Jamal Crawford Hasn't Decided Whether to Opt-Out
by Atma Brother ONE on May 31, 2009 2:30 AM PDT
in Links
45 comments
Don Nelson, Larry Riley, and many Dubs fans have made it fairly clear they want Jamal Crawford to opt out of his contract with the Warriors. Crawford however isn't so sure.
Can JC go for 50 + 50 next season?
Jump for some info from AOL.
Winning Is Jamal Crawford's Top Priority [AOL Fanhouse]
"As far as the opt-out? Not yet, I'll just be patient and see how things work out. I know there's a lot of talk out there but I'll just be patient and see what happens," he said. "If we keep everybody together in Golden State (we could win) ... but the organization has to want to do that. And that's up to them to call who they think fits and who doesn't. I had fun, like I said before. The trade caught me off guard but I felt like I had a good year in Oakland. I had been doing the same thing I did in New York."
Given the current state of the NBA economy, I doubt Crawford will be able to net a better long-term deal than what his remaining 2 years and 19+ million on the Dubs offer. I don't expect him to opt out.
Last time the golden GSoM community was polled, 61% of you said you'd like to see Crawford opt out of his deal. If anything I bet that voting block has only grown, but we'll see with the poll in this post.
Personally, I'd love to see the JC not opt out and Warriors retain him for next season. I've already dropped some thoughts on this previously, but another thing I'll add is my extreme phobia of a Monta Ellis - Stephen Jackson backcourt. As I've noted before the Monta Ellis - Jamal Crawford pairing would easily make for the worst defensive teamage in the entire league and that's rightfully something to fear. Individually, they're horrific defenders (as we all know) and collectively I have my doubts if they can stop a Stop sign. If you don't know why defense is important, then I'll direct you on over to my colleague JAE's recent debunking.
However, a Monta - Jack backcourt is a turnover waiting to happen and something that scares me even more. Neither of those guys have great handles or acceptable court vision for primary distributors in the NBA and both are prone to careless, silly mistakes with the rock. Monta's at his best when he's slashing to the hole on fast breaks, not trying to create at the top of the key or handle the ball. Jack's at his best when he's the 3rd or 4th option, shooting spot-up jumpers, and being a passing accessory. Despite the defensive woes, I'd rather stick with Monta - JC in the backcourt, with Jackson at the 3 coming to rotate and guard top PG's and wings. JC can bring the ball up and really help minimize the turnovers.
I'm not saying either combo is a winning combo or that the Warriors won't be losing either way next season, but I can somewhat stomach bad defense every night compared to turnovers that drive you nuts. Plus a JC/Monta backcourt could be wildly entertaining...
Look if you're going to lose like the Warriors, barring a blockbuster trade, will be for the foreseeable future, then lose in style. There's no better guy to lose with than JC:
1 recs |
45 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
2 things
1 Please opt out Jamal
2 Lmao from that picture
Oakland Raiders Fan
Golden State Warriors Fan
San Francisco Giants Fan
by i love sports101 on May 31, 2009 7:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
LOL... true that on the lmao on the pic...
I still remember when Atma asked me 2 do it… gettin that jersey on was the hard part LOL!
FYI… I like jamal but opt the dude out too…
Beyond Golden State of Design... and than some!
http://www.tonypsd.blogspot.com/
by Tony.psd on May 31, 2009 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You ever notice how your Photoshoped pics are WAY better than the guys over at TNT's halftime show
Go demand a job over there
by 123707THIZZ on May 31, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I must say that this was one of the more easier polls for me to vote on and quite possibly for a lot of you as well.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 7:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think a more challenging poll question would be
“If YOU were Jamal Crawford, would you opt out?”
by IQofaWarrior on May 31, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL... He's probably in Jack in the Box right now!
I remember his 1st interview as a Warrior…
“It’s closer to home and there’s a Jack in the Box!”
Beyond Golden State of Design... and than some!
http://www.tonypsd.blogspot.com/
by Tony.psd on May 31, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, that “A Tribe Called Tony.psd” title on your picture is awesome, mirroring that of Midnight Marauders!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL... yea man
It’s a tribute 2 the homies!
Beyond Golden State of Design... and than some!
http://www.tonypsd.blogspot.com/
by Tony.psd on May 31, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that one’s just as easy, but has the opposite answer.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 31, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I agree with your comment that Jackson plays no defense.
Seems he’s the only Warrior capabale of playing any defense. Nellie has him guarding 4 of the 5 positions so it tends to make make me beleive he can and does D up.
by dungeness crabdribble on May 31, 2009 9:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Can D up, but last season, seldom did. Perhaps it was a loss of ability, perhaps a loss of focus or interest, but the defensive anchor that Jax provided for the first year and a half he was here (well, mostly the first year as he was pretty tired at the end of 0708) wasn’t clear last year at all.
by jae on May 31, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
or loss of energy? Nelson had him playing nearly every minute and nearly every possession ran through him it seemed … plus, he aint getting any younger
by hardcore on May 31, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On top of that, he was down at the other end complaining about how he was fouled and left his four teammates out there to defend the five on the opposition.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we probably saw that
at least 1-2 times every game
LeBron James? I'm the only Ty Crane.
by misterjennings on May 31, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was deffinitly more times than that a game
I’m going to start keeping track this season.
by 123707THIZZ on May 31, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson is a good on ball defender when he has a good matchup and puts in the effort. He was often playing out of position last year, and didn’t consistently put in the effort necessary to be a good defender. That’s on the ball. Off the ball, he’s a horrendous help defender.
by Missing Barry on May 31, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a crazy idea!!!!!!!
That I just thought of. What if we tell Crawford not to opt out, we play him this season off the bench, see what he can give us, then the season after that, we play him until the trade deadline, and that FAT expiring contract should be worth something to some team in the process of rebuilding.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on May 31, 2009 10:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The “trade expiring contracts” strategy isn’t a guaranteed winner. You have to get back something in return, which means you have to be in the opportune moment when another team is trading away a guy with a longer contract who they have tired of. It has to be worth something to a team that has something that they’re willing to part with. It can happen and has happened, but there’s no guarantee that it will happen.
by jae on May 31, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The good news is even if the Warriors don’t find a trade partner for his expiring contract (assuming this situation comes to pass), then they get the benefit of his expiring contract at the end of the season.
by Missing Barry on May 31, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we play him this season off the bench
thinking the exact same thing (see post at right) – he might do similarly for us what JR Smith did for Denver
by hardcore on May 31, 2009 10:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He won’t. JR Smith is a young player who has room to improve. Crawford is on the downslope of his career.
by jae on May 31, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's irrelevant
hardcore is suggesting that Jamal could be the sort of guy who comes off the bench and provides nothing but offense, like JR. To me that is the perfect role for Jamal, reminds me of Terry in Dallas.
by myk on May 31, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but his offense is mediocre at best. when you factor in that he doesn’t rebound or guard anyone, it’s hard to call him a valuable sixth man. both terry and smith are much better players.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 31, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
even though I dislike his game and demeanor
Terry is arguably better at every aspect of basketball than Craw… I cannot think of 1 thing that Craw does better.
LeBron James? I'm the only Ty Crane.
by misterjennings on May 31, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
except Terry can actually shoot.
last 5 yrs,
JT___ JC
FG% FG%
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
blatherin blatherskite.
.501 .398
.470 .416
.484 .400
.467 .410
.463 .410
by the evil monkey on May 31, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do GSW get if he opts out
Im asking because i dont know the cap rules to good but if he does opt out what kind of room are we working with to sign a free agent. If its not much then I’d rather trade him then have him walk away with us getting no prospects.
by Warriorfan on May 31, 2009 10:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If he opts out, we get the right to not pay him anymore. It will put us around 6mil under the cap, which is not much different from the MLE we’ve got to work with if he doesn’t opt out, though it means we aren’t as close to the lux tax. If he stays, any other maneuvers will likely have to consider the lux tax. If he’s gone, it’s a big enough cushion that we won’t be near it, even with the collection of not terribly wise contracts we’re holding.
by jae on May 31, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and I doubt much that anyone is going to send us a prospect in the sense of “player with a realistic chance to actually produce” for Crawford. Trading him will be difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. And he’s not the sort of talent that teams are going to send out young talent to acquire.
by jae on May 31, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does give us options though
as a potential third team in a 3-way trade. If a team like the Cavs or Nets are looking to dump salary for a TPE, and go after Boozer, or a different trade scenario, it could help.
I’m not saying we should just take trash back for money, but if there’s something good out there that we could take advantage of, it gives us the ability to do so.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."
by kenntoe on May 31, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dunno...
what if he learned how to play d the correct way?
by bojangles408 on May 31, 2009 11:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ellis + jack backcourt >>> ellis + crawford...
how can you even say that the ellis crawford backcourt would be better?? more turnover prone?? na…crawford turns it over plenty…we’d have SIGNIFICANTLY better defense with jackson ellis…
also, if monta turns out to become a decent point…jack will be fine on T/O’s…jack only turns it over a lot when there is no point distributing the ball keeping jacksons handles limited
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawk on May 31, 2009 1:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Monta will never become a decent point
They need to give that theory up and just go after a quality pg now.
by Golden Boy on May 31, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats why getting holiday is good
he has limited t/o’s so he can either start with monta or come off the bench provide some point guard relief
by gsw.raiders on May 31, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With him tearing the combine up
I doubt he’ll be available at our pick. That sucks.
by Golden Boy on May 31, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“They need to give that theory up and just go after a quality pg now.”
Monta’s more valuable at PG. He’s also only 23. I don’t necessarily disagree with you that he won’t become a quality PG, but for a franchise that’s still trying to build a competitive core, I don’t see the problem with trying to develop him into a PG.
by Missing Barry on May 31, 2009 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is EXACTLY what im sayin
it is in montas benefit to try to become a PG…might as well TRY right? we can pick u p holiday and build him up too and see what happens from there….we have a ton of options at the SG position…so having monta TRY to become a point isnt going to hurt us…
monta is small…the fastest guy in the league…has shown small spurts of brilliance with passing…and is starting to handle the ball better….and has one of the better mid range jumpers in the league….he can break down any defense pretty darn well and causes a havoc driving…o and did i mention he can finish inside with the best of em?
he has the physical tools to become a dominant PG…i say he tries to bring his mental game up to that level…or at least TRY….it can only HELP him at the SG position at worst.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawk on May 31, 2009 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus it’s not like Monta is our future #1. If we want a real contender, he’s a #2 guy at best. Depending on who we eventually get to be our #1, having a shoot first PG isn’t the worst thing ever (which is what Ellis would be if he wasn’t able to fully develop into a true PG). The Spurs make it work with Parker. Scouting report on Monta from ESPN before the season:
“Ellis is amazingly quick for his size, and that speed enables him to repeatedly beat defenses down the floor for easy baskets and run down loose balls with ease. He’s also good at cutting off opposing point guards’ penetration for this reason, and slid into position to draw 42 offensive fouls — only two guards accepted more. On the downside, Ellis gets abused by bigger guards in size mismatches, especially when he has to play the 2, and often falls asleep on the weak side. "
PG is his best fit. We’re in a position right now where there’s no harm in letting him try to become one, and at worst he becomes a shoot first PG. As long as we come up with another guy to be the focus point of our offense – like Randolph develops or we get Chris Bosh or luck into a #1 pick or something – it can still work.
In terms of our draft, though, we should take whoever we think is best without taking Monta into consideration, even if that’s a PG.
by Missing Barry on May 31, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see the problem with trying to develop him into a PG.
The problem is it keeps us from getting a better point guard and a better shooting guard and moving on. As long as we’re stuck trying to fit round Montay into a square hole we are wasting time…
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 Jun 1, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree here – no need to develop our organization around trying to make Monta a point. If we acquire another guy we like at the 1, leave Monta at the 2. I think we should be open to all options as long as we’re acquiring as much talent as possible, and until we get a better option at 1 I’d like to see us try to make Monta fit there.
by Missing Barry on Jun 2, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
jennings and crawford?
what you guys think?
by sjwarrior22 on Jun 2, 2009 11:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jamal Crawford Hasn't Decided Whether to Opt-Out?
Decided? There’s no choice, opt out and he’ll be committed to the nut house.
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 Jun 2, 2009 10:54 PM PDT 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.
