Is There Any Reasonable Circumstance Under Which Crawford Opts-Out?
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 6:47 PM PDT
90 comments
I can't really think of any. To me this is really cut-and-dried. I am only asking this question because I keep seeing Crawford opting-out as a factor in trade threads and possible 2009-10 line-up discussions.
He is set to make approximately $9.3m next year and $10.1m the next so that's what he has at stake. We know why the Warriors want him to opt-out: He's simply not better than the guys that play ahead of him and you don't want to devote 1/6 of your salary cap to your 3rd or 4th guard. Unfortunately for the Warriors, that is not their choice.
So what would be his incentive to opt out of that arrangement? We need to think of this entirely from Jamal Crawford's perspective because it's his choice.
So what would cause him to opt-out?
1. He or his agent thinks there is a strong chance that he'll get more money somewhere else.
2. He or his agent think he can get somewhat comparable money somewhere else where he or his agent feel like it would be a better situation for minutes, style of play, shots, locker room, coach, facility etc . .
3. He or his agent think a 1-year deal can be had so that Crawford can finally show that he's worth even more than the $19.4 he's opting out of.
I don't think any of those scenarios are likely to transpire but I will say that #2 is the Warriors only, albeit slim, hope. Scenario #2 only exists because Nelson made it clear to Crawford, who loves the style of play, the Oracle atmosphere and the West Coast, that he was going to get traded if he didn't opt-out.
So, my question to you all is: Is There Any Reasonable Circumstance Under Which Crawford Opts-Out?
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
1 recs |
90 comments
Email
Print
Comments
i'd say no
but i said the same thing about baron last year
by AJC3317 on Mar 28, 2009 7:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Baron only opted out after the Clippers deal was on the table.
Dont be naive.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Here's the thing...
The reason nobody thought Baron would opt out is because everyone thought “a GM would have to be insane to pay Baron enough to walk away from that deal.”
Well guess what. Him and his agent found a GM insane enough to pay him enough to opt out.
Now we all know that there can’t be a GM crazy enough to pay Crawford enough to walk away from his contract.
I bet that Crawford’s agent is working the phones to gauge the interest of other teams around the league (off the record of course). I still doubt that he decides to opt out but after ridiculing everyone who said that Baron might opt out excuse me if I reserve judgment until we get official word. Don’t forget that Crawford has put up a high ppg in NY which makes him a great candidate to be overpaid in the NBA.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 28, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
very good point,
the last factor to consider is the economy and cap space. Does Crawford take a five year mle or keep these last 2 years over 9 mil? I think he keeps the last 2 years and hopes someone can scoop him up with the mle 2 years from now. How many teams are under the cap and which of those teams would blow it on Crawford instead of waiting for 2010? I doubt it, but your right, its not imposssible.
And Crawford is a decent guy, hopefully he realizes he doesnt deserve Nellie’s crap and leaves and just takes the MLE for 5 years.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
i wouldnt take a 4 miliion dollar pay cut because i didnt deserve nellie’s crap or inconsistent minutes. I would not opt out an hope for an ideal trade or that the warriors come around. paycheck for guys like him only come around once because i dont see him getting another zeke contract anytime soon based off potential
by IndubitableBayAreaGM on Mar 29, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not really a 4 million pay cut,
If he can get MLE over 5 years thats like 38/5 with the pay raises. Right now he is lookin at something like19/2. Who knows what he will get 2 years from now. Im not saying that it is a good finacial desisicion, but its not as ridiculuos as it sounds.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he keeps the last 2 years and hopes someone can scoop him up with the mle 2 years from now.
What happens if his old body gets injured? What happens if he continues to lose PT to younger, better players? What happens if he turns 31 and can’t get a 3 year MLE deal because he’s really old and not that great of a player?
All that considered, I’d rather have guaranteed a 5 year $33M contract than a guaranteed 2 year $17M contract. It’s a major reason Baron opted out, it’s a major reason Corey opted out. A guy like Jamal would get $25-$30M for 5 years from the Spurs, if there’s a lesser team available, they’ll give him the $30-35M it’d take to be a smart money decision. Either way, if I were Jamal, I’d take the assured money and/or slightly less assured money and a chance at a championship.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I think that if he and his agent believe they can get the full MLE he could very well opt out. I really don’t know what the market will look like this summer but there is still a chance he opts out (though I’m not counting on it by any means). His age will be a factor in the decision, seeing as this may be his last chance to land a long-term deal.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 30, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happens if his old body gets injured?
Then he retires a ridiculously rich individual, which he already is as opposed to a ridiculously rich individual with 15 to 25 more million headed his way. I know it’s different if you’re able to make that much money, but since I can’t really conceive of how my life would be different if I had already made 10s of millions of $$$ and had another $20 mil vs. another $35 mil coming my way, it’s tough to see how that would motivate someone to make decisions.
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's not go too far down that path...
But that might be the difference between your grandkids being set for life and your greatgrandkids being set for life… or whatever. If money wasn’t a driving force for these guys, they’d all be taking paycuts to play with LeBron. I don’t see that happening, so I think money is certainly a factor.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I do not disagree that money seems to motivate most of the decisions most basketball players make vis a vis the pro game. I was just saying that in terms of his actual risks, he’s not really risking much one way or another. It would be nice if a few of these guys realized it.
by jae on Mar 30, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Similarly, someone in Haiti making $1 a day could look at a Californian making 40k a year as opposed to 20k a year and say “so what, it’s not like his actual living conditions changed”.
Maybe some players buy 5 Maseratis and are broke by 30. Maybe some others stretch their MLE paycheck to help generations mired in poverty, to try to better their community or communities around the world. Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes might be hard, but snarky comments will always be free.
by antihero on Mar 30, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
We can hope, he seems like a good guy and really doesnt deserve this bs from Nellie....
but it makes 0 sense finacially…..
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 8:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
what happened to the Bosh thread? Deleted because it “shouldve been” a fanshot? lame
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 28, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what BS?
nellie told him we don’t need him? that’s bs?
by saintdee on Mar 28, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah,
you dont bench a guy and publicly embarass him just because you were too stupid to trade for him without doing a scouting report. Look I dont like Jamal Crawford’s game at all and pray every night that he will opt out, but Don Nelson is being totally unprofesional with him.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 28, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
unprofessional
would be benching him without any warning. Professional is telling someone you don’t need him.
by saintdee on Mar 28, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he was't publicly embarassed
Nellie talked to him in private
by mosdl on Mar 29, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
its a business
guess what if it wasnt the nba, he would just be fired. “Jamal, you’re a nice guy but people making much less than you do your job just as well, I’m sorry”
by tafkasam on Mar 30, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Re: really doesnt deserve this bs from Nellie....
What? The truth? No matter what Nellie tells him, he’s still a 40% shooter who plays horrible defense.
Is it Nelson’s fault they traded for him? At least partially if not entirely, but it still makes sense to tell Crawford that he should opt out because think about how pissed Crawford would be, justified or not, if nothing was said and he ended up sticking around to play 10-15 minutes a game behind Ellis, Jackson and possibly Morrow and/or Bellinelli?
Honestly, I think Nelson is more trying to inoculate himself against having to bench him next year if they can’t trade him. But, I don’t think he should be slammed for being honest with the guy. If nothing else, it puts his agent to work early to find out if any teams would sign him or trade for him.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 28, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
think about how pissed Crawford would be, justified or not, if nothing was said and he ended up sticking around to play 10-15 minutes a game behind Ellis, Jackson and possibly Morrow and/or Bellinelli?
You are forgetting that he gets paid almost 20 million to hang around for those two years so how pissed would you be? The bay area is a lot nicer place to hang out than most parts of the country and he’d basically be on a two year paid vacation with season tickets thrown in for free. That’s something I could get into.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 29, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So by that logic, Nelson gave him an early Christmas gift by giving him a heads up about his fabulous new life of leisure.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 29, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nelson gave him an early Christmas gift by giving him a heads up about his fabulous new life of leisure.
Probably more a warning that they might trade him, Jamal does score some points so I could see another team wanting him, but not bad enough to offer us anything useful.
Either way Crawford is gonna get paid for the next two years so he’s set. Opting out wouldn’t make sense in this economy, better to wait and see how things are going in two years.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 29, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what if,
his agent can grab him a full MLE for 5 years with raises in a city he likes and thats a contender. Than it comes down to 37/5 on a team that contends and appreciates him vs 19/2 on a crap team that has publicaly said we dont want you here
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 29, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what if,
Well that’s a lot of if’s? Can he sign a new deal before opting out to make sure it is not bogus? Would the 5 years be guaranteed? Would it be Portland which is the only NBA city with close to bay area weather?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 29, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can he sign a new deal before opting out? No. And technically, he’s not even allowed to speak with other teams about another deal. A team that meets with him ahead of opting out is tampering and, if proven, would be blocked from signing him. Of course the wink wink conversations that happen through the media happen.
by jae on Mar 29, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
5 year contracts?
The way the economy is going, I doubt many 5 years will be handed out.
by mosdl on Mar 29, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
unless Corey Maggette becomes available for some sucker……oh wait, that already happened.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
4.
The coach and management are giving him the cold shoulder – the gentlest way Nelson knows how to deal with it. He can either not opt-out and not have a part in the rotation (which is bad because he is in his contract year and needs to put up numbers), or he can opt-out and sign a safe deal somewhere like Baron. He just didn’t work out, but Nelson planned for that.
by GoldenBlue on Mar 28, 2009 10:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: He just didn’t work out, but Nelson planned for that.
How did you come to that particular conclusion? Like, what is that based on? How would that benefit Nelson in any possible way?
Also, Baron Davis, leading up to his opt-out, was an All-Star level point guard, a potential team-changer. Jamal Crawford is an expensive version of Ricky Davis.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 29, 2009 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, my guess, on Nelson's point of view
The team trades Harrington and a streaky guard comes in that might solve our backcourt issue. The thing is, Crawford is a low-risk trial. If he doesn’t work out, I’ll sit him, let him pump up his numbers, and tell him that the team is not interested in him anymore (paraphrased from a KNBR interview). Hopefully, he bites, and opts-out. And I’m not for certain, but the Clippers would rather have Crawford take Baron’s place right now.
by GoldenBlue on Mar 29, 2009 2:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
edit
Nelson didn’t actually say he planned this, but those were his feelings on Crawford’s future. But this is Nelson, his persona is built upon his ability to put on a show.
by GoldenBlue on Mar 29, 2009 2:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm lost.
A: Crawford was always a risk not-to opt out. How was he a low-risk trial? He was all Mullin could get for Harrington.
B: Why do you think the Clippers would rather have Jamal Crawford than Baron Davis and how does that have anything to do with Crawford opting out? The Clippers do have Baron Davis so signing Crawford doesn’t rid them of Baron Davis.
C: How is Nelson’s persona built on “putting on a show”? What does that have anything to do with opting out?
Two reason’s why I’m lost:
1. Your claims, on the surface, seem like unsubstantiated assumptions.
2. Even if your claims were all undisputed facts, they still do not lead to any coherent conclusion.
From what I can cobble together of your three-comment-Mad-Lib, it seems like you think that Crawford can opt-out because he can get more money like Baron did because the Clippers would rather have Crawford over Davis and Nelson planned this all along but he didn’t say that but his persona is built on putting on a show so Crawford will opt-out.
Ok, I’m still lost.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 29, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Alrite hold up, let me do some cleaning
A. Of course there is still some risk in Jamal not opting-out, but there are ways you can “nudge” him towards that direction (i.e. not playing him, telling him the higher-ups don’t think he’s part of the future, tell him to go up his stats – KNBR interview). They wanted to get Harrington and thought they might as well solve the backcourt issue at the same time. If he didn’t work out, then they can give him a choice of opting-out or stay on the team and diminish his value. Plus, I’m sure there were other offers for Harrington’s expiring contract, but they wanted Jamal to see if he could solve anything. Two birds, one stone.
B. I was being hypothetical. You said that Baron was an all-star level point guard at his opt-out and deserved a long term deal. But the way Baron is playing now, the Clippers are probably wishing they gave the money to someone who can stay healthy and wants to play – even if it was Crawford. ALL HYPOTHETICAL.
C. Well, Nelson’s media persona is that he always has a higher agenda and that he’s three steps ahead of everyone. He is always nonchalant and never answers any question directly. Was Jamal’s opt-out clause in consideration if he didn’t work out? Nobody knows. If any part of Nelson’s scheming ways is true, then yes it was a factor in trading for Jamal. If you know Nelson’s habits, he doesn’t like to look like the bad guy. Still an assumption, though.
And to summarize for a third time and to put it into Crawford’s POV: The team brought me into play alongside Ellis, but that is not going to work out. Coach has told me so and now he’s playing me sparingly and letting me pump up my numbers. I can either increase my stats to look like a reliable player, opt-out, sign somewhere they need me, or I can just take the money, sit on the bench, destroy my integrity, and possibly diminish my chances of ever seeing a high level contract ever again.
Yes, these are all assumptions, but if you were Crawford, isn’t this what you should be thinking? Overall, the team hoped that he would work out and be apart of the future, but that isn’t the case. Now plan B comes into action and its to make Crawford opt-out (which is also the best choice for him).
by GoldenBlue on Mar 30, 2009 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now plan B comes into action and its to make Crawford opt-out (which is also the best choice for him).
Not so sure about that. 20 million in the bank might be better than a chance at 35 million later? The guaranteed contract thing worked out pretty well for our boy foyle.
If it was me I’d sit tight and hope to get another small contract after the 2 years was up. 3 more years from some other team at minimum plus the present warriors 2 years of big money would be plenty.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 30, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A + B + C + Summary do not = an opt-out
A. None of that explains why he would be in any way motivated to leave $19m on the table.
B. Right. So how does this in any way have anything to do with Crawford opting out? My point was that the Baron situation is not analogous to the Crawford situation. At his best, Baron Davis is a franchise player, an All-Star point guard who can do everything on the floor well if he’s putting forth the effort. At his best, Crawford is a one-dimensional, volume-shooter. So just because I’m willing to take the risk to spend a lot of money on a Ferrari that may or may not break down over the next 5 years, it doesn’t mean I want to buy your Ford Festiva for 2X the sticker price.
C. What on earth does that have to do with Crawford sacrificing $19m? You’re right though, unlike most everybody else on the planet who likes to look like the bad guy, Nelson doesn’t. I’d opt out too.
As for your summary, I pretty much agree that is what Crawford must weigh and all of those factors do not add up risking $19m of guaranteed money, from his POV. Especially considering Nelson promised/threatened that they will try to trade him if he doesn’t opt-out. Also, I stated in the post itself that this is all from Crawford’s POV since his POV is the only one that matters at this point because it’s his player-option.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 30, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'm going to refer to IQofaWarrior's comment below
I should have done that from the beginning. And I’m pretty sure he can get a 5 year $5m deal somewhere.
by GoldenBlue on Mar 30, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it comes down to whether Crawford wants money or playing time.
by IQofaWarrior on Mar 28, 2009 11:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ooops, wrong button.
If he wants the money, he’ll stick to the contract, sit on our bench, and wait for the team that trades for him. If he wants minutes and/or control of his destiny, he’ll opt out and find a team of his choice that needs him to play.
by IQofaWarrior on Mar 28, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My money's on money.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 29, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mine too
And a guaranteed $35M is almost twice as much as a guaranteed $18M.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mostly
You have to take into consideration the time-value-of money as well. Meaning a dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 2002 and, presumably, worth less than a dollar in 2014. but yah, if someone want’s to lock up a 40% jump shooter who plays zero defense, then it’s a better deal financially for Crawford if he planned on playing 5 more years anyways.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 30, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s a better deal financially for Crawford if he planned on playing 5 more years anyways
It’s an even better deal if he plans on just playing two years. Just go be an old 40% shooter and poor defender and get benched but still collect your paycheck.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i voted yes, here's why
he’s going to take a MASSIVE pay cut to play with his best friend brandon roy. (chances are slim, i know).
by HoLdEmUP on Mar 29, 2009 3:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nope
He tore it up last night
Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
by ejdacanay on Mar 29, 2009 9:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
with Maggette and Jack both out. Thats about 65-70 minutes SOMEBODY had to fill. Not to mention Biedrins and Wright.
Thing A
by sam23 on Mar 29, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only way someone wants jamal
Is a contender who thinks that having him gives them the offense they need. I still say the best fit would be the suns
by mosdl on Mar 29, 2009 3:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
on
a team with jrich, amare, and barbosa. Crawford will not get as many shots.
by saintdee on Mar 29, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
on
a team with Crawford, it’s jrich, amare, and barbosa who would not be getting as many shots
by hardcore on Mar 29, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well played, sir.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 30, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree with most posters
1) A 5 year full mle deal, or something close to it, is too good to pass up if you’re Crawford. 2) He’d likely have to have a deal in place (yes, it’s illegal) like Baron did for that to happen. No way he just takes the chance.
3) The key here is the economy and whether teams will be spending this offseason
4) Crawford could be a piece on a good team, but would certainly need to be a role player. Is he better or worse than West in Cleveland?
by jmaaan on Mar 30, 2009 10:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
2) He’d likely have to have a deal in place (yes, it’s illegal) like Baron did for that to happen
I do not think this is incorrect. It is not legal in the sense that it is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and is as such a violation of the contract. A player must opt out before entering into negotiations with another team unless he first receives permission from the his team to negotiate with another team. This is spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement. Baron did not have an official deal in place when he opted out and any official contact with the Clippers ahead of time would have been tampering. Had he had a deal in place ahead of his opt out, the Warriors could have filed tampering charges. The NBA will investigate such charges but does not unless requested to do so by a team.
Is he better or worse than West in Cleveland?
Crawford is much worse. Delonte West is a more productive player. West is a more accurate shooter who is better at rebounding, handing out assists and has fewer turnovers. Unless he somehow starts scoring points for the other team, he cannot be a less effective defender. It’s really not close. I’d send out Crawford for West in a heartbeat. Crawford shoots more often and scores more points, but most nights that’s a detriment to the team as inefficiently as he shoots.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baron did not have an official deal in place when he opted out and any official contact with the Clippers ahead of time would have been tampering.
You are absolutely right of course. I do have my suspicions though about how much off the record conversation goes on through third parties. I may be totally off base but I suspect that there is much more poking and prodding going on with respect to feeling out the market ahead of time than the CBA allows. These guys all know each other too well to avoid conversations completely. Especially when you are represented by one of those agents with many NBA clients. What’s to stop an agent from casually discussing one of his other clients with a GM while having an official legitimate conversation about another player he represents.
I’m not saying this happened but I can imagine someone from BDA sports management who represent both Baron Davis and Al Thornton testing the water. You know something along the lines of “Well I just wanted to tell you how happy Thornton is in LA.”
“Good. How are things going for you otherwise?”
“Great! Should be a big summer for us. You know Baron may decide to opt out and if he does that could be exciting for some teams. You know, he would look real nice playing next to Brand.”
“Yeah, he had a great year. He could probably get 5yr/$50-60 mil.”
If that is a bit too risky I could easily see a similar conversation taking place through mutual friends.
Who knows if this kind of stuff happens. I don’t. It could even be common place enough that teams are not likely to ask for the NBA to investigate tampering because they don’t to draw any attention themselves.
This is all complete speculation of course. I’d love to know how these things really work.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 31, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of professions that work in cool "under the radar" ways...
FDIC bank shut downs work like a spy movie. It sounds pretty cool on NPR.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard a story like that about that last week (Tuesday?) that sounded like it was excerpted from This American Life. The shocking thing (to the “reporter” too) was how competently, efficiently and congenially the government workers went about their business of converting the small bank.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 31, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Must have been TAL. I heard it twice, over the weekends I think. But then, I’m here in Boson so we’ve probably got different schedules.
Two of them go into the bank and say, to all the employees who think they’re bank is still doing just fine, “Alright, your bank just failed. In 10 minutes, 80 FDIC employees will be in here handling stuff. Just be calm.” Then they send out a message on the walkie talkie “Go”. Including to the guy from the more solvent bank that’s taking over the assets who’s in a parked car 2 blocks away. Then they all appear out of the darkness simultaneously and go about their job. It’s gotta be one of the creepiest things to see if you’re one of the bank employees.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 31, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow...
Stuff like that happens in real life? that is movie script material.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 31, 2009 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s gotta be one of the creepiest things to see if you’re one of the bank employees.
Sounds like it would be a relief to know your customers wouldn’t have to come after you with firearms? This orderly banking takeover plan is one thing the govt. is good at.
Now if they could get as interested in health care and joblessness?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 2, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing though is...
None of them can know about it until the FDIC walks in, or there’d be a real “run on the bank.” All of the employees are going about their day. At this particular bank, one guy had been out off the office on sales calls all day. The employees know that things aren’t going well, but they certainly don’t know things are thaaat bad.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 3, 2009 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s to stop an agent from casually discussing one of his other clients with a GM while having an official legitimate conversation about another player he represents.
What’s to stop it? Tampering regulations and being de-certified if this is proven. However, it’s ridiculously difficult to do so. And there’s a big difference between an agent saying that he thinks a team has interest/other clients are happy and the agent or player discussing contracts with the team itself and getting an assurance that a contract will be there. Coaches and GMs are very careful to never name names in discussing potential deals before they could be made because of this, though nothing could have stopped LAC from saying “in the off season, we’re going to look to see if there are avenues for us to acquire a top-flight point guard”.
I suspect that if the Warriors really pushed things, they might have been able to block LAC’s signing, claiming tampering if Brand and Davis were shown to have had an agreement with the team about Brand’s opting out. However, when Brand went to Philly, that case was much tougher to prove and it still wouldn’t necessarily bring Davis back here, just prevent him from going there.
I agree though, I doubt that most teams want to invoke tampering to not draw attention to themselves. It has happened with penalties notably for coaches when Miami lured Riley away, resulting in penalties for Miami, and when Stackhouse openly stated that he and Dallas had plans on him re-signing after being waived by NJ, the deal was blocked. The Stackhouse situation was hard to avoid since Stack made the news public.
In terms of Crawford specifically, were I the Warriors and wanted him to opt out, I might give him permission to contact other clubs. The worry there is that if he doesn’t find anyone willing he won’t opt out and then we’d know how very little interest there was in him, even at a reduced price. If the only way he’d opt out is to first ‘test the market’ though, there’s nothing to lose.
by jae on Mar 31, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s to stop it? Tampering regulations and being de-certified if this is proven. However, it’s ridiculously difficult to do so.
Yeah that’s really the point. I’m not sure how much this sort of thing goes on but I’m sure most of them would have a good idea about how far they could go without taking too big a risk. I wouldn’t expect that any real negotiations would take place, but who knows.
It could be similar to the way college recruiting works. Everyone is trying to bend the rules as much as possible and every so often someone goes too far.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 31, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
were I the Warriors and wanted him to opt out, I might would give him permission to contact other clubs
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 31, 2009 4:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd go find a club and bribe them to offer him a better deal
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 2, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
warriorsscore110 wrote:
what if, his agent can grab him a full MLE for 5 years with raises in a city he likes and thats a contender. Than it comes down to 37/5 on a team that contends and appreciates him vs 19/2 on a crap team that has publicaly said we dont want you here
This is the only possible logic in Crawford opting out: a smaller per-year salary that’s counteracted by more years and more total money. If he could get a four or five-year contract at the MLE, he’d have to at least consider it.
So what this question really boils down to is: can Jamal Crawford reasonably expect a four or five-year MLE offer this summer? I’m pretty sure the answer is no.
Crawford’s certainly not going to get more than the MLE anywhere. There are only a couple teams with significant cap space, and they’re targeting a higher class of player than Crawford. If these teams use their cap space this summer (and Memphis and OKC may well not), they’ll spend it on Marion, Iverson, Boozer, Artest, Odom or maybe Ben Gordon. Nobody’s foolish enough to turn empty cap space into Jamal Crawford (cue Warriors joke).
So it comes down to the MLE. Based on what I can find — not 100% confident, but it seems pretty close — the teams that can offer the MLE this summer are the Knicks, Raptors, Cavs, Suns, Rockets, Spurs, Kings, Celtics, Bucks, Hornets, Magic, Mavs, Hornets, Wizards, Nuggets and Lakers. (And us, but it’s safe to say we wouldn’t be bidding on the guy.)
How many of these teams might possibly give Jamal Crawford four or five years at the MLE? I count zero.
First, let’s deal with the easy ones. The Kings are shedding contracts as fast as they can. The Knicks are all about 2010, and are still cartwheeling over the fact that they were able to pawn this guy off on somebody. The Wizards are already paying the luxury tax for a crap team. The Raptors are retooling. The Hornets are downright desperate to cut payroll, the Nuggets only slightly less so. The Lakers are already paying the tax and don’t have any room. The Suns are money-conscious and wing-heavy. The Bucks have some RFAs to worry about.
That leaves the Cavs, Rockets, Spurs, Celtics, and Mavs. Five playoff teams who might be looking for an extra piece. Would any of them want Crawford badly enough to give him four or five years?
Well, the Cavs are a defensive-minded team that’s putting up one of the best records of the decade. The Rockets pay as much attention to advanced statistics as any team… Crawford rates as one of the worst heavy-minute players in the league by most metrics. The Spurs basically only want cheap three-point marksmen outside of their big three, and that’s not Crawford. The Celtics are obsessed with defense and have elite players at both guard spots. None of those four are gonna bite on Crawford.
That leaves the Mavs. If Kidd moves on, they have a hole… they have an owner who has been willing to exceed the luxury tax. You could possibly, theoretically, see the Mavs take an interest in Jamal.
But look at other guards who’ll probably be out there for the MLE: Andre Miller. Mike Bibby. Kidd himself. Ramon Sessions may well be available. All of those guys are more attractive than Crawford. How is Crawford going to create a bidding war that gets him four or five years from the Mavs, or from anyone, for that matter?
The answer’s simple: he won’t. He can’t. Which is why he’s not opting out, no matter how much we wish he would.
by onlxn on Mar 31, 2009 9:13 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Nice post...
Looking at it team by team you can make a very strong argument that there is no market for Crawford. I’m still going to reserve judgment for the simple reason that I remember posts very similar to this that seemed bullet-proof explaining why there was no way that there was a market for Baron that would make it worthwhile for him to opt out (though they may not have been as good as this one).
I do think that it’s very unlikely that he actually opts out. I think that everything from the economic downturn to the illusion of the 2010 FA salvation are all working against him. I think you made a very good case for Crawford to take the sure money and take Nelson out for dinner and a movie (and a few beers) to try to patch things up.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 31, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very nicely done onlxn,
Cavs-they got Daniel Gibson, Mo Willams, and Delonte West. With Ben and Z getting long in the tooth and Varejo a free agent, they probably want a big or forward of some kind. Absolutely no argument with that. Bosh is good, very good, but I don’t think he’s good enough by himself to overcome whatever talent drop it would cost to get him.
Rockets-maybe, with Artest and McGrady(an expiring contract) possibly gone, they might seek a veteran to add to the back court. They got rid of Luther Head and Rafer Alston so not too much depth there. Crawford might be a Adelman kind of player but the Rockets probably are too smart to grab him.
Spurs-they got Roger Mason JR, and Pops has been raving about his point guard skills lately. The Spurs are going to look to replace Finley and Bowen or get another center, not a flawed combo guard.
Celtics-Maybe. This is the best chance. Hopefully Ainge see’s Crawford as an upgrade to Eddie House. Very unlikely, but its probably the best bet(we are talking 2% chance compared to like .005% chance).
Mavericks-No way. Cuban is a jerk but I think he will be patient. The rumor is that they will make a hard push for Dallas Native Chris Bosh in 2010. He isnt going to add salary via Crawford.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 31, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wierd
That last sentence in the cavs paragraph is by jae in another post that I quoted. Not sure how it popped up there.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Mar 31, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AFAIK
Every team can offer the MLE every season.
by markdash on Mar 31, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not if they have Cap space...
and opt to use it instead. If you are under the cap you have to choose whether you want to operate under the cap or accept the MLE at which point you would operate as if you are over the cap (say if you were only $2-3 mil under).
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 31, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what?
Every team can still offer the same amount of money that the MLE represents. Whether they actually use the MLE is essentially irrelevant.
At any rate, with the current economy I have a hard time seeing any NBA team offering a player of Crawford’s ability that kind of money, whether it comes from cap space or an exception.
by markdash on Mar 31, 2009 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what?
No real point. Just sharing information, same as you.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Mar 31, 2009 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nod
my main point was that all 30 teams have the option of offering Crawford MLE-level money. And about 0 will be interested in doing so.
Still, good info.
by markdash on Apr 1, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Though there’s always the possibility that someone will do something stupid. It’s not something to depend on, but you never know. Hell, there was this reasonable versatile off guard who looked to be a valuable expiring contract for 2010. I heard someone extended him for 3 years before that happened so he’d be under contract until he’s 35, so things as dumb as giving MLE money to Crawford have happened.
Maybe someone will hire Isiah Thomas in the off season.
by jae on Apr 1, 2009 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We all thought Maggette & Baron wouldn't opt out because nobody would give them contracts worth it
Yet they did. There’s plenty of precedent for players getting contracts when casual and hardcore fans alike thought there was no chance. Furthermore, there will not be 30 FAs better than Jamal Crawford available this offseason. There will be more buyers than players. It’s not nearly as unlikely as people like Owen believe.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We all thought Maggette & Baron wouldn’t opt out because nobody would give them contracts worth it. Yet they did. There’s plenty of precedent for players getting contracts when casual and hardcore fans alike thought there was no chance.
Maggette opting out was pretty much a no-brainer in my mind. Baron? Not a no-brainer, but his opting out was a surprise more because of his signals that he wouldn’t than because of the impossibility that he’d get more money elsewhere. And needless to say, both players are much more highly regarded than Jamal.
I’m not disputing the fact that Crawford would be a top-30 free agent this summer. He’d probably be a top-20 agent, though certainly not top-ten. Somebody may well give him the full MLE rate for next year, and probably for the year after that.
But that’s not enough. But for opting out to be remotely worth it for him, he needs to be confident that someone will give him the full MLE rate for four years. For opting out to be a superior option, he needs to be confident that someone will give him the full MLE rate for five. I just don’t see how he could be confident of that, in this environment.
If Crawford was simply a free agent, it’s not outright impossible that he’d find a four-year deal. Sure, maybe Otis Smith and Kevin Pritchard get drunk together one night and start bidding against each other for him… you never know. But that’s not what Crawford’s looking at. For opting out to be worth it, he pretty much needs a wink-wink guarantee from some team that they’ll go to four years for him. This in a penny-pinching environment where Ben Gordon, Andre Miller, Iverson, Kidd and Bibby are also available, and there are a couple RFAs — Sessions, Nate Robinson, maybe Felton — that actually might move teams. Of those eight, the only guy that wouldn’t definitely garner more interest than Crawford is Felton, and even he might.
Baron didn’t need to start a bidding war… he just needed one team to fall in love with him, and he found that team. Maggette didn’t need to worry… he figured, rightly, that he’d be the top option available for the MLE (and in fact maneuvered his way into more money than that as a result). Crawford’s not in either position. He’s not a unique talent that anyone covets, especially with the high-profile manner in which we’re trying to convince him to go away. And he won’t be the most appealing MLE option — Kidd, Bibby and Sessions should all be in that tier, along with Varejao, Ariza, Artest, maybe ’Sheed, maybe Iverson… the MLE market looks to be unusually deep this year.
Would someone sign Crawford for $12 million over two? Sure, but that’s not worth it to him. How about $19 million over three? Very possible, but again, not worth it. He needs four or five years, and while that could happen, it won’t be a reasonable assumption on July 1st… not with so many more appealing players available. To opt out would be to risk leaving millions of dollars on the table. Which is why I don’t expect him to do it.
by onlxn on Apr 1, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
Also Shawn Marion’s star has diminished to the point where he might be considered the top flight MLE option this year and might get more than that because of it. The Corey Maggette of this offseason, if you will.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Apr 1, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about $19 million over three? Very possible, but again, not worth it.
Maybe he would take it if it was for a contending team.
by warriOs on Apr 1, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he would take it if it was for a contending team.
He’s already got a guaranteed 2 years at that amount. It would be stupid to take a chance on losing that to see if he can get the same thing from someone else. The money of a last place team is just as spendable as the money from a first place team and the pressure is a lot less.
Look at it from his point of view, he plays the two years of his contract out for what? 18 mil? then can sign another two years somewhere for say 4 mil per and then one year at 2 mill and he’s got 28 mil in the bank with little effort versus taking a chance on someone giving him a new 5 year deal at 6 mil per year? Money up front is always worth more than money at the back.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 2, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Furthermore, there will not be 30 FAs better than Jamal Crawford available this offseason. There will be more buyers than players.
I guess no one knows for sure but I don’t think there is any way there are actually 30 MLE level buyers this offseason. I’m not sure what the average number of full MLE contracts handed out are every year but it’s certainly not that high.
Assuming that just because a team can use the MLE makes them a buyer is not a good read of the market in my opinion. I think if anything more teams will try to stretch the MLE into multiple players than usually would. That’s just a guess though.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 1, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: there’s always the possibility that someone will do something stupid
A truer statement has never been uttered.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Apr 1, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every team can use the MLE every year (unless they are under the cap, as I just saw OM has already mentioned). The bigger issue though is that once signed, that MLE money counts just like any other salary. IF a team is angling to sign a good player (and I do not really regard Crawford as such) in 2010, signing Crawford this year is $6mil less that they’ll have to work with to make offers a year later. Only a team that doesn’t figure to be a player and isn’t trying to clear cap room would find that enticing.
Every team could sign Crawford, but why would any team want to do so?
by jae on Apr 1, 2009 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Catch me if I'm wrong...
But a team that already has a star they’re going to try to re-sign can do whatever they want because they can go over the cap to keep their player. The question then becomes: “Is Jamal Crawford worth twice the MLE in out of pocket expense?”
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 1, 2009 6:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
each team has their own set of circumstances. Some are trying to avoid luxury tax, some are trying to slash salary for 2010, some are trying to add a complementary piece, and some are planning to be a serious buyer this year. Of those looking to add a complementary piece or making a major signing, how many of them might be interested in Jamal? That is a lot to read, which is why I’m not going to jump to any conclusions about Crawford. But I think it’s reasonable to say that his opting out to get the full MLE is unlikely.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 1, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The chances were slim to begin with,
and with so many teams suffering from the economy, it has become even less likely that teams will be willing to use the MLE.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Apr 1, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
