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?