Warriors NBADL Call-Up Chris Hunter Scouting Report

by Atma Brother ONE on Nov 22, 2009 9:05 AM PST in News Comment 57 comments

In his first game with the Golden State Warriors against the Portland Trail Blazers Chris Hunter started the second half, swished in a nice turnaround jumper in the low block, had a rejection and an interception, and received a standing ovation from the Roaracle crowd. Not a bad debut at all.

OPEN THREAD #12: Blazers vs Warriors - The New Team Heads Home

Warriors Web: Golden State Warriors 108, Portland Trail Blazers 94- Monta Ellis drops 34 points

RECAP: Warriors 108, Blazers 94 - Great way to start a weekend

That's an Unstoppable Baby Marc Jackson-looking shot if I ever saw one.

via www.nba.com

But as Mike Meezy would say "Who is he?" Jump to find out.

Ridiculous insights from our buddy Jon L from Ridiculous Upside your home for NBA prospect information and more:

I like Hunter's game a lot. He didn't get much of a shot with the Knicks in the preseason, but he was Fort Wayne's leading scorer last season and made the all D-League second team. Hunter's always been talented, as he was recruited to Michigan to play for Tommy Amaker, but Amaker did a terrible job of developing the guys he had, and several of them (Hunter, Courtney Sims, Brent Petway) ended up in the D-League, but all of them have received call-ups. Hunter has a nice midrange shot that forces post defenders to step out on him, and he made 55 percent of his shots last year. He also has some decent post moves. He's okay as a defender, but he's a decent rebounder, averaging 10 per 36 minutes. He's a really polished player offensively, and I think he definitely has a place in the NBA.

Comments

What what

Michigan alumn! Talking to some folks out here…apparently he was a beast during his tenure at our arena. Maybe he shoulda been part of the Fab Five?

We still believe!!

Become a fan on facebook! www.facebook.com/goldenstateofmind

by R Dizzle on Nov 22, 2009 9:39 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

if only we didn’t NEED to call up D-leaguers to have a full team…

by FishStix on Nov 22, 2009 11:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

d league is underrated

look at our stolen gems.

by bojangles408 on Nov 22, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How far have these "gems" took us though....

by tafkasam on Nov 22, 2009 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

taken*

Also, if you’re counting on Kelenna and CJ taking you to the NBA Finals, you’re hilarious. They ARE gems for what they’re expected to do and I’m not expecting them to single-handedly (or double-handedly?) take the team on some kind of deep playoff run. They’re great role players; that’s all they’ll be.

by gargleafg on Nov 22, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"Great role players"

Considering we don’t even have to draft these guys and they’re just waiting to play in the NBA, a “great role player” is a steal, and is a gem. I don’t think anyone is expecting the next Lebron to come out of the D-League. But if you can get a guy occasionally worth starting or at the top of your bench, then well damn, that’s a definitely a steal.

by Run Dubz on Nov 22, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

by gargleafg on Nov 22, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

if you can get a guy occasionally worth starting or at the top of your bench, then well damn, that’s a definitely a steal.

or you are a very bad team?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 22, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

bingo on second one

by tafkasam on Nov 22, 2009 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

interesting point but

Kelenna got his call up 06/07 when W’s were pretty good team
CJ got his call up in 07/08 when W’s were 48 W team

most likely it’s more about very injured team

31 Y 6.5 ft 250 lbs 0 IQ

Fire Nellie! Fire Cohan! Fire Gregory! Fire David Stern! No need for explanations, just fire em all!

by Missing Barry

by Lat We N Trash on Nov 23, 2009 6:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

More likely it’s about a predictable, rather lame attempt at “humor” from our resident “humorist”? CJ’s never really been at the “top of our bench,” except, as you point out, when we were totally decimated by injuries. As for Kelenna: when he went down he was producing at a high enough level to be the 4th-to-6th man on pretty much any team in the league, including the Lakers, Celtics, Cavs, Magic, etc. Obviously it’s too soon to say much of anything about C-Hunt, except that he’s probably no worse than Mikki Moore.

On a related note: I thought I read somewhere on this site that BrokenWing might be only 4-6 weeks or so from returning, rather than the 3-4 months we had thought? Or did I just dream this one night after consuming too much sake? A 100% Wright for the second half of the season could be a pretty huge boost…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Nov 23, 2009 9:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

even grinchy humour sometimes needs some short answer :)

actually i think lot of D League ‘allstars’ could be more serviceable than most of the NBA 10-12 bench spots and sometimes even better if they are right fit

your related note was worth some googling but still i couldn’t find anything more promising than:

Forward Brandan Wright said the rehabilitation on his surgically repaired left shoulder is ongoing, but that there was no timetable as to when he’ll resume any basketball-related activities. He’ll be able to get his left arm out of a sling next week, though. … Forward

http://www.usbasket.com/NBA/basketball.asp?NewsID=177631

I’d really like if W’s could find some way how to keep C-Hunt under some 10 days contract not because only current frontcourt situation but because i think he fits pretty well (better than Devean or Zombie Mike) in W’s game style

C-Hunt actually brings the same things what Turiaf (but in more calm way) -some D + rebounds and nice midrange shot
-it would be great luxury to have backup like him considering late W’s history with bigs (Mbenga POB Croshere retired C-Webb and now Mikki) -and when was the last time when W’s got some ‘allstar’ ?

31 Y 6.5 ft 250 lbs 0 IQ

Fire Nellie! Fire Cohan! Fire Gregory! Fire David Stern! No need for explanations, just fire em all!

by Missing Barry

by Lat We N Trash on Nov 23, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Bukie was on his way to getting paid before the injury and has been an incredible off the bench guy (4th or 6th in 3 pt shooting last year?), Magic was willing to give up a first rounder + for Cj, and Morrow lead the Nba in 3pt shooting.

Great finds. Nobody expects them to make All Star teams but im proud of what the Dubs have been able to find in the Dleague.

My icon is a testament to the Dubs ability to play defense.

by JR Repertoire on Nov 22, 2009 5:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Did we ever get a good report (something of more quality than a TK rumor) of what the Magic were willing to give up for CJ?

by Missing Barry on Nov 22, 2009 6:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Morrow wasn't picked up from the D-league

he was a training camp invitee that went undrafted.

by Number22Drew on Nov 22, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But if not for the Warriors finding him he would’ve ended up in the D-League, as an undrafted FA.

by LakerFan24 on Nov 22, 2009 7:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Morrow wasn’t headed to the D-league. He had signed a contract with a team in the Ukraine.

by jae on Nov 22, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Whats the deal with Hunter?
I can’t find out anywhere how long we get to keep this extra player signed or if its contingent and the health of the rest of the team.
Hopefully, jae, you can shed some light on this for me

Thing B

by warriorsscore110 on Nov 22, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We can keep him as long as we want, but as soon as the team can field 8 players without having a 16th contract, someone has to go. I wouldn’t get too attached.

by jae on Nov 22, 2009 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yet 2 roster spots are occupied with guys who WONT suit up (claxton + george)

all to save cohan a little money…IF it wasn’t bad he was horribly incompetent, he also likes us to trade a little talent for nothing just to save him money

BTW Jae… we can’t sign him even though keleena is down for year and bell might be also?

by tafkasam on Nov 22, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

I’m worried all of these so-called money-saving contracts are going to go the way of the deal we got for trading JRich…I don’t mind BWright, but that 10mil trade exception went nowhere!

Don’t put any more money in Cohan’s pocket! Join the boycott movement!

by BDeez Nuts on Nov 22, 2009 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

thats my biggest problem

I don’t mind trading crawford for expirings etc. I understand how the cap works in the NBA, but I know for a fact, we won’t use it to our advantage… we won’t use these 10 mil in expirings in a trade or in free agency next year

I mean, I wasn’t a big crawford fan, but we essentially gave him away for free. WHY? cause he couldn’t play with monta (questionable theory). Doesn’t mean he should have gone for free. It’s not like the warriors were so overflowing in talent we could do addition by subtraction. But the plan was never to find talent for him, just a salary dump

by tafkasam on Nov 22, 2009 10:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Did Crawford really have more value that that? He had a contract in excess of his production. That’s why we wanted to get rid of him and that’s why other teams wouldn’t really want him either. Do you really think that teams wanted to part with talent for a guy who was going to be paid $10mil /year for a couple more years who wasn’t good enough to help the Warriors win regularly?

There were people clamoring to buy him out. Trading him for expirings is better than a buyout.

by jae on Nov 23, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no problem

are we making shirts now?

by sports with steve on Nov 23, 2009 7:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Cohan will want credit for these too....

:-/

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I really do not think that the failure to sign another warm body has that much to do with saving Cohan money. I know it’s easy (some might even say lazy) to use that as a criticism of Cohan and he has many faults as an NBA owner but failure to pop for a rookie min salary? There’s no evidence that he’s cheap in such regards. Foolish with how he spends money? Yeah. But that’s a different animal.

Speedy and George are essentially holder pieces for a possible trade. Cutting Speedy would be insane. His contract has value as an expiring. While there’s no guarantee that they’ll be able to capitalize on it, there’s a guarantee if they cut him that they won’t. The odds of an NBDL type being productive enough in the short term to outweigh that potential seems pretty remote.

George may be a different issue because his contract is smaller and as such has less value in matching salary. It isn’t completely insignificant though. His salary bundled in a deal means $2 million that we can bring back in trade. That probably won’t matter, but it might.

Reflexive, reactionary short term moves rarely make a team better.

by jae on Nov 23, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

how about contract traded

for draft pick?

31 Y 6.5 ft 250 lbs 0 IQ

Fire Nellie! Fire Cohan! Fire Gregory! Fire David Stern! No need for explanations, just fire em all!

by Missing Barry

by Lat We N Trash on Nov 23, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Someone has to have the cap space to take on the contract to give us the draft pick. No one has cap space, which means that an asymmetrical trade like that would require a team with a trade exception to use. Why would anyone want to give us only draft pick(s) for those guys while using up a trade exception? What possible incentive is there? They have value only in allowing a team to get a longer term contract off their books for next off season. Acquiring one or both without sending someone out doesn’t help.

by jae on Nov 23, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah that's true

i m really surprised why i even thought that’s possible (no irony here)

but still i think here are some options how to clear roster spot trough trade -for example 2 for one trade -DGeorge + Claxton to Utah for Matt Harpring or something

actually when i started to think about it more realistically i found that’s really hard and almost impossible to make something happen where any part involved would be satisfied with trade

but i guess Riley could surprise me one more time

31 Y 6.5 ft 250 lbs 0 IQ

Fire Nellie! Fire Cohan! Fire Gregory! Fire David Stern! No need for explanations, just fire em all!

by Missing Barry

by Lat We N Trash on Nov 23, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Speedy and George are essentially holder pieces for a possible trade.

You truly believe that? If so you’re very optimistic and possibly naive. I see little evidence that says he’s willing to trade them for a big contract.

That’s my issue. If we did use them this way, I’d be more than content, but there’s little proof of that. We could have used 1 instead of Acie Law in the Jackson deal. But we didn’t. I’m not even saying Law has enough talent to justify being kept around, but we didn’t part with any of our truly dead weighters.

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Law was pretty close to a placeholder himself, and if nothing else an expiring contract. From a Cohan monetary standpoint, what does switching George/Speed with Law accomplish? Cohan may be the worst owner in all of sports, but I don’t see why you think all of a sudden he’s the cheapest owner in all of sports, because that simply isn’t true based on past history.

by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He's proven to be very cheap and yet tries to con fans into believing he's not

-He forced J-rich trade as a salary dump (sorry, what was a rookie PF gonna do?).

-He vetoed the Garnett one to not pay cap (we don’t know that Minnesota would have accepted our offer BUT Cohan made Mullin pull it). This could also be used as an argument for no balls. I dunno if baron, jack, Harrington, Garnett could have won a championship. It would have been worth a gamble, and god knows Garnett is the ultimate alpha dog to keep others in line.

-He didn’t let Mullin use the trade exemption for JRich. Been written about before…

It’s hard to say he’s cheapest in pro sports, because you can’t compare baseball to basketball to football cause of different revenue sharing structures. But in terms of basketball, considering the way Oracle sells out with a sniff of a 40 game winner, and the size of the market, he is definitely on the CHEAPER side of NBA owners.

No one expects him to be Marc Cuban, but he (and I realize Rowell has gotten the heat for it, but i’m sure Rowell is just his hatchet man, designed to take that so he doesn’t have Otherwise god knows how he keeps his job…) consistently has stopped moves that would make this team better at a wiff of spending money

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve never heard that a Garnett deal was veto’d by Cohan? I thought the Wolves turned our offer down, or we just didn’t sweeten it to their liking. Also, moving JRich was a good idea. If the trade exemption wasn’t used because of Cohan, that’s one fair point, but you can’t get two points out of that deal. JRich had a bad contract and moving him put us in a better position. Even if you think it was a bad idea, you have to recognize there were good merits to the trade, and I’ve never heard it suggested that Cohan was the driving force behind that?

by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The way I read it (regarding Garnett)

We pulled out offer before it was considered. We didn’t want to take on Garnett’s contracts/or doubted if it’d make us THAT much better…

The JRich deal was okay. He was a fan favorite. The driving force I heard was upper management saying we need to lose his contract.

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The driving force I heard was upper management saying we need to lose his contract.

Which was absolutely true, just not necessarily to save Cohan money as much as getting rid of his contract helped our team construction long term.

by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You truly believe that? If so you’re very optimistic and possibly naive.

Let me repeat what I wrote: “Speedy and George are essentially holder pieces for a possible trade.” The word ‘possible’ is important.

I realize that it’s hard to pay attention and to respond to what someone actually wrote when you’re off on a “Cohan is cheap/We coulda got something for Crawford” lunacy, but you should still give it a try.

‘Possible’ does not mean it is going to happen. But without them, it certainly won’t. Without the pieces, it’s a certainty that nothing will happen.

We could have used 1 instead of Acie Law in the Jackson deal.

False. Law had a contract that made things fit under the cap. George did not. Speedy did not. They are not interchangeable parts in a trade simply because your whim favors keeping one vs the other.

by jae on Nov 23, 2009 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me repeat what I wrote: "Speedy and George are essentially holder pieces for a possible trade." The word ‘possible’ is important.

So let me get this straight. You are nullifying my point by stating the obvious YET you’re saying I could be right? How does that work?

I said, I don’t think we will use those in any way to make our team better. Thats my opinion. I’ve seen little from management that makes me believe so. And that was the core of my point. If it’s too hard for you to understand i’ll simplify it.

This team, the GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS, does not have enough talent to legitimately consider just dumping a player (minus extenuating circumstances like Stephen Jackson). Jamal Crawford may not be the second coming of Michael Jordan, but he is not awful either. If we turn around a flip speedy in a deal to improve the roster, than I will be the first to say I was wrong and celebrate. But I don’t think that’ll happen.

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 9:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but he is not awful either

This is where the main disagreement is. He is pretty awful, and he has an even worse contract.

by Missing Barry on Nov 24, 2009 8:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I concur. I did not think that he made the team any better than they would have been without him, giving his time to a younger player and do not think that he makes any other team better unless they were ridiculously guard depleted and terrible. I know that even some NBA GMs are wowed with points per game and are oblivious to the importance of rebounding (important even in a guard) and defense, so there was an opportunity to find someone who was a bigger fool who might want to give something of value for him, but that’s not exactly likely. Were it possible to cut him outright and not pay him like it is in the NFL, I’d have been in favor. In the NBA, that’s not possible. Finding someone to take him off our hands for expirings is the next best thing.

by jae on Nov 24, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Cut Miki Mooore

The Warriors can afford to eat his veteran minimum contract. The difference between Hunter and him is ridiculous. And Hunter can do the things, stay with his man on D, etc.., that drives Nelson crazy about Randolph.

by San Francisco Slim on Nov 23, 2009 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

we’re in no position to cut bigs (yet).

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I think it would be foolish to cut Moore even when Turiaf and Biedrins come back. Big guys tend to get hurt and it’s nice to have more than you really need. Having a lineup stacked towards bigs also forces Nellie to trot out more conventional lineups, which is great for us, and hilarious at the same time.

Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!

by Supafishal on Nov 23, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hunter can do the things, stay with his man on D, etc.

How can you know this from about 15 minutes of play? What if he was having a career game last game? There’s gotta be some reason he’s that old and in the D league?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 23, 2009 11:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When you consider

the level of talent we could have possibly gotten back in return for Crawford, I think saving money was the smartest thing to do.

It’s not like Crawford could of landed us a good enough big man who could have reasonably deducted minutes from Turiaf, Randolph or Wright, and the obvious need was a big man. Since we could not solve our needs trading Crawford, you do the next best thing and that is to clear cap room for the sake of the players that you do in fact want to hold on to (Morrow).

Not to mention, I was actually happy to hear that we were getting A.C. Law back with the addition of Claxton’s bulky expiring contract. I knew he never really got a chance to show what he’s made of, and he was just too damn good in college to write off at just 23 years old.

So we saved money for another player for another day, and we got a big, pass first point guard back who proved he’s good enough to crack a line-up. So yeah, I don’t think it was a bad trade at all personally.. I think if anything, we should have tried to get a future pick back for Belinelli. His salary wasn’t nearly as bad as Crawford’s and he’s a lot younger. Bad form on that.

The influx of guys playing one position became a bane. A lot of talent spread butter thin won’t get you very far. Crawford was dead weight as soon as he touched down in Oakland, and I don’t think he and Monta could or should ever play together, ever. Harrington for Hinrich was the right move, and it was lined up for us. Hinrich’s minor injury and the pressure Harrington put on the team gave way for an initial poor trade.

by lilboots on Nov 23, 2009 4:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

But what are we going to do with that saved money?

it puts us about 6 mil under the cap for next year (aka the same as an MLE). At best we can sign someone of crawford’s talent level. In fact we won’t even be…. next year we have 52mil in tied up contracts (aka right where cap will be). That is assuming radmonovic doesn’t opt out (which i don’t expect him to…).

Everyone needs to stop thinking saving money will land us a free agent. We are already too tied up w/ long term contracts to make a run at anyone close to a max deal. (Monta + Biedrins + maggette= 30 mil… Randolph, BWright, Curry, on rookie deals add to near 10 mil, and then you got turiaf, buike, morrow etc. etc.). Second the image of GSW is tarnished, free agents don’t want to come here unless grossly overpaid (Maggette). If we manage to make playoff push and be a relevant team again, that changes. But last time we had that we systematically sold off EVERY piece because our management is inept…

A better use is trying to get some ACTUAL talent in return instead of money trades, see if we can be an interesting team then see what can happen in free agency.

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Meh, not sure what you mean by ACTUAL talent, but if you’re talking about marginal talent along the lines of Crawford or Belinelli, that’s precisely what the Warriors don’t need, at least when healthy. Going into the season, we had a very nice looking core rotation of

Curry
Monta
Morrow
Azubuike
Jackson
Wright
Randolph
Turiaf
Biedrins

Throw in CJ (who’s roughly the same level of player as Craw or Marco) and that leaves roughly zero playing time for guys like Marco or Craw, or any kind of marginal talent they might have fetched in trade. Which is to say, even if you ignore the money issue, getting rid of them for nothing was a perfectly wise and intelligent thing to do for the Warriors; and beyond that, a charitable and considerate thing to for the careers of Marco and Craw. Bascially, win-win all around, except in the minds of a few grumpy fans who love to bellyache.

Now if you’re talking about trading for real, top flight talent (Bosh, Kirilenko, G.Wallace, Caron Butler, e.g.) that’s a whole ’nother kettle of fish; but that discussion needs to involve serious cornerstone types like Randolph, Curry, Monta and Biedrins, not dime-a-dozen chuckers like Belinelli and Crawford.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Nov 23, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why assume creating a better cap situation can only be used on a FA, or has to be used next year? It gives us more flexibility to sign our own guys, it gives us more flexibility to make trades, maybe some actions happen that lead to cap space a couple years down the line? There are a lot of possibilities. What I can say for sure, though, is that more flexibility is a good thing – at worst you do nothing with it and so you’re even either way, at best it gives you opportunities you wouldn’t have had otherwise.

by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Crawford wasn’t going to get us “actual talent”. It’s a nice dream, but it’s a dream nonetheless. There’s not a huge demand for overpaid, underproductive players such that teams are going to send ‘actual talent’ back in exchange to the be the proud new owners of a bloated contract. You’re lucky to find someone to take it off your hands for nothing, which is what we got.

We may not be able to sign anyone with that savings, but it’s also $10mil more below the lux tax threshold than they’d be if they had Crawford on the books for another year. Let’s face some reality: the lux tax is a defacto hard cap for the Warriors for the time being. And frankly, until they’re actually winning, it should be a hard cap. It’s pointless and foolish to pay the tax for a team that’s losing. Yes, contenders tend to be paying the tax, but they didn’t get to be contenders by paying it. It’s a function of what they’ve had to do to keep a team already on a winning path together.

by jae on Nov 23, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I find it hard to believe that was the most we could get for crawford

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Cont'd (Sorry)

I’m not saying Crawford was gonna render us any sort of starter. But I think we could have gotten a useful rotation player or 2.

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody wants Jamal Crawford, because not only is he a bad basketball player, he’s an expensive bad basketball player with multiple years left on his contract. Why would anyone give up something useful for him? When you’re presented with an offer to take him off your hands, you take it, you don’t wait around for a better one.

by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we could have gotten a useful rotation player or 2.

Again, look at the nine guys I listed above, add in CJ and Maggette (whom I always seem to forget) and propose an NBA player who

a. Deserves to take minutes from any of them.
b. Realistically could be obtainable for a guy like Crawford or Belinelli.

Good luck. And again: another “useful rotation player” (let alone two) was the last thing we needed going into this season. A much bigger challenge than finding new bodies, going into the season, was paring down our ten “solid players” to a 6-7 man core rotation, while still developing our kids and not alienating anyone. Yeah, right now, we could probably use an extra “rotation guy” guy, but then losing six men from your projected rotation (count ’em: Wright, Azubuike, Biedrins, Turiaf, Watson, Jackson) is hardly something you prepare for.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Nov 23, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose thats true...

I would have liked to see a player who could play the 4, hell an energy guy who can run the court and rebound would have been awesome (still mad we didn’t try and take DLee from Knicks w/ Crawford…. at the time I believe it was feasible).

I see Crawford excelling in Atlanta now, proving he’s not as ‘worthless’ as many believe. Yeah his market was limited, but teams w/o a sniff at 2010 class looking a scorer like him would have considered.

by tafkasam on Nov 23, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I see Crawford excelling in Atlanta now

He’s hardly excelling. I’ll give you this, through 14 games he is more efficient offensively than usual. He’s been more aggressive which has gotten him to the line more often and allowed him more inside shots and less 22ft jumpers. On the other hand he continue to jack up bad threes (6 per 36min) despite the fact that he’s shooting only 28% from beyond the arc. If you look at his other numbers he’s not doing anything that exciting. Per 36 minutes played his rebounds, assists and steals are all down from his career averages. He’s not worthless, but he is still not worth his contract.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 23, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He is getting a lot of pub because he is suddenly on a good team. But that team was pretty good already. There are umpteen players in the NBA that could do what Crawford is doing for the Hawks. I seriously doubt his is worth more than expiring contracts at this point anyway, even with all the new “love.”

Back to the more pressing issue: how do we keep Chris Hunter? D. George seems like the obvious candidate to cut. Havn’t we come to the conclusion that packaging small expiring contracts is pretty difficult? Will his inclusion in a trade net us more value than what Hunter can bring to the table?

Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!

by Supafishal on Nov 23, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Crawford is a decent 6th man (overpaid though) who can give offense.

As for Hunter, I’d say we don’t get to see him again. Cutting George may bite the Ws in the butt later on so I bet they keep his contract. But another team will pick him up if we drop him.

by mosdl on Nov 23, 2009 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Crawford is a decent 6th man (overpaid though) who can give offense.

Generally his “offense” has been far less impressive that it appears because it has rarely been even average efficiency. When a player scores a bunch of points but with below average efficiency, the offense he provides comes at the expense of offense other players would provide. This has been true throughout most of his career. His best two seasons saw him approach average. If he finishes this year above average, it will be a first.

by jae on Nov 23, 2009 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs