PDA

View Full Version : Let's Trade Jamal Crawford



90'sNBARocked
09-14-2010, 12:55 PM
2) The Atlanta Hawks trade Jamal Crawford to the Indiana Pacers in exchange for T.J. Ford and Dahntay Jones

Despite the offensive prowess Crawford has unleashed in the Hawks lineup, lockdown defense has not nor will it ever become a strong part of his game. Last season departed head coach Mike Woodson set him loose in his heavy isolation offense.

Times are changing as Drew has went on record this summer stating that he'll want more defensive accountability from his team and the offense will feature much less one on one isolations.

Enter Dahntay Jones, who has carved out a longer career than most projected on the strength of aggressive, tenacious and ball smothering defense. Last season, Jones posted career-highs in points and rebounds at 10.2 and 3.0 respectively. He is also owed only $8.1 million over the next three seasons. Guys that can consistently annoy players such as Dwyane Wade, Ray Allen, and Vince Carter on the defensive end are at a premium. Jones is one of the rare players out there willing and able to roll up his sleeves in order to handle the dirty work. His perimeter defense would be an instant asset.

Keep in mind, the Pacers organization remains high on Jones, but the Hawks' main objective in this deal would be prying T.J. Ford and his $8.5 million expiring deal out of Indy.

Using the term pry might be too strong of a sentiment, since Ford has routinely rotated in and out of head coach Jim O'Brien's doghouse. The Pacers have been actively shopping Ford all summer and after acquiring last season's rookie surprise, Darren Collison, it would appear that Indy would like to ship Ford out before the start of training camp. From the Hawks perspective, bringing in a proven veteran such as Ford gives Teague another year to learn the ropes. Plus, the two players possess similar dribble-drive speed games which would give Teague even more seasoning on how to maximize all the tools within his skill set.

Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=17321#ixzz0zWXHLLcU

Would you guys take a look at that move? It rids us of Ford, but not sure what type of contract Crawford would be looking for

Psyren
09-14-2010, 12:58 PM
That's a move that doesn't excite me nor does it make me upset. I've always kind of thought Crawford was chucker, but he's a talented scorer and can light you up in a hurry.

Not to mention, Dahntay and TJ would be gone, giving us one other spot for Magnum.

I could live with it I suppose.

90'sNBARocked
09-14-2010, 01:00 PM
That's a move that doesn't excite me nor does it make me upset. I've always kind of thought Crawford was chucker, but he's a talented scorer and can light you up in a hurry.

Not to mention, Dahntay and TJ would be gone, giving us one other spot for Magnum.

I could live with it I suppose.

I was in between. I mean on the one hand it gives us a TJ Ford free team, on the other Crawford is a scorer but also a tweener

naptownmenace
09-14-2010, 01:05 PM
We have too many wings as it is and this trade doesn't do anything to alleviate that problem. I like JC but adding him to the mix would only take minutes away from Paul George and slow his development.

Doddage
09-14-2010, 01:05 PM
I'm not a huge fan of Crawford, but I'd do that deal in a heartbeat. Clear a roster spot, get rid of Ford, slash future salary, and bring back a starting caliber player who can play both guard spots? Sounds good to me.

Tom White
09-14-2010, 01:42 PM
I'm not a huge fan of Crawford, but I'd do that deal in a heartbeat. Clear a roster spot, get rid of Ford, slash future salary, and bring back a starting caliber player who can play both guard spots? Sounds good to me.

You would not really be cutting salary, if you intend to hold onto Crawford. He wants an extended contract for fairly high dollars.

He is a bit of a chucker, but I had not heard that his defense was that weak. Can anyone add comments about his D?

pacer4ever
09-14-2010, 01:46 PM
like it cause we could trade him at the deadline to a good team for good value or keep him which i would like 2

TMJ31
09-14-2010, 01:49 PM
Well, considering that JC torches us pretty much every time we play against him, maybe the "If you can't beat em..." mentality isn't such a bad thought... ;)

Speed
09-14-2010, 02:00 PM
Well it gets you out from under TJ and really D Jones too. I'm not a Crawford fan for exactly the reasons they say, he's not good defensively, but honestly, he's no worse than what Danny's been giving them.

As for Crawford's salary expectations, he's crazy, he's not getting 10 million a year. If so, let him walk.

The log jam a the wing wont' be worse, really. I think they are going to alleviate that by playing Posey and DG at the PF, much to our dismay. Honestly, I think D Jones' defense is woefully overated.

I really don't see a down side on this trade. He improves your team now, he's an expiring contract, he moves TJ, and D Jones smaller, but longer contract. To me, it's a no brainer.

On the good side, Crawford has really been pretty clutch throughout his career. He'd clearly be the best two guard available on this team at this point.

90'sNBARocked
09-14-2010, 02:02 PM
You would not really be cutting salary, if you intend to hold onto Crawford. He wants an extended contract for fairly high dollars.
He is a bit of a chucker, but I had not heard that his defense was that weak. Can anyone add comments about his D?

Overview: A very talented offensive-minded shooting guard. Has solid size for the two at 6-4 without shoes. Possesses a terrific 6-10 wingspan. Adds great quickness and leaping ability as well. Shows good lateral quickness defensively. Not very strong, and could stand to add some muscle to his frame. A very capable shooter with the ability to get to the rim. Will tally some assists, but looks for his shot first. Doesn’t offer much on the defensive end. Played at the storied Rainier Beach HS in Seattle. Needed only one season at Michigan to propel himself into the lottery. Scored at an impressive rate for a freshman in the Big Ten. Took a couple of seasons to adjust to the NBA, but became a prolific scorer by his fourth season in the League. Brings a lot to the table on the offensive end, but doesn’t have the efficiency to be relied on to carry the load. Typically a league-leader in minutes and field goal attempts, but struggles with his shooting percentages and defense. Puts up big per-game numbers on bad teams, and has never played on a winning team in his career. Gives back off the court and has matured quite a bit during his career.

Offense: A talented scorer that puts up great numbers with mediocre efficiency. Gets about half of his offense running pick and rolls and going one-on-one. Will also get some touches as a spot up shooter in drive and dish situations and in transition. Has a nice jump shot with good arc and nice lift. Good three point shooter, but can get streaky. Very good in catch and shoot situations, having the ability to create separation coming off screens and shoot with a hand in his face. Shows the ability to drive in either direction and pull up for jumpers. Not a great shooter when forced to pull up going right, opts to go left much more often. Will over-dribble at times when he doesn’t create separation immediately, tending to go right into the heart of the defense and force up some tough running jumpers off-balance. Very good with the ball in his hands, showing great change of direction quickness with his crossover and a lot of nice hesitation moves. Not a great finisher at the rim due to his lack of strength. Still goes to the line at a good rate and isn’t entirely averse to taking contact. Shoots a great percentage from the foul line. Does a good job finding his teammates when he’s pushing the ball or turning the corner on the pick and roll. Turns the ball over at a fairly low rate due to how heavily he relies on his jump-shot. Will put up great numbers, but is better suited as a complimentary scorer than a leading one.

Defense: Has the lateral quickness and length to a factor, but tends to shy away from taking advantage of his tools when he’s not motivated. Comes up with a few steals by virtue of his incredibly quick hands and superb wingspan. Doesn’t make hustle plays, but shows some anticipation and timing. Won’t show a lot of effort playing defense on the ball. Tends to avoid getting in a low stance, allowing slower players to beat him into the lane. Will go under some screens and has a hard time fighting to get through solid picks on the perimeter. Gets a hand up when his man looks to score, but doesn’t get in position to effectively use his length. Usually opts to sag off his man, allowing him to accumulate some mid-to-long rebounds over the course of a game. Isn’t a great weakside defender either. Doesn’t leave his man, which is a good thing, but closes out very high and will sometimes take himself out of the play. Often winds up having to guard taller players, making it hard for him to be effective. Was much more effective defensively when he was coming off the bench and was playing with a sense of urgency.
From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Jamal-Crawford-2085/#ixzz0zWoEAjcp
http://www.draftexpress.com

beast23
09-14-2010, 02:04 PM
You would not really be cutting salary, if you intend to hold onto Crawford. He wants an extended contract for fairly high dollars.

He is a bit of a chucker, but I had not heard that his defense was that weak. Can anyone add comments about his D?Crawford's salary is about the same as Ford's and Jone's combined. He is also in the last year of his contract and wants an extension.

Because he is in the last year of his contract and is a players that would easily break into our rotation, I'd say this deal would be a no-brainer.

Further strengthening the deal is the likelihood that Crawford is a highly desirable asset probably coveted by several teams. Since we have already traded our Murphy, having Crawford would give us a very tradeable asset that we would probably be willing to part with. I think that Crawford could be used to acquire a very good player around the trading deadline or as part of a sign-and-trade next summer.

This deal would give us a player that would play a key role for us as long as we choose to keep him in exchange for a player that the Pacers do not want on their roster. And, both players are in the last year of their contracts. The decision on this trade is about as simple as it gets; perhaps even simpler than the decision to part with Murphy to acquire Collison.

BornReady
09-14-2010, 02:29 PM
if we were to do this, would we ultimately be helping them retain Horford?

90'sNBARocked
09-14-2010, 02:39 PM
if we were to do this, would we ultimately be helping them retain Horford?

Yep

Doddage
09-14-2010, 02:41 PM
if we were to do this, would we ultimately be helping them retain Horford?
No. If anything, we'd be affecting their cap situation by adding $2.7 million to their 2011-2012 payroll (and if Dahntay picks up his 2012-2013 option, they'd have $2.9 million on the books for that season).

Eleazar
09-14-2010, 03:19 PM
I like the trade because it gets rid of two players, allowing us to sign Rolle. Getting rid of Ford for Crawford to me is mostly neutral since they are both expiring. Getting rid of Dhantay is a positive because it mean we don't have his contract on the books, and puts him on a team where he may have a better chance of playing.

CableKC
09-14-2010, 03:24 PM
I don't understand the need for a PG by the Hawks if they have Bibby. On top of that, unless they have determined that Jeff Teague is more of a SG then he is a PG....then I'd think that they want to continue to see what Teague can do for them. Getting TJ maybe a move to solidify their roster for the Playoffs that would not affect their bottomline.

I don't mind moving Inferno....but I'd want to get a clearer picture of what we do ( if anything ) with BRush and Lance.

Also....if the only way that Crawford accepts this trade is by taking an extension....then my answer is "pass". My guess he's going to ask for a huge one. He's a very competent scorer...but I don't want him as a long-term answer at the SG spot.

MyFavMartin
09-14-2010, 03:29 PM
I'd do it and be thinking about trading JC come the trade deadline, if the right deal came along.

Eleazar
09-14-2010, 03:43 PM
Also....if the only way that Crawford accepts this trade is by taking an extension....then my answer is "pass". My guess he's going to ask for a huge one. He's a very competent scorer...but I don't want him as a long-term answer at the SG spot.

I agree with this. The only way this is worth it is if we can easily and quickly get rid of him.

pacers74
09-14-2010, 03:51 PM
I agree with CableKC and Eleazar. I want to give PG a chance to win the starting job at SG. He might not start the season at the starting spot, but if we get Crawford for the long term, where does that put PG. On the bench? I want to at least give him a chance, because I am betting that in Jan or Feb PG will show he is the answer at SG.

Mourning
09-14-2010, 03:58 PM
Nope. Not interested. T.J. will expire a year from now anyway. If need be let him sit on the sidelines or in the stands, I don't care. If it's better then to make a deal for a player who we don't need while losing some grit in Jones then I'm opposed to this move.

CableKC
09-14-2010, 04:04 PM
We have too many wings as it is and this trade doesn't do anything to alleviate that problem. I like JC but adding him to the mix would only take minutes away from Paul George and slow his development.
Unless PG shows that he's an impact player in his rookie year at training camp, I'm more inclined to believe that PG will take a hit in the minutes department with Dunleavy and ( most likely ) Posey in the mix for minutes in the next season or two. My guess is that he will get as many minutes as Granger did in his rookie year.

Speed
09-14-2010, 04:07 PM
Unless PG shows that he's an impact player in his rookie year at training camp, I'm more inclined to believe that PG will take a hit in the minutes department with Dunleavy and ( most likely ) Posey in the mix for minutes in the next season or two. My guess is that he will get as many minutes as Granger did in his rookie year.

I could live with that.

78 games 22.6 minutes

BornReady
09-14-2010, 04:07 PM
Nope. Not interested. T.J. will expire a year from now anyway. If need be let him sit on the sidelines or in the stands, I don't care. If it's better then to make a deal for a player who we don't need while losing some grit in Jones then I'm opposed to this move.

what if it helps us sign Magnum?

Mourning
09-14-2010, 04:29 PM
Then I'm still not sure if this is the right move. You need some veterans in your team also on the defensive end.

BornReady
09-14-2010, 04:31 PM
Then I'm still not sure if this is the right move. You need some veterans in your team also on the defensive end.

couldn't Posey fill that role?

90'sNBARocked
09-14-2010, 05:08 PM
I don't understand the need for a PG by the Hawks if they have Bibby. On top of that, unless they have determined that Jeff Teague is more of a SG then he is a PG....then I'd think that they want to continue to see what Teague can do for them. Getting TJ maybe a move to solidify their roster for the Playoffs that would not affect their bottomline.

I don't mind moving Inferno....but I'd want to get a clearer picture of what we do ( if anything ) with BRush and Lance.

Also....if the only way that Crawford accepts this trade is by taking an extension....then my answer is "pass". My guess he's going to ask for a huge one. He's a very competent scorer...but I don't want him as a long-term answer at the SG spot.

because Bibby is all but toast and they feel teague is not ready enough

CableKC
09-14-2010, 05:12 PM
I could live with that.

78 games 22.6 minutes
Really? Damn...I thought that he barely played. Scratch that.....my guess is that he'll play minimal garbage minutes behind Dunleavy and ( as long as he'll be here ) Posey.

Unless PG impresses JO'B much like Iggy impressed him as the Coach of hte Sixers....I'm gonna default to the old notion that JO'B will give more minutes to vets like Dunleavy and Posey before giving them to PG and Lance. At least for this season....I'm more inclined to believe that we'll see a SG/SF rotation of BRush/Granger/Dunleavy/Posey before seeing BRush/Granger/George/Lance.

Cactus Jax
09-14-2010, 05:23 PM
Probably need a 3rd team in order to do this deal to take Crawford, and give the Pacers an expiring and/or more young talent.

90'sNBARocked
09-14-2010, 05:37 PM
couldn't Posey fill that role?

Depends on what kind of shape he comes to camp in

Justin Tyme
09-14-2010, 05:49 PM
I'd do this trade in a heartbeat while whistling n skipping never looking back.

Eleazar
09-14-2010, 05:52 PM
Nope. Not interested. T.J. will expire a year from now anyway. If need be let him sit on the sidelines or in the stands, I don't care. If it's better then to make a deal for a player who we don't need while losing some grit in Jones then I'm opposed to this move.

This would be a move for the future. Let's be honest Jones doesn't have a future here with the Pacers, yet he has 3 years left on his contract. It is unlikely that a better trade will come around for Jones. I understand this isn't a Murphy, Dunleavy, or Ford situation, but that is still 2.5 to 3 million that could be better used. Also it makes Atlanta just slightly less likely to be able to re-sign Horford and slightly increases the Pacers chances of signing him.

McKeyFan
09-14-2010, 05:56 PM
I don't see why the Pacers wouldn't do this.

Why would Atlanta? For TJ Ford?

Really?

xBulletproof
09-14-2010, 06:02 PM
I'd rather give those minutes to Paul George and look to trade TJ around the deadline.

Collison should be eating up 35 minutes per game at PG anyway. The rest will get divided up among AJ, Ford and maybe Stephenson? That doesn't leave many minutes for Ford to annoy me anyway.

bulldog
09-14-2010, 06:14 PM
He wants an extension - that's why he won't stay with the Hawks. They won't give him one.

If the NBA had no salary cap, I'd do this deal in a heartbeat, but in the real world it boils down to what kind of an extension Crawford wants.

Since the Hawks are looking to move him, my guess is "not a reasonable one."

Justin Tyme
09-14-2010, 06:18 PM
Probably need a 3rd team in order to do this deal to take Crawford, and give the Pacers an expiring and/or more young talent.


Crawford is an expiring that gives the Pacers 2.5 mil more in expiring salary. Crawford will cover the loss of Rush this year, so the Pacers won't be hurt with his loss next season. Sure being able to get a pick back would be nice too, but as far as I'm concerned it isn't necessary.

xBulletproof
09-14-2010, 06:25 PM
Crawford will cover the loss of Rush this year

..... where's Rush going this year?

bulldog
09-14-2010, 06:41 PM
To add a little more info to this thread:

Crawford gets $10 million this year. In my experience guys extend for greater amounts than their original contract, since, generally, guys are signing extensions when their experience with their current team is working nicely, and they expect to be rewarded. Considering the Hawks and Crawford are obviously far apart on their figures, I'm gonna guess Crawford wants a small raise.

So he's asking for a little over $12 mil/year, let's say. That means we're looking at a a 4 yr/50 million contract, for example, for a 30 year old guard. Baaaaaaaaaaad idea.

Now, if he's looking for significantly less, I'd be all for the trade. I'd think he'd fit well and add a needed scoring punch to our backcourt, as well as pester opposing 2 guards. But he's significantly older than our core group, and if he were asking for a reasonable contract, the Hawks would have re-signed him by now, IMHO.

BBALL56HACKER
09-14-2010, 07:06 PM
Pacers do NOT have to extend him past this year. trade for him -let his contract expire ( so what if he wants more years). Pacers do not need him in there future plans but it does leave a opening for signing Rolle who very much could be !

bulldog
09-14-2010, 07:30 PM
BBall Hacker -
So essentially this trade boils down to a Dahntay Jones salary dump. That's OK, I guess, if you really think he has so little value.

You're right we don't have to extend him, but in that case we wouldn't want an unhappy Crawford hanging around our bench, so we'd probably cut him, right? He's unhappy enough in ATL not getting an extension, doubt he'd be too happy here.

That's fine, I guess, but just to be clear we're not trading FOR anyone. That's a deal to cut Jones salary off our books.

pacer4ever
09-14-2010, 07:39 PM
To add a little more info to this thread:

Crawford gets $10 million this year. In my experience guys extend for greater amounts than their original contract, since, generally, guys are signing extensions when their experience with their current team is working nicely, and they expect to be rewarded. Considering the Hawks and Crawford are obviously far apart on their figures, I'm gonna guess Crawford wants a small raise.

So he's asking for a little over $12 mil/year, let's say. That means we're looking at a a 4 yr/50 million contract, for example, for a 30 year old guard. Baaaaaaaaaaad idea.

Now, if he's looking for significantly less, I'd be all for the trade. I'd think he'd fit well and add a needed scoring punch to our backcourt, as well as pester opposing 2 guards. But he's significantly older than our core group, and if he were asking for a reasonable contract, the Hawks would have re-signed him by now, IMHO.

he would be a rental and trade bait to contender at the trade deadline nothing more which could help us land a really good 4 say if the thuder are struggling we could take mo pete and nick collison who is a nice 4 and we are tradeing a cancer in tj which would be apostive and my man magnum will sign

BornReady
09-14-2010, 08:11 PM
BBall Hacker -
So essentially this trade boils down to a Dahntay Jones salary dump. That's OK, I guess, if you really think he has so little value.

You're right we don't have to extend him, but in that case we wouldn't want an unhappy Crawford hanging around our bench, so we'd probably cut him, right? He's unhappy enough in ATL not getting an extension, doubt he'd be too happy here.

That's fine, I guess, but just to be clear we're not trading FOR anyone. That's a deal to cut Jones salary off our books.

I would see it as more of a deal so that Magnum Rolle can get signed. We don't have a roster spot for him right now. Crawford would probably be a 1 year SG rental or something.

OakMoses
09-14-2010, 08:22 PM
Would I do this trade? Yes.

Why? Playoffs.

Would I consider re-signing Jamal Crawford? No.

D-BONE
09-14-2010, 08:30 PM
Would I do this trade? Yes.

Why? Playoffs.

Would I consider re-signing Jamal Crawford? No.

Yeah. If we can live with it being a one-year rental scenario, he probably provides that one more consistent scoring contributor we need offensively. Cut gaping holes in half. Left only with interior D/rebounding weakness.

Eleazar
09-14-2010, 08:31 PM
BBall Hacker -
So essentially this trade boils down to a Dahntay Jones salary dump. That's OK, I guess, if you really think he has so little value.

You're right we don't have to extend him, but in that case we wouldn't want an unhappy Crawford hanging around our bench, so we'd probably cut him, right? He's unhappy enough in ATL not getting an extension, doubt he'd be too happy here.

That's fine, I guess, but just to be clear we're not trading FOR anyone. That's a deal to cut Jones salary off our books.
That and he most likely has more trade value than Jones does. As well making it more difficult for Atlanta to re-sign Horford is always a good thing.

Also you could tell him this is his chance to prove he is worth 10, 11, 12 million or whatever he wants as a starter on the Pacers.

beast23
09-14-2010, 09:25 PM
That and he most likely has more trade value than Jones does. As well making it more difficult for Atlanta to re-sign Horford is always a good thing.

Also you could tell him this is his chance to prove he is worth 10, 11, 12 million or whatever he wants as a starter on the Pacers.I really don't think that Jones's additional 2.5M on Atlanta's payroll will have any bearing on their ability to re-sign Horford.

Atlanta is probably more than willing right now to create a new contract for Horford. The holdup more than likely comes down to whether Horford chooses to test the waters next summer as a restricted free agent or to take whatever Atlanta is offering now. Atlanta isn't going to come out of the gate with a max offer, so the longer Horford waits, the sweeter the deal will get. Atlanta's best offer will probably come just prior to Horford gaining RFA status because Atlanta doesn't want him testing the waters and Horford wants the best possible deal.

I believe that Crawford is a significant offensive upgrade over Rush and his addition to our roster would certainly help whatever playoff chances we have. As for a possible negative reaction due to the trade or his wanting an extension, I personally don't believe that the possible downside could be any worse than the downside the Pacers would experience by TJ still being on the roster during the season.

And, since no one knows what the new CBA will do to veteran player salaries, it is possible that Crawford may not be able to match his present salary in a new contract. Under those circumstances, if he proves himself with the Pacers, maybe he does prove to be someone we want to re-sign. At the very least, he would be a decent asset for potential trades.

odeez
09-14-2010, 09:42 PM
I like JC, watched him with the Warriors, he was fun player to watch and can be lights out with his shot. Could be a great guy to have on the team, but I agree with others about either using him in a midseason or keeping him through the year and not resigning him.

bulldog
09-14-2010, 09:47 PM
As for a possible negative reaction due to the trade or his wanting an extension, I personally don't believe that the possible downside could be any worse than the downside the Pacers would experience by TJ still being on the roster during the season.


I strongly disagree. This is a guy making public trade demands for an extension despite being in a pretty good situation. TJ has been a pretty darn good trooper considering everything that's happened in Indiana the past couple of years, even if he didn't work out for us basketball-wise.

I don't think it's possible to successfully bring aboard a 30 year old vet who just forced his way off a play-off team in order to sign an extension, not give him an extension, tell him to play with a team that is obviously youth-oriented and not a lock to make the playoffs, and make it obvious that we plan on moving him some point. Terrible for chemistry, terrible idea.

As for those who want to hold on to Crawford as a trade chip, bear in mind that after we trade for him, his trade value will have been established. That will mean that Atlanta determined the best they could get in exchange for his expiring contract was another expiring contract and Dahntay Jones. Do you really want to bring aboard an unhappy guy demanding an extension so that you could then swing him for some other team's equivalent of TJ Ford and Dahntay Jones?

This deal only makes sense if for some miraculous reason he agrees to a reasonable contract extension or if it's really the only way we can clear out a slot for Rolle (which I doubt). If it's the latter, we should just swing a three-way and send him right out the door immediately rather than bringing on board an unhappy vet.

McKeyFan
09-14-2010, 09:58 PM
I think a one year rental of Crawford could be helpful.

He'd be a free agent the following year, so his year with us would be a "contract year" so to speak, and he'd be motivated to play hard and win.

Might get us into the second round of the playoffs.

BornReady
09-14-2010, 10:08 PM
I strongly disagree. This is a guy making public trade demands for an extension despite being in a pretty good situation. TJ has been a pretty darn good trooper considering everything that's happened in Indiana the past couple of years, even if he didn't work out for us basketball-wise.

I don't think it's possible to successfully bring aboard a 30 year old vet who just forced his way off a play-off team in order to sign an extension, not give him an extension, tell him to play with a team that is obviously youth-oriented and not a lock to make the playoffs, and make it obvious that we plan on moving him some point. Terrible for chemistry, terrible idea.

As for those who want to hold on to Crawford as a trade chip, bear in mind that after we trade for him, his trade value will have been established. That will mean that Atlanta determined the best they could get in exchange for his expiring contract was another expiring contract and Dahntay Jones. Do you really want to bring aboard an unhappy guy demanding an extension so that you could then swing him for some other team's equivalent of TJ Ford and Dahntay Jones?

This deal only makes sense if for some miraculous reason he agrees to a reasonable contract extension or if it's really the only way we can clear out a slot for Rolle (which I doubt). If it's the latter, we should just swing a three-way and send him right out the door immediately rather than bringing on board an unhappy vet.

Is he making his demands public? Is he unhappy? From what I can gather they're just trying to negotiate and figure out the best course of action. Can you blame a guy for wanting an extension after doing so well? And can you blame him for wanting long term stability? I believe we may have very different ideas of Crawford is handling this situation- perhaps I am wrong, but I have not seen any public demands. Another thing to keep in mind is that he actually produces on court and was 6th man of the year. Even if Ford has been a good sport about playing time, he hasn't really done anything...useful. From playing in the league for 11 years, I believe that Crawford's value has already been established. With that being said, I'd have no problem keeping him for a year, where he can and will be motivated to play for a new contract. We all know how much expiring contracts are worth now. Crawford's expiring will be perfect for any team desperate of cap space or looking to make a push deep into the playoffs- I don't think trading him and getting adequate value will be too difficult.

MLB007
09-14-2010, 10:21 PM
You would not really be cutting salary, if you intend to hold onto Crawford. He wants an extended contract for fairly high dollars.

He is a bit of a chucker, but I had not heard that his defense was that weak. Can anyone add comments about his D?

what D? :cool:

imawhat
09-14-2010, 10:23 PM
I wouldn't do this trade. I'd much rather see our young players develop over some short rental.

PaceBalls
09-14-2010, 10:27 PM
Well, considering that JC torches us pretty much every time we play against him, maybe the "If you can't beat em..." mentality isn't such a bad thought... ;)

That is what happened with TJ Ford, he killed us when he played against the Pacers...

bulldog
09-14-2010, 11:58 PM
We all know how much expiring contracts are worth now. Crawford's expiring will be perfect for any team desperate of cap space or looking to make a push deep into the playoffs- I don't think trading him and getting adequate value will be too difficult.

If he's traded to us, Crawford's expiring contract is, by definition, worth TJ Ford and Dahntay Jones. If the Hawks trade to us, that's the best they thought they could get now and at the trade deadline.

Trust me, they're thinking along the same lines as we are. If this rumor has any legs to it, they just can't get much in exchange for him, not sure why we would be able to.


Is he making his demands public? Is he unhappy? From what I can gather they're just trying to negotiate and figure out the best course of action. Can you blame a guy for wanting an extension after doing so well?

You're absolutely correct; he hasn't gone and complained to the media or made a scene at a press conference, and by our low modern standards, he gets props for that. But that just means he's reasonable. Do you really think a 30 year old vet who's making a stand and asking for more job security would be happy to be traded from the ATL to Indiana for a 1-year rental, a youth oriented team, and even less job security?

What you're saying is that you feel its worth bringing in that 1 year rental in order to increase our wins by 5 games in a season where we're obviously building toward the future. And of course, that's the best case scenario, in my opinion it's much more likely be a headache and a lockerroom problem, even if he's a nice and reasonable guy.

Once again, I like Crawford as a player, I wouldn't mind bringing him in and re-signing him if the price were right. And if we want the two-for-one, it should be relatively easy to just move him on to a third team or cut him. I don't see the value in trading for a potential lockerroom problem who'll take minutes from younger guys when he's not gonna drastically alter your team's fortunes.

O'Bird
09-15-2010, 01:25 AM
He is a bit of a chucker, but I had not heard that his defense was that weak. Can anyone add comments about his D?

First, depends on what you mean by "chucker" - he creates a lot of shots, more for himself than his teammates - in that sense, you could call him a chucker, but he was very efficient at scoring last season and turned it over rarely; so far, you could say that he's Joe Johnson or Brandon Roy with fewer assists and more efficient scoring.

He's a poor defender, in my opinion, though not epochally poor. Small frame, which doesn't help him negotiating picks, and there isn't enough fight in him to make up for it.

He also has a reputation for being headstrong.

He had a career year going into his contract year and gave them more than they expected. Now he's looking to get paid.

He's 30. I say pass.

.

BBALL56HACKER
09-15-2010, 05:16 AM
[QUOTE=bulldog;1060929]If he's traded to us, Crawford's expiring contract is, by definition, worth TJ Ford and Dahntay Jones. If the Hawks trade to us, that's the best they thought they could get now and at the trade deadline.

Trust me, they're thinking along the same lines as we are. If this rumor has any legs to it, they just can't get much in exchange for him, not sure why we would be able to.



You're absolutely correct; he hasn't gone and complained to the media or made a scene at a press conference, and by our low modern standards, he gets props for that. But that just means he's reasonable. Do you really think a 30 year old vet who's making a stand and asking for more job security would be happy to be traded from the ATL to Indiana for a 1-year rental, a youth oriented team, and even less job security?

What you're saying is that you feel its worth bringing in that 1 year rental in order to increase our wins by 5 games in a season where we're obviously building toward the future. And of course, that's the best case scenario, in my opinion it's much more likely be a headache and a lockerroom problem, even if he's a nice and reasonable guy.



So you are saying we better sign Foster /M.D. to contract extensions so they won`t be problems in the lockerroom too. With Crawford being on the last year he is going to play hard and keep his nose down so it would not hurt his new deal NEXT year ( would you really count him as a top free agent ?-not me with what we need more)

bulldog
09-15-2010, 09:25 AM
No, I'm not saying that, because Foster/MD haven't demanded a contract extension. Crawford has. Not quite as publicly as other players have in the past, but he has made it pointedly clear that he will be unhappy unless he has an extension.

No idea what Foster or MD have to do with that.

As far as Crawford playing hard and keeping his nose down: well, he certainly isn't keeping his nose down right now, is he? Again, not quite as vocal as other players have been, but his thoughts are certainly being leaked to the media and he's managing to draw a lot of attention to his desire for a new contract.

Tom White
09-15-2010, 09:58 AM
couldn't Posey fill that role?

Wouldn't you rather have a guy who plays BOTH ends of the floor? I don't know about you, but I get really tired of players who only play ONE end of the floor.



Even if Ford has been a good sport about playing time, he hasn't really done anything...useful. From playing in the league for 11 years..

...and so tell me again why Atlanta would want him? For a wonderful talent like Crawford?


First, depends on what you mean by "chucker" - he creates a lot of shots, more for himself than his teammates - in that sense, you could call him a chucker, but he was very efficient at scoring last season and turned it over rarely

He also has a reputation for being headstrong.



When I think of a "chucker" I think about someone like Bracey Wright. A player who thinks shoot first - way too often. Maybe it was unfair to put that label on Crawford. I'm not sure, but I thought he was supposed to be somewhat inefficient by his shooting percentages.

If he really is headstrong, I'm not sure that is a good thing for this team.

O'Bird
09-15-2010, 10:29 AM
.... A player who thinks shoot first - way too often. Maybe it was unfair to put that label on Crawford. I'm not sure, but I thought he was supposed to be somewhat inefficient by his shooting percentages.

He has certainly been inefficient in the past, but he had a very good year in that area. Given his history and the huge likelihood that a 30-year old with a career year is likely to regress to the mean, it's not a great bet to extend him to bigger money.

Shot a lot of threes, good %: .382, but has a variety in his repertoire. The threes depress his overall %, hiding the very healthy .491 on twos.

He also took regular trips to the line (four a game, good but not in Granger's league), and rarely missed at the stripe (A-plus FT shooter at .857; he was even better the year before).

Took good care of the ball, too. Add it all up and you've got a guy who'll get you points efficiently - though as I say what's predictable is that he won't be quite so efficient next year.


If he really is headstrong, I'm not sure that is a good thing for this team.

I'm sure that that is NOT a good thing, least of all for a team with a young core and some other youngsters who want to get into the core.

However, guys do grow up, usually, though they may get saddled with stuff people said about them early on. In a business where "the content of a man's character" is so central - and should be - and where so much money is on the line, the bad rap you earn for yourself tends to get magnified and linger, even after it no longer applies.

.

Tom White
09-15-2010, 11:09 AM
He has certainly been inefficient in the past, but he had a very good year in that area. Given his history and the huge likelihood that a 30-year old with a career year is likely to regress to the mean, it's not a great bet to extend him to bigger money.

Shot a lot of threes, good %: .382, but has a variety in his repertoire. The threes depress his overall %, hiding the very healthy .491 on twos.

He also took regular trips to the line (four a game, good but not in Granger's league), and rarely missed at the stripe (A-plus FT shooter at .857; he was even better the year before).

Took good care of the ball, too. Add it all up and you've got a guy who'll get you points efficiently - though as I say what's predictable is that he won't be quite so efficient next year.



I'm sure that that is NOT a good thing, least of all for a team with a young core and some other youngsters who want to get into the core.

However, guys do grow up, usually, though they may get saddled with stuff people said about them early on. In a business where "the content of a man's character" is so central - and should be - and where so much money is on the line, the bad rap you earn for yourself tends to get magnified and linger, even after it no longer applies.

.

Thanks for the summary on him.

As to the headstrong part......I guess it depends somewhat on a person's definition of the term. To some, it may mean determined. To me, it means bull-headed or stubborn.

beast23
09-15-2010, 11:38 AM
If he's traded to us, Crawford's expiring contract is, by definition, worth TJ Ford and Dahntay Jones. If the Hawks trade to us, that's the best they thought they could get now and at the trade deadline.

Trust me, they're thinking along the same lines as we are. If this rumor has any legs to it, they just can't get much in exchange for him, not sure why we would be able to.

You're absolutely correct; he hasn't gone and complained to the media or made a scene at a press conference, and by our low modern standards, he gets props for that. But that just means he's reasonable. Do you really think a 30 year old vet who's making a stand and asking for more job security would be happy to be traded from the ATL to Indiana for a 1-year rental, a youth oriented team, and even less job security?Wait a minute.

I do not agree whatsoever that a player's value is always established by his recent trade. For example, your logic would indicate that Collison's value is equivalent to that of Murphy. There is no one on PD, nor virtually any national sportswriter that seems to agree with that statement.

It is possible that one team gets the better of another team in a trade. I personally believe that this is fairly common in trades made at the trade deadline. A team positioning itself for the playoffs has a specific need and they are willing to give up a lot to get it. Or the other way around, a team wants to gain additonal cap space for next season, so they are willing to give up a pretty decent player to a playoff team in exchange for expiring contracts and draft choices.

If the Pacers were to acquire Crawford, he can even go public with his desire for an extension if he wants, I really don't care. The bottom line is that, much like Dunleavy, he is in a contract year and has to play his arse off to prove that his prior good year was not a fluke.

Crawford is an 18ppg player capable of creating for himself. That is a skill that is relatively rare on our roster. Really, a player capable of creating for himself is not a common commodity on any roster, and that is precisely what makes him very valuable in February for any team attempting to gain an "X-factor" for the playoffs. As an example, the Pistons knew that they needed to become stronger in their frontcourt and were able to acquire Ben Wallace in a gift of a trade, and as a result (IMO anyway) were able to progress to the NBA finals and win a title instead of the Pacers.

The Pacers have attempted to deal Ford for 1 to 1-1/2 seasons without success. I suppose they may be able to do so at the trade deadline, since a team would only have to absorb him for 2-3 months. However, I don't think any argument is necessary to establish that Crawford is a more desirable asset that would have to be easier to deal than Ford.

The Pacers appear to be following a model where they stockpile assets while improving their roster. Granted, they would prefer to stockpile young promising players rather than 30-year-old vets, but they certainly would not pass up on an opportunity to trade for a 30-year-old vet if it improved their roster, especially while getting rid of Ford.

Giving up Ford and Jones helps thin our numbers at the guard/wing positions, which I think is a good thing. Crawford is capable of being a 3rd PG behind Collison and Price if Lance is not able to return.

Like I said, I think it is a no-brainer. In fact, I would probably laugh for the next week if Atlanta were dumb enough to need a perimeter defender so badly that they would be willing to do this trade.

Justin Tyme
09-15-2010, 12:45 PM
That's a deal to cut Jones salary off our books.


You are forgetting an important thing about this trade........... Ford will be gone. It finds him a new home someplace other than on the Pacers bench.

Justin Tyme
09-15-2010, 12:48 PM
Would I do this trade? Yes.

Why? Playoffs.

Would I consider re-signing Jamal Crawford? No.


Hammer meet nail.

Justin Tyme
09-15-2010, 01:18 PM
Wait a minute.

I do not agree whatsoever that a player's value is always established by his recent trade. For example, your logic would indicate that Collison's value is equivalent to that of Murphy. There is no one on PD, nor virtually any national sportswriter that seems to agree with that statement.

It is possible that one team gets the better of another team in a trade. I personally believe that this is fairly common in trades made at the trade deadline. A team positioning itself for the playoffs has a specific need and they are willing to give up a lot to get it. Or the other way around, a team wants to gain additonal cap space for next season, so they are willing to give up a pretty decent player to a playoff team in exchange for expiring contracts and draft choices.

If the Pacers were to acquire Crawford, he can even go public with his desire for an extension if he wants, I really don't care. The bottom line is that, much like Dunleavy, he is in a contract year and has to play his arse off to prove that his prior good year was not a fluke.

Crawford is an 18ppg player capable of creating for himself. That is a skill that is relatively rare on our roster. Really, a player capable of creating for himself is not a common commodity on any roster, and that is precisely what makes him very valuable in February for any team attempting to gain an "X-factor" for the playoffs. As an example, the Pistons knew that they needed to become stronger in their frontcourt and were able to acquire Ben Wallace in a gift of a trade, and as a result (IMO anyway) were able to progress to the NBA finals and win a title instead of the Pacers.

The Pacers have attempted to deal Ford for 1 to 1-1/2 seasons without success. I suppose they may be able to do so at the trade deadline, since a team would only have to absorb him for 2-3 months. However, I don't think any argument is necessary to establish that Crawford is a more desirable asset that would have to be easier to deal than Ford.

The Pacers appear to be following a model where they stockpile assets while improving their roster. Granted, they would prefer to stockpile young promising players rather than 30-year-old vets, but they certainly would not pass up on an opportunity to trade for a 30-year-old vet if it improved their roster, especially while getting rid of Ford.

Giving up Ford and Jones helps thin our numbers at the guard/wing positions, which I think is a good thing. Crawford is capable of being a 3rd PG behind Collison and Price if Lance is not able to return.

Like I said, I think it is a no-brainer. In fact, I would probably laugh for the next week if Atlanta were dumb enough to need a perimeter defender so badly that they would be willing to do this trade.


I agree that the pros of trading for Crawford far out weigh the cons of doing the trade. You are correct in saying Crawford is an asset. That asset can be used to better the Pacers for the future. Picking up assests puts the Pacers in a better position to improve even if just as trade bait. If by some chance Crawford isn't traded by the trade deadline for whatever reason, there is always a chance of a using Crawford later in a S&T.

If for no other reason this is a good trade b/c the Pacers get rid of Ford and the last 2 years of Dahntay's contract. Jones isn't a core player for the future and the savings of his salary can be used elsewhere. I feel this trade is a no brainer, but at the same time I don't ever seeing Atlanta agreeing to this trade. To me it's just another trade scenario, one of hundreds, that will never materialize.