Crawford the PG for a year while we groom a PG from this draft, then he just doesn’t fit with our other players. That is unless we are looking at moving a current starter to the bench or in another trade.
I’m not sure I feel comfortable with this and it feels like a bad omen for what is to come with Sund.
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crap
I just remembered that this would also include our 19th pick, so scratch some of what I said up above. Wow, this is a horrible deal all around.
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 8:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Warriors aren’t getting the #19 pick – don’t worry about that
by Neon on Jun 25, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is ridiculous.
1. This proves, once and for all, that all of that talk about defense is just some sort of sham. What Woody really values is guys who can dribble and shoot two-pointers as the shot-clock expires—Crawford is great at that.
2. They will probably now feel that Bibby is expendable—as they now have someone who has all of both JJ’s and Bibby’s bad qualities—AND, because having Flip, Crawford, and JJ means three guys who can play either guard position on the floor, they’ll draft a big in the first round to replace Zaza and pick up a fourth guard in the second round.
3. If they do draft a big, let me guess: Tyler Hansbrough. To back up Al, of course, so we can have TWO big players playing out of position in the post.
4. But if they have any sense they’d take BJ Mullens in that spot, IMO, because he’s a true center and can learn from Al.
HAVE I MENTIONED LATELY THAT WOODY IS A MORON? If not, let me mention it again, please.
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 5:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sheesh.
Have I said “sheesh” yet? I just needed to.
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 5:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is this true?? Are we giving up our 19th pick?
interesting tidbit -Atlanta is reportedly looking to package the #19 pick along with Speedy Claxton’s contract, in order to clear additional cap room, likely to resign Mike Bibby. 80% of Claxton’s contract (5.2 million) will be picked up by an insurance company, making this a relatively cheap investment for a team with cap room looking to acquire another pick.
We get a 2nd pick perhaps? Then try to trade up?
by mosdl on Jun 24, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
by dstdeelite on Jun 24, 2009 6:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
our trash for a 19ppg scorer isn't bad
This seems like a pretty good return for Law and Claxton who combined were pretty much worth nothing to the Hawks last year. It’s not like Bibby is much of a defender either. Crawford gives the Hawks a lot of options in free agency and the draft. They can now re-sign Bibby and/or Flip or neither. They can draft a PG or draft a big. The Hawks weren’t going to get Steve Nash or Lebron James for Law and Claxton, but Craword is an okay return.
by redwards95 on Jun 24, 2009 6:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Im cool with it, If?
I agree with redwards that these guys were no good for this team, so good bye Acie and Cap-Eater. I also feel like Crawford will give us atleast 10 games with 25+ points even if he comes off the bench and only plays 25 to 30 minutes a night. He also will only cost about 1.5 mill more than Acie and Cap-Eater would cost us this year.
My problem’s with this trade is that guys like Rondo are available, and I would prefer Rondo’s overall game to Crawford’s scoring punch. Second, we must continue to show some type of focus or direction. So, the 19th pick must be tied to this in some form or another. We basically, can not pick a guard with the 19th pick it would not make sense. Thirdly, we must not re-sign Bibby and Flip it doesn’t make sense because there will not be adequate minutes for Flip, Bibby, Crawford, and Joe in a backcourt or will there be? Lastly, we must not be finished here. Acie, mistake, gone. Sheldon, mistake, gone. Marvin and J.Chill are good, but we will never get full value for them on this team, because we paid too much. Marvin is not worthy of the 2nd pick and Chills is not worthy of the 5th pick. So, correct these last 2 mistakes and move on. I still think we can get Stoudemire or Bosh for Chills and Marvin in a sign and trade deal, maybe through a future #2 in there.
Finally, much respect to Mr. Sund he has earned that title for the time being. Good trade.
by Hawks-Semi Fan on Jun 24, 2009 7:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Added
When I say we must not re-sign Bibby and Flip. I mean both. We need to re-sign 1 but not both. If we are not intending to re-sign Bibby nor Flip which I think would be a mistake. We need to draft a PG, but I don’t see why we would not try and re-sign Bibby to the veteran minimum or something close for another 3 years.
by Hawks-Semi Fan on Jun 24, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is Crawford coming off the bench behind?
I just don’t get how this is a good trade unless there’s another move pending. Crawford has run himself out of two cities now with his ballhogging, non-rebounding, non-passing, non-defending ways; it should tell you something that he has managed to score wherever yet has not avoided the coach’s doghouse. On top of that he is 29 with a longer contract; his trade value is pretty minimal.
So what are we doing here, again? Compiling losers? How does Crawford help in the big picture if we want less backcourt scoring? If I Joe, Marvin, or Al, I’m rolling my eyes.
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong, wrong, wrong
Again, I’m not going to go into how wrong you are about certain players, but what I will say is that you are forgetting that this trade includes the 19th pick, so we can’t use it to draft anything. This trade, if it happens, will be horrible, and Sund will lose all respect he might have earned by getting lucky with the Evans and Flip FA signings before this past season.
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it includes the 19th pick
if that’s the case it sucks….DON"T DO IT this 19th pick is a chance to get a solid player, who could be a star, or good role player in 3 yrs. When we are really going to need one…..three yrs from now Bibby will be done, Joe will not be getting any better, Josh and AL could be All Stars so whoever we draft will be the 3rd part of our big three (or the key to a trade for the 3rd part of our big three)
Marvin is going to be a good player but I don’t think he will ever be an All-Star….he will have some amazing games though
by Cmart34 on Jun 25, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I posted below
Yesterday I saw the ESPN article four minutes after it was posted and it was only about 3 paragraphs. At that point it stated we were in talks with GS and the deal was supposedly going to be Speedy, Acie, and the 19th for Crawford. Of course, wouldn’t you know that would change later throughout the day and when I looked back this morning there is no info regarding the 19th getting swapped. That same link takes you to a full article now also so now I just look goofy making a bunch of posts about us losing the 19th.
I still don’t like this deal unless they really plan on him coming off the bench in place of Flip, and even then I’m not sure if I like it because that means we are clearly tring to resign Bibby, which I don’t agree with. Then again, there hasn’t been much this organization has done over the last ten years, so w/e.
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm nervous
Shoot first and ask questions later? I’m nervous about this. If he’s a ball hog, he cannot be brought in as the PG.
by dstdeelite on Jun 24, 2009 7:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He is no PG. Per Hollinger, he has one of the worst assist rates among guards in the league.
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who? Who said this guy is going to be our starting PG?
People are jumping to conclusion without seeing this for what it is. We get a guy that has had long All-Star caliber stretches in his career for 2 guys that have done nothing for us in the last 2 years for 1.5 mill difference this year. Don’t think about 2010-2011 just this year. This is a steal.
by Hawks-Semi Fan on Jun 24, 2009 7:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
aggreed
It depends on what they do with the rest of the roster though. say what you will about JCrawford, but he’s a good scorer and twice the player that Flip is and Acie probably ever will be
by thirdfALCON on Jun 24, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This will work if...
We resign Bibby, don’t resign flip, and use Crawford as a 6th man. Then it’s basically the same as last year with crawford as an upgrade over flip.
Then we can draft a back-up PF. We’ll basically be the same team with a better bench. I’m ok with that for now.
by thirdfALCON on Jun 24, 2009 7:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Making moves
Honestly, I’m just glad to see the Hawks make some kind of moves that isn’t a stinker right off the bat. This may come back to bite us, but with trades, there are risks. Having a scorer has to be a BIG plus in my book.
by dstdeelite on Jun 24, 2009 7:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Depth Chart
Last year
1st 2nd
PG Bibby Law
SG Joe Flip
SF Marvin Evans
PF Smith Solo
C Horford Zaza
In practice Law and Solo didn’t really play so we had a three man big rotation and a three man guard rotation
This year
1rst 2nd
PG Bibby ??
SG Joe Crawford
SF Marvin Evans
PF Smith ??
C Horford Zaza
We’ll still have a three man rotation at guard, but Crawford will play more minutes than Flip did so we can rest Joe and he won’t be so tired for the playoffs
assuming we draft a big, and he’s somewhat competent, we’ll have a real 4-man big rotation like a grown-up NBA team
by thirdfALCON on Jun 24, 2009 7:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One more note
we would have paid Speedy, Acie, and flip from 10 to 13 million to do a job that Crawford can do better for 9.3 million.The only obstacle to all this is Crawford’s ego, but if he thinks he’s better than Joe and Bibby, he’s crazier than anyone realized
by thirdfALCON on Jun 24, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that this can work IF Crawford is understood to be the third guard and not a substitute for a PG.
However, I FEAR that Woody will see Crawford, Flip, and Joe as the answer to his prayers.
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woodson is not lighting the coaching world on fire or anything, but the way he used Flip last year was fine in my opinion. He filled an important role; scoring off the bench. That may be all he did, but who else on that team was capable of filling that role?
What Scares me about Flip going forward is that he’s about to get paid. Remember that Flip Would probably be out of the League if he had a bad season (read, the kind of year we all expected of him) last year.
The Hawks would not have gotten as far as they did without Flip last year, but does anyone feel comfortable giving him a multi-year contract to the tune of 3 or 4 million? I know I don’t
Now If we re-sign Flip and not Bibby (or another Guard that can shoot and pass) then that would be seriously messed up and horribly incompetent. And you can always take solace in the fact that Woody isn’t the one making decisions on roster moves
by thirdfALCON on Jun 24, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So let Flip walk, sign Bibby...
and still draft a PG somewhere. If the plan is to use Crawford to take Flip’s role, that’s great, I’m all for it. But we need a PG somewhere, and we know what the track record has been.
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not directly
But Woody most definitely affects those decisions inadvertantly. If not, then Sund is dumber than the ASG, and that’s got to be a record low.
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 8:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We got into this a little bit in your post about Sund’s dubious draft history, but I think they should draft whoever the best player is and worry about need later. Drafting a Point because you need one isn’t gonna help if he can’t play. But if the best guy is a point then I’m all for it.
Basically I’m trying to say that we don’t need the Point guard of the future right now. There is still time for that, and if all things are equal I would rather see them draft a PF. It’s more important to have 4 bigs than 4 guards since big men tend to get into foul trouble more often, and I doubt i have to tell you that Woodson is a stickler about that.
by thirdfALCON on Jun 24, 2009 9:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That’s why they took Marvin instead of Paul or Deron Williams. The situational thinking is what got us Sheldon instead of Brandon Roy.
But it depends on where your team is. My opinion is that the Hawks can think about roles and parts more than at any time in recent drafts, because a nucleus is here, and everything else has to be run through them unless you’re losing or trading part of it.
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Should have said “conversely, the situational thinking is what got us Shelden.”
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i disagree because Chris Paul is better than Marvin Williams, if we had drafted Paul we would have gotten the best player, as well as filled a need. So that was just dumb on alot of levels. But at least Marvin is a good player.
What if we had passed on Horford to take Mike Conley because we needed a point guard? I bet you’d be pretty pissed about that.
Or what if Paul was born two years later, Conley two years earlier, and we drafted Conley instead of Marvin because we needed a point? I bet you’d be pissed about that too.
The Sheldon thing was dumb because nobody else had him rated him as high as Billy Knight. If he really thought Sheldon was that good he could have traded down to the low teens and still got him.
by thirdfALCON on Jun 24, 2009 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No...
The conventional wisdom in 2005 was that Marvin Williams was the “best player available” at #2, not Chris Paul. And you know, of course, that comparing Paul to Conley is nuts. Paul was much better out of college than Conley was and everyone knew it then as now.
The pass on Conley did work out well, you’re right. But the Hawks drafted situationally then too, because we certainly needed a big man as much as a point guard.
I think most teams still rightly follow this formula, and I would hope the Hawks do as well: when you need everything you take the BPA if they are head and shoulders above everyone else. For example, if you are the Timberwolves you might be really interested in Tyreke Evans this year, but if you’re the Spurs you go with less risk and more refinement.
The problem in 2005 was that Marvin was being evaluated on potential, as his college numbers just were not that good. The Hawks should have been paying attention to glaring situational need instead of going for a BPA that was marginally the BPA at best.
THIS YEAR, we need a point guard and a big man. Come on, no more 2s, 3s, or 4s unless there’s a trade. We got that stuff already.
by rbubp on Jun 24, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
THIS YEAR I don’t think we should draft a 2 or 3, i think we should draft a big man or a point
THIS YEAR we only need a center if we don’t re-sign Zaza
THIS YEAR we don’t need a point if we resign Bibby
THIS YEAR it’s cool to type random fragments in caps, oh wait, that’s always lame
Comparing Paul to Conley is nuts THIS YEAR, but based on how they looked when they were coming out of college? not so much. They were both drafted with the forth pick (Chris Paul in a weaker draft), and everyone was not sold on either coming out of college. Some people thought it was nuts to pass on him THAT YEAR, but others were worried about his (lack of) size.
As for Williams, he was a backup for a championship team, so he didn’t play enough to have numbers that you can really take with anything but a grain of salt.
THIS YEAR whoever we get at the 19th pick most likely will not be any good. There are the diamonds in the rough that late in the draft, but if your overly concerned with filling a need your gonna miss out.
Would you rather we draft Courtney Lee or Kosta Kufos THIS YEAR? One can play and the other would fill nothing but a need for garbage
by thirdfALCON on Jun 25, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I think they should draft whoever the best player is and worry about need later”
“THIS YEAR I don’t think we should draft a 2 or 3, i think we should draft a big man or a point
THIS YEAR we only need a center if we don’t re-sign Zaza
THIS YEAR we don’t need a point if we resign Bibby”
Ok. Continue at it with your former self. No using caps, though, those are mine. :)
by rbubp on Jun 25, 2009 1:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough lol.
put it this way you, they should draft for need unless someone special is there. For instance in the 2004 draft Pavel Podkolzin© was takin with the 21 pick. Kevin Martin was taken 7 picks later.
I’m saying that the Hawks would be better off drafting Martin them Pavel, because at least they are getting someone that is good. Even though we don’t need a two, your gonna be better off with a quality player than with a garbage big man that fills a need.
If we had a top three pick maybe we could afford to be picky. But we have the 19 pick so lets not pass on Gilbert arenas so we can fill a need with a player that’s garbage.
Lets face it. We aren’t gonna win a championship regardless of who we draft today, If we can get a diamond in the rough we can always trade him for someone who fits into our plans better, and that player might be the guy to put us over the top.
But if all things are really equal, Then by all means draft a big or a point.
And no hard feelings, i was just checking to see if you had a sense of humor. ; )
by thirdfALCON on Jun 25, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im torn on what I want and what we need.
I want a pass first PG, the chances of us doing that, Idk. Id also want a big man whos a true post up Center. Then Id be fine trading J-Smoove and putting Horford at PF in a year or two…
Which one would be better for the team, Idk, but my opinion on it at this moment is draft the best available player THATS NOT A SG. And we should resign Bibby to a veterans minimum so if we draft a PG, He’ll learn from Bibby.
by FlyYouFalcons on Jun 24, 2009 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It is my understanding
That Crawford has an Early Termination Option on his contract in the 09 season, so if he opts out this year, this could just be a cap saver, correct? That’s about 5 million in cap saved. I’m a Pistons fan and know little about Atlanta’s cap situation, but was this just a move who’s sole motivation was to be able to resign Joe Johnson and Zaza/Bibby/Flip/Marvin?
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jun 24, 2009 11:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In order for him to be traded before July 1, Crawford would have to sign an agreement that he won’t opt out of his contract. Not to mention that Crawford would never opt out because he would have trouble getting half as much as he just turned down.
by acie4mvp on Jun 25, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok thanks for clearing that up
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jun 25, 2009 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This begins to clear up a few things
but raises other questions. The biggest question is what role does Jamal Crawford have on this team?
I’d love to see him used as just a more expensive, bigger, better version of Flip Murray. Flip was very effective, career-year effective, as a streak shooter who could bully around poor defensive teams (often using his size and getting to the glass). Crawford has that potential, and could even do one better by actually scoring effectively against good teams. Unfortunately, it’s likely that the upgrade he provides on offense is given back on the defensive end. Still, if I wanted a Flip Murray-type who’s actually an upgrade over Murray, it’s probably Crawford.
Crawford is by no means a PG, and should not be asked to imitate one. This still leaves the question of whether Mike Bibby is coming back, and whether Atlanta will draft a PG. Before this trade, I’d have thought that drafting a PG was a sign that Bibby was on the outs, but the Hawks don’t even have a real PG on the roster right now. The decision might be to sign Bibby as a starter, and draft a backup. There’s some other scenarios, and I’ll try to post my thoughts with some analysis before the draft tomorrow.
by Bronn on Jun 25, 2009 12:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
A rather large part of me has just died.
by acie4mvp on Jun 25, 2009 12:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This organization
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was talking
more about how Acie is gone. But I am pretty much in agreement that this trade is garbage. At least Acie will get to play for the Warriors. And i guess we get a slight upgrade over Flip.
by acie4mvp on Jun 26, 2009 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great
Yesterday when I first read about this, it was being reported that our pick was part of it, but now this morning I can’t seem to find that info anywhere. So, I guess just ignore my constant posting for now, which also might be the best thing for this rumor until more solid information is available.
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 8:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
GREAT TRADE
Crawford is our answer, he gives us a second 1-on-1 player that can score off the dribble and create for himself as well as his teammates. i believe that he can coexist with bibby and joe, he’ll just be an upgrade of flip murray. Crawford has never been on a high caliber play off team, may be he’ll start playing defence. anyways what’s important is that this could be the push that makes the hawks a championship contender… the hawks problem last season was not a lack of talent, but a lack of consistancy. they could not always find someone else to score other than joe johnson, therefore taking the whole team out of the game offensively. NOW CRAWFORD IS OUT ANSWER..
by Djseoh on Jun 25, 2009 11:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
To say that Crawford is consistent is to say that the ASG is a good ownership group
by acie4mvp on Jun 26, 2009 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 26, 2009 7:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh and i forgot to say what the hawks management should do… we should trade for crawford, sign a decent big man that will hustle defend and grab some boards, sign bibby and marvin and pachulia, draft jeff teague… give teague around 10-15 minutes a game and have him mentored by crawford johnson AND bibby, when bibby becomes too old jeff teague can FINALLY take over but his mintes should increase as he ages…
by Djseoh on Jun 25, 2009 11:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ok I like this trade but...
Can we stop talking about how Crawford is gonna “mentor” a point guard that we draft? Unless you want him to teach Jeff Teague how to Ball hog and have a terrible assist ratio
by thirdfALCON on Jun 25, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
This is funny because it comes across as though we have a coach not named Woodson. Draft Lawson, Teague, Flynn, whatever you want fora future PG, he will not play under Woodson if Woody still has Bibby, Johnson, and other vets he can play. Please see Exhibit A: Acie Law.
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have some hope mate
Maybe Acie is just bad and that’s why he didn’t play. We really have no why of knowing, but we’ll find out now. If he can’t play for Don Nelson he can’t play for anyone.
by thirdfALCON on Jun 25, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Deal For Hawks.
Great Deal for Hawks. Jamaal Crawford is a Proven NBA Starting Guard.
Golden State is Getting a Good Guard who is Young, and a NBA guard who when healthy was a good Backup. Speedy was good at steals when Healthy.
Jamal Avg over 19 points a game.
That will Leave The Hawks Still have a need at PG; Some of the best Point Guard selection, (as well as Other Guards This Year) ; in years.
Jamal will be an excellent Backup for Johnson as well as be a Backup for Bibby or Be a Starter instead of Bibby, or compete for starting job, that is if we get Bibby back, If not he’s solidly entrenched NBA veteran Guard. Although if a PG is Picked (and needs to Pick at Least one Hopefully in First Round at 19th pick.) If He is Good enough Passing; maybe Eric Maynor had over 20 points a game and 6.0 Apg, or others, but
There is Good Talent at Guard.t
by Jeff Gibson on Jun 25, 2009 4:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Peachtree Hoops
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
