Kings Bidding On Jamal Crawford??????
- Thread starter J-WILL55
- Start date
Crawford: Minutes per game.
2003/04: 35:06 minutes per game
2004/05: 38:23 minutes per game
2005/06: 32:17 minutes per game
2006/07: 37:17 minutes per game
2007/08: 39:53 minutes per game
2008/09: 37:26 minutes per game
2009/10: 31:06 minutes per game
2010/11: 30:11 minutes per game
Lets at least stick to the facts when talking about Crawford. He's more than capable of playing big minutes if necessary. Look, there's no bigger fan of Fredette than I'am. And I'm not thrilled about Jimmers minutes being reduced because of aquiring Crawford. But I'm not going to exaggerate or lie about what kind of player Crawford is. I'm not going to tout Crawford as a PG. But he's played that position at times, and his +/- is on the + side at that position. But there's no doubt that his best position is at SG. He's averaged around 4 assists a game agains 2 turnovers a game for his career. So he can pass the ball.
My biggest knock on Crawford is on the defensive side of the ball, where his +/- is only slightly on the - side, which makes him an average defender. But I've seen him do a great job of defending guys like Kobe, and by the same token, do a very mediocre job of guarding a much lesser player. So I have mixed emotions about us aquiring him. If its just for one year, which apparently what he wants, then I can't really see a major problem. As much as I want to see Jimmer out there for 24 or so minutes a game, it might not be a bad idea to take the pressure off of him, and let him make a more under the radar entrance into the NBA.
When I watched Dallas in the playoffs last season, and, by the way, I picked Dallas to win the whole thing, but unfortunately I don't think I posted that on the fourm, so believe it if you will. But, what impressed me about the Dallas team was their depth off the bench. There didn't seem to be any change in the quality of play when the bench was in the game. And thats what made the difference. At least thats my opinion, and why I picked them. That, along with total team play that was led with unselfishness.
It appears to me that the Kings are trying to add quality depth to the team. So thats not a bad thing. However, keeping everyone happy on a team with that kind of depth can be a very tricky proposition. And thats the part that worries me. We're not talking Pop's or Riley here, we're talking, I can't make up my mind Westphal here. The bottom line is, its only for 66 games. So I'm not going to get my shorts in an uproar over a one year signing of Crawford. If that indeed happens. Hell, who knows, it might even work.
2003/04: 35:06 minutes per game
2004/05: 38:23 minutes per game
2005/06: 32:17 minutes per game
2006/07: 37:17 minutes per game
2007/08: 39:53 minutes per game
2008/09: 37:26 minutes per game
2009/10: 31:06 minutes per game
2010/11: 30:11 minutes per game
Lets at least stick to the facts when talking about Crawford. He's more than capable of playing big minutes if necessary. Look, there's no bigger fan of Fredette than I'am. And I'm not thrilled about Jimmers minutes being reduced because of aquiring Crawford. But I'm not going to exaggerate or lie about what kind of player Crawford is. I'm not going to tout Crawford as a PG. But he's played that position at times, and his +/- is on the + side at that position. But there's no doubt that his best position is at SG. He's averaged around 4 assists a game agains 2 turnovers a game for his career. So he can pass the ball.
My biggest knock on Crawford is on the defensive side of the ball, where his +/- is only slightly on the - side, which makes him an average defender. But I've seen him do a great job of defending guys like Kobe, and by the same token, do a very mediocre job of guarding a much lesser player. So I have mixed emotions about us aquiring him. If its just for one year, which apparently what he wants, then I can't really see a major problem. As much as I want to see Jimmer out there for 24 or so minutes a game, it might not be a bad idea to take the pressure off of him, and let him make a more under the radar entrance into the NBA.
When I watched Dallas in the playoffs last season, and, by the way, I picked Dallas to win the whole thing, but unfortunately I don't think I posted that on the fourm, so believe it if you will. But, what impressed me about the Dallas team was their depth off the bench. There didn't seem to be any change in the quality of play when the bench was in the game. And thats what made the difference. At least thats my opinion, and why I picked them. That, along with total team play that was led with unselfishness.
It appears to me that the Kings are trying to add quality depth to the team. So thats not a bad thing. However, keeping everyone happy on a team with that kind of depth can be a very tricky proposition. And thats the part that worries me. We're not talking Pop's or Riley here, we're talking, I can't make up my mind Westphal here. The bottom line is, its only for 66 games. So I'm not going to get my shorts in an uproar over a one year signing of Crawford. If that indeed happens. Hell, who knows, it might even work.
Good F'ing bye Garcia
looks like IF we sign Crawford we will be amnestying Garcia.
Good riddance, Garcia is a worthless piece of ****, tired of him choking!
http://www.csnnw.com/pages/landingb...Crawford-startin=1&blockID=611954&feedID=5212
looks like we are giving him Garcia type $$$$
good
crawford > garcia
bag of **** > garcia
adrenoleukodystrophy > garcia
death > garcia
looks like IF we sign Crawford we will be amnestying Garcia.
Good riddance, Garcia is a worthless piece of ****, tired of him choking!
http://www.csnnw.com/pages/landingb...Crawford-startin=1&blockID=611954&feedID=5212
looks like we are giving him Garcia type $$$$
good
crawford > garcia
bag of **** > garcia
adrenoleukodystrophy > garcia
death > garcia
what's with the constant ire you direct at francisco garcia? its true enough that his contract isn't exactly value for what you get, but he's a role player. he was never going to be a consistent starter in this league. he's not the guy that should be taking big shots. he's not the guy who should ever be put in a position to choke games away. he's just a utility guy...
the only thing i would lament in his absence would be the locker room presence and the leadership qualities that he provides. but i certainly won't mourn his amnesty or his trade, provided it nets a useful return. however, i feel like your hostility towards garcia borders on tasteless and offensive...
the only thing i would lament in his absence would be the locker room presence and the leadership qualities that he provides. but i certainly won't mourn his amnesty or his trade, provided it nets a useful return. however, i feel like your hostility towards garcia borders on tasteless and offensive...
2003/04: 35:06 minutes per game Team Record: 23-59
2004/05: 38:23 minutes per game Team Record: 33-49
2005/06: 32:17 minutes per game Team Record: 23-59
2006/07: 37:17 minutes per game Team Record: 33-49
2007/08: 39:53 minutes per game Team Record: 23-59
2008/09: 37:26 minutes per game Team Record: 29-53
2009/10: 31:06 minutes per game Team Record: 53-29
2010/11: 30:11 minutes per game Team Record: 44-38
Obviously he has been a major minutes player in the league for a long time. But has he been a quality one or just a classic good numbers on a bad team guy? He guns, shoots poor percentages, doesn't board or defend or do antyhing not directly related to his scoring. Isn't that classic good numbers on bad team stuff? He had that one season, his first with Atlanta, when he contributed to a good team. Then last year he, and they, regressed and he's back to a guy who takes lots of long jumpers off the dribble and doesn't stop his guy the other way. When he's hot he's unstoppable. When he's not, which is most of the time, he hurts you.
Reminds me of a Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf signing. Just in this case it means squishing Jimmer in the process. Now I haven't been there, maybe Jimmer has looked terrible in practive or something. But precisely because Crwford is a 30mi a night guy, and Thornton is a 35 min anight guy. And Reke is a 37 min a night guy. And even if you three guard it Salmons is a mid to high 20 min a night guy at least...too many damn chuckers. You can't build a functional team out of guys who want to shoot the ball. Its *** backwards. Because there is only one ball you need a few guys who want to shoot and a lot of guys who do the other things, not a bunch of guys who want to gun and a few guys who do all the other things. If we were shy of scoring it would be one thing. We are anything but.
2004/05: 38:23 minutes per game Team Record: 33-49
2005/06: 32:17 minutes per game Team Record: 23-59
2006/07: 37:17 minutes per game Team Record: 33-49
2007/08: 39:53 minutes per game Team Record: 23-59
2008/09: 37:26 minutes per game Team Record: 29-53
2009/10: 31:06 minutes per game Team Record: 53-29
2010/11: 30:11 minutes per game Team Record: 44-38
Obviously he has been a major minutes player in the league for a long time. But has he been a quality one or just a classic good numbers on a bad team guy? He guns, shoots poor percentages, doesn't board or defend or do antyhing not directly related to his scoring. Isn't that classic good numbers on bad team stuff? He had that one season, his first with Atlanta, when he contributed to a good team. Then last year he, and they, regressed and he's back to a guy who takes lots of long jumpers off the dribble and doesn't stop his guy the other way. When he's hot he's unstoppable. When he's not, which is most of the time, he hurts you.
Reminds me of a Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf signing. Just in this case it means squishing Jimmer in the process. Now I haven't been there, maybe Jimmer has looked terrible in practive or something. But precisely because Crwford is a 30mi a night guy, and Thornton is a 35 min anight guy. And Reke is a 37 min a night guy. And even if you three guard it Salmons is a mid to high 20 min a night guy at least...too many damn chuckers. You can't build a functional team out of guys who want to shoot the ball. Its *** backwards. Because there is only one ball you need a few guys who want to shoot and a lot of guys who do the other things, not a bunch of guys who want to gun and a few guys who do all the other things. If we were shy of scoring it would be one thing. We are anything but.
I worry about that one conisderably.
Instead of bringing in defenders and leaders we overstock on chuckers with a young team, jettison the few leaders we do have, and you have the potential for major chemistry issues. We cannot afford that. You simply NEED guys who are ok with low shots and low minutes. there are a critical component to good teams. If everybody on your team wants the minutes and the rock you are screwed.
Instead of bringing in defenders and leaders we overstock on chuckers with a young team, jettison the few leaders we do have, and you have the potential for major chemistry issues. We cannot afford that. You simply NEED guys who are ok with low shots and low minutes. there are a critical component to good teams. If everybody on your team wants the minutes and the rock you are screwed.
indeed. amnestying garcia to make room for someone like kirilenko is productive, should you need to make that kind of room. packaging garcia with others and your 2012 first round pick in a hypothetical trade for someone like gerald wallace is also productive. but sending him packing to bring in jamal crawford is another thing entirely. its not useful, therefore i would not support it...
I'm a little confused here. By my reckoning, after signing both Thornton, and Hayes, to the average of 7.5 mil for Thornton and 5.3 mil for Hayes per year, and then signing Jimmer and the other two rookies, the Kings should still be around 11 to 12 million under the cap. So why then would they have to amnesty Garcia in order to sign Crawford for around 6 mil. That simply doesn't make any sense, unless they have yet another deal in the works that they need additional room for. Such as also signing Kirilenko.
Otherwise, there's no need to amnesty Garcia, which I'm not in favor of. However, if I have to choose between Garcia and Kirilenko, then Garcia loses. Look for Garcia to be a future assistant coach on the Kings.
Otherwise, there's no need to amnesty Garcia, which I'm not in favor of. However, if I have to choose between Garcia and Kirilenko, then Garcia loses. Look for Garcia to be a future assistant coach on the Kings.
As far as the article you're quoting goes, I have trouble believing that we would amnesty Garcia to clear salary space for Crawford. We don't *need* to clear that space, unless we're absolutely getting AK47 or bringing back Dally, somebody to chew up $9M or so in salary. Without any other signings we definitely have space to sign Crawford no problem.
As for the rest of your post, which I didn't quote, I'd be thankful if you took that kind of vitriol elsewhere.
As for the rest of your post, which I didn't quote, I'd be thankful if you took that kind of vitriol elsewhere.
Let me address a few things and I want to start with Garcia. Garcia is the mother hen of the team who makes it a daily routine to check up on the guys. That's invaluable. His contract is a bit high considering his proneness to injury but I would be happy to have Garcia retire a King - just at a smaller salary. I kinda think Garcia would like that also and then he could do the Bobby Jackson thing and become a coach. Lookig waaaay ahead, I know.
Depth is good. It can create difficulties when a talented guy sits on the bench wondering why another guy is playing ahead of him. However, winning tends to solve all these problems. I think they will make the playoffs next year with or without Daly or Ak 47 although I would like either on the team. At the least, as a team, they will see they are developing something damn good. This team is loaded with talent and the future looks good. Quite incredibly, it has people who will start that deserve it and a bench that understands that this is their contribution to the Kings. I even think we have 9-12 players who know that's who they are but they aren't stuck there indefinitely because they are young. Donte is the unusual one who probably would stay happy on the bench just to hang out with the guys.
Crawford would be fine for a year and that would allow Jimmer the luxury of learning the NBA pace and some of the opponents he will need to deal with as his career progresses. Crawford is not a long term solution but simply a placeholder for Jimmer.
Depth is good. It can create difficulties when a talented guy sits on the bench wondering why another guy is playing ahead of him. However, winning tends to solve all these problems. I think they will make the playoffs next year with or without Daly or Ak 47 although I would like either on the team. At the least, as a team, they will see they are developing something damn good. This team is loaded with talent and the future looks good. Quite incredibly, it has people who will start that deserve it and a bench that understands that this is their contribution to the Kings. I even think we have 9-12 players who know that's who they are but they aren't stuck there indefinitely because they are young. Donte is the unusual one who probably would stay happy on the bench just to hang out with the guys.
Crawford would be fine for a year and that would allow Jimmer the luxury of learning the NBA pace and some of the opponents he will need to deal with as his career progresses. Crawford is not a long term solution but simply a placeholder for Jimmer.
I know what you mean.
Here's something to consider. The reports are saying that we may amnesty Garcia if this goes down, which we all know doesn't make sense because we're under the cap.
What if getting Crawford is part of the negotiations to getting AK?
What if AK wants to make sure that if he joins the team, the team will be competitive, and going after Crawford shows him that we are trying to put together a winning roster?
Now I prefer Thornton over Crawford, because I know what he can do. But it's possible that AK doesn't see it that way.
Anyway, I won't be devastated over the Crawford signing until I see it actually disrupt the team and cause us problems. I'll try to be patient and take a wait-and-see approach, especially if it is only a one year deal.
And of course, if we are able to land AK after getting Crawford, that's a good way to alleviate my concern regarding the direction of the team.
Here's something to consider. The reports are saying that we may amnesty Garcia if this goes down, which we all know doesn't make sense because we're under the cap.
What if getting Crawford is part of the negotiations to getting AK?
What if AK wants to make sure that if he joins the team, the team will be competitive, and going after Crawford shows him that we are trying to put together a winning roster?
Now I prefer Thornton over Crawford, because I know what he can do. But it's possible that AK doesn't see it that way.
Anyway, I won't be devastated over the Crawford signing until I see it actually disrupt the team and cause us problems. I'll try to be patient and take a wait-and-see approach, especially if it is only a one year deal.
And of course, if we are able to land AK after getting Crawford, that's a good way to alleviate my concern regarding the direction of the team.
You could be right. The rumor to amnesty Cisco really adds to the speculation. Yeah JJones tweeted it's false, but what else would you expect? Cisco is still here and still practicing. Kings wouldn't admit to it until it's done.
As for AK, I don't see it hurting. AK isn't competing for shots. He would most likely want to be on the most competitive team possible, while still getting paid. Us being aggressive, and signing JC might go over well with AK. See's we're willing to spend, and want firepower, as much as I disagree with how it might effect internal development of our youngsters. Now, if JC signing would lead to AK signing, then I'm all for it. It's JC without AK, or another defender that scares me. That would be focusing our cap space on far too many scorers.
As for AK, I don't see it hurting. AK isn't competing for shots. He would most likely want to be on the most competitive team possible, while still getting paid. Us being aggressive, and signing JC might go over well with AK. See's we're willing to spend, and want firepower, as much as I disagree with how it might effect internal development of our youngsters. Now, if JC signing would lead to AK signing, then I'm all for it. It's JC without AK, or another defender that scares me. That would be focusing our cap space on far too many scorers.
Sometimes you have to prove that you are serious. I am going to assume that the idea of amnestying Garcia comes with the idea of signing AK. That would make sense.
Sounds good to me. Don't look now; we are begining to look like a good team.
I also want to add that I really like Garcia's mother hen role that he plays on the team and that I will miss him if this all goes through. As far as Garcia's reaction might be: I think he would thoroughly understand the thinking behind the move.
Addendum: need to give credit to Uncia03 for this idea.
Sounds good to me. Don't look now; we are begining to look like a good team.
I also want to add that I really like Garcia's mother hen role that he plays on the team and that I will miss him if this all goes through. As far as Garcia's reaction might be: I think he would thoroughly understand the thinking behind the move.
Addendum: need to give credit to Uncia03 for this idea.
Last edited:
I am finding it really tough to prepare myself mentally for this...it just makes no sense what so ever.
As for AK, like I have said, I seriously doubt he will come back to the NBA this year. He is absolutely loving it in Russia and it would take something major to get back, especially not with Utah. AK is one of those guys who always wanted to finish his career in Russia and lockout might have brought that forward a couple of years.
I am really not liking the moved we have pulled off this off-season. It just smacks of Don Nelson led Dallas that had 12 scorers on the roster and still couldn't get anywhere significant.
As for AK, like I have said, I seriously doubt he will come back to the NBA this year. He is absolutely loving it in Russia and it would take something major to get back, especially not with Utah. AK is one of those guys who always wanted to finish his career in Russia and lockout might have brought that forward a couple of years.
I am really not liking the moved we have pulled off this off-season. It just smacks of Don Nelson led Dallas that had 12 scorers on the roster and still couldn't get anywhere significant.
The Russian league is not that good, and he's only making 3.5M a year, and donating all of it. I know there are other perks, but he could easily sign a 4 yr contract here, and go back and dominate the Russian league for a few years.
Also, his agent was Vlade's agent, when he signed here. I'm sure he's in his ear telling him great things. Other reasons to sign here as well, which I've mentioned previously. Don't think it's a long shot at all.
Also, his agent was Vlade's agent, when he signed here. I'm sure he's in his ear telling him great things. Other reasons to sign here as well, which I've mentioned previously. Don't think it's a long shot at all.
To everyone who says that signing Crawford is "a slap in the face to Jimmer.."
WHAT HAS JIMMER DONE, THAT WOULD MAKE THIS SIGNING A SLAP IN THE FACE???? Jimmer hasn't proved ANYTHING. (And I'm a HUGE Jimmer fan...)
Crawford is a PROVEN scorer on a team with HORRIBLE bench depth. Adding a PROVEN scorer is never a bad move.
As far as Jimmer goes....Can you fathom the possibility that he may NOT be ready? Or at least, ready to be a big time contributor? HE'S A ROOKIE....Let him EARN his keep. If he's the better player, he'll play, no matter WHO is in front of him.
Bring in Crawford. I'm hyped.
WHAT HAS JIMMER DONE, THAT WOULD MAKE THIS SIGNING A SLAP IN THE FACE???? Jimmer hasn't proved ANYTHING. (And I'm a HUGE Jimmer fan...)
Crawford is a PROVEN scorer on a team with HORRIBLE bench depth. Adding a PROVEN scorer is never a bad move.
As far as Jimmer goes....Can you fathom the possibility that he may NOT be ready? Or at least, ready to be a big time contributor? HE'S A ROOKIE....Let him EARN his keep. If he's the better player, he'll play, no matter WHO is in front of him.
Bring in Crawford. I'm hyped.