Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING

[rockymac52]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wizards/washington-wizards-trade-jordan-crawford-to-celtics-get-little-in-return/2013/02/21/3b6231d4-7c83-11e2-9073-e9dda4ac6a66_story.html

Grunfeld said the deal came together at “the last minute,” as it became evident that Crawford wanted a bigger role with the team, and was agreed upon nearly an hour before the NBA’s 3 p.m. deadline.

“He never came in and said” he wanted a trade, Grunfeld said, “but his actions and the way he has been, he hasn’t been the happiest person, but he’s a good player and we wish him luck in his new situation.”

===
So it boils down to Crawford wanting a bigger role on a team that has Price and Temple playing ahead of him. How dare him.

Crawford was right to want a bigger role. And I get not wanting to have malcontents in the locker room, but come onnnnnn. Just because a player is unhappy with his current role doesn't mean you automatically have to trade him, and especially when you can't get anything of value in return!!! Tell him to suck it up. Throw him on the end of the bench for the rest of the season. Hell, cut him if you have to. But don't just roll over and say "okay, we'll trade you so you're happier with your new role on your new team, even if we don't get anything in return, no problem!"

[hands11]

Since John Wall returned from his injury, Jordan Crawford has only averaged 10.7 MPG.

There is no denying that since Wall came back, Crawford has been in the proverbial "doghouse."

Now, let's think about something. Following this trade, and Ernie's brief comments about the trade, at least one thing is clear - the Wizards decided they were done with Crawford. At this moment in time, we knew that Crawford was not a part of our current or future plans. I think it's fairly safe to assume that we knew that for at least a month. You could argue that we weren't 100% sure of that when Wall first came back because we didn't know how good Wall would be or how the team would perform with Wall and without Crawford, but chances are we had a feeling this was coming at that point in time. Wall came back 1/12. Today was 2/21. So I think it's pretty safe to safe that we knew that Crawford was not a part of our current or future plans for at least 3-4 weeks, if not more.

Now, if that's the case, then we are actually idiots for handling the situation we did. Let's say that 3 weeks ago we decided that we liked how our team was performing with Crawford on the end of the bench, and that we didn't need him anymore, and actually wanted him gone. At that point, we surely must have been operating under the assumption that he would be traded at or before this year's trade deadline.

That means we had 3 weeks, at least, to find someone to take him off our hands. Conventional wisdom would say that we should "showcase" Crawford to the league, perhaps giving him even more minutes than he was previously getting, in order for him to pad his per game stats and to make it seem like we actually wanted him on our team to the rest of the league. Then he'd be a more appealing asset in a trade to other teams, and we'd have more leverage and be able to demand more in return for him, pretending that we value his presence on our team and don't want to give him up unless we get something of solid value in return.

But that's not what we did. Instead, we continued to sit him at the end of the bench. Sometimes he didn't even make an appearance in the game. Other times he'd get 15-20 minutes, which isn't enough, but at least it's SOME exposure. Then the last week or two he logged 0 minutes per game. So what happened as a result? First, his per game stats dropped, making him less appealing to other GMs who might have been fooled by his productivity on a per game basis. Second, and more importantly, we made it clear to the rest of the league that Crawford wasn't even good enough to crack the lowly Washington Wizards rotation. In doing so, we also made it clear to the rest of the league that we didn't value him, and that we had no interest in keeping him on our team going forward. Basically, we pissed away any leverage we could have possibly had.

The result is that instead of being able to field offers from the rest of the league and demand more in return for Crawford, we were in a position of begging teams to take him off our hands. And the result of that is the trade that was made today. Expiring contracts of beyond subpar players (aka nothing) for Crawford.

We actually could not have handled the situation any worse.

Right. This is why some of us are so pissed.

[closg00]

Curious.

Do the team that get value in the 2nd tend to be team that are good team with late firsts such that the second rounders are going onto a loaded team.. i.e. SA, LA, etc ?

Something makes me think that would be more likely then a 2nd making good on a crap team.

Exhibit A for de-bunking this ^^ supposition, the infamous Spurs vs Heat game on 11/29/12. The Spurs rested their starters and fielded a team of 2nd string benchers...and nearly won.
http://www.nba.com/games/20121129/SASMI ... GIboxscore

[nate33]

Just when you think the worst is over....

https://twitter.com/JLundbladESPN/statu ... 6046101505

Jordan Crawford is 1 of 7 averaging 18 pts, 5 ast & 4 reb per 36 minutes (Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Harden, Westbrook, Manu)

Meh. That doesn't bother me much. I don't think it's possible to sit there with a straight face and call Crawford a good basketball player. His on/off numbers were beyond awful. He wasn't helping us. We're not going to miss him much. My issue is that we waited until after we sabotaged his trade value before trading him.

[nate33]

Move ahead. They didn’t have a PG all year until Wall returned. Price is marginally better then Mack. He isn’t the answer. They couldn’t score at all in the first quarters. They would go down 15 pts every first quarter. It was Crawford off the bench that would get him back in the games. Crawford should have been at PG and with Wall back, he fits as a back up PG and SG. He should have been getting 25 minutes a game. Raise his value then move him if you don't like his Steez.

I agree that Crawford helped us when Wall and Price were out, and Beal was sucking. That's what Crawford can do. He can help an "awful" team improve to the point where they're merely "bad". The issue with Crawford is that he never showed the ability to make an average team good. He is a below average defender and a volume scorer with below average efficiency. Neither skill helps an average team.

[DCZards]

I think this stuff about needing to "showcase" Crawford the last several games rather than sit him is way overblown. Jordan is a third year player and he's played a ton of minutes for the Zards. So GMs know by now what his strengths and weaknesses are. They know what Crawford can and cannot do. These GMs probably also knew that the Zards were looking to trade Crawford rather than keep him. Why put on the charade of "showcasing" him?

The only reason for the Zards and Wittman to play JC is if they thought he could help them win games.

[hands11]

Move ahead. They didn’t have a PG all year until Wall returned. Price is marginally better then Mack. He isn’t the answer. They couldn’t score at all in the first quarters. They would go down 15 pts every first quarter. It was Crawford off the bench that would get him back in the games. Crawford should have been at PG and with Wall back, he fits as a back up PG and SG. He should have been getting 25 minutes a game. Raise his value then move him if you don't like his Steez.

I agree that Crawford helped us when Wall and Price were out, and Beal was sucking. That's what Crawford can do. He can help an "awful" team improve to the point where they're merely "bad". The issue with Crawford is that he never showed the ability to make an average team good. He is a below average defender and a volume scorer with below average efficiency. Neither skill helps an average team.

You mean over that long stretch of like 10-20 games when they played like an average team after Trevor A and Wall returned and Crawford returned from injury. That never ?

The guy wanted a bigger role. What a malcontent. Sure hope non of the other bench player have goal of having a bigger role.

Boston plays PHX tonight. I hope they get him on the floor. It should be real interesting to see if he can find a valuable role on a playoff team like Boston when he couldn't find one on a team like the Wizards. This isn't like Nick or McGee where is was about ... do you want to over pay them on new contracts or trade them for for something of value.

[tontoz]

I think Crawford would help them win games more than a guy with a PER of 3 and a guy with a torn ACL. If Beal/Webster get hurt we will end up with Dleaguers playing significant minutes again.

[Nivek]

Wrote about the Crawford trade over at the blog.

The summary: trade wasn't to help the team on the floor, it wasn't to gain financial flexibility or future assets, it wasn't because Crawford is a bad player or has a bad contract. Which means he was given away either because he was A) a bad guy, or B) the relationship with his co-workers (coaches, players, training staff, front office) had become so untenable that he simply had to be gone.

Nothing else makes sense. If the trade was for any reason other than ridding the franchise of his presence, they'd have waited until the draft.

[GhostsOfGil]

Since they dealt him for nothing, I hope on 4/7 when the Wizards play the Celtics that Crawford goes for 30+.

I have a feeling JC is going to get a huge ovation when he returns to the VC.

[tontoz]

Crawford was a chucker no doubt, but he played hard at least. I always got the impression that he was giving his best effort even if he wasn't playing smart. He also wasn't afraid to take important shots at the end of games.

I really don't like the way this was handled.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Move ahead. They didn’t have a PG all year until Wall returned. Price is marginally better then Mack. He isn’t the answer. They couldn’t score at all in the first quarters. They would go down 15 pts every first quarter. It was Crawford off the bench that would get him back in the games. Crawford should have been at PG and with Wall back, he fits as a back up PG and SG. He should have been getting 25 minutes a game. Raise his value then move him if you don't like his Steez.

I agree that Crawford helped us when Wall and Price were out, and Beal was sucking. That's what Crawford can do. He can help an "awful" team improve to the point where they're merely "bad". The issue with Crawford is that he never showed the ability to make an average team good. He is a below average defender and a volume scorer with below average efficiency. Neither skill helps an average team.

I disagree with this because Jordan Crawford improved this season. For one, he fully embraced the role of being a facilitator and a team player.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/22 ... ker_Leader

With Wall slated to miss the first month of the season, Crawford will almost assuredly play more point guard, a challenge the 23-year-old is willing to take on.

“If coach [Randy Wittman] asks me to, I’ll step into that role,” Crawford told RealGM. “It’s [as] simple as that.”

As for his voice within the Wizards’ locker room, the third-year guard hopes to make an effort to open up more as a leader.

“I just want to bring another phase to my game and be a leader off the court and on the court lead by example,” Crawford said. “Really, I just want to help the team win.”

Whenever you evaluate a player's efficiency, I think it helps if you put it in the context of the team's efficiency. Crawford was sixth on the Wizards in eFG%, ahead of Beal, Wall, and every other perimeter player except for Webster and Martin--players much older than he is.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/WAS/2013.html

Sort Advanced Stats, TS%, and Jordan was fourth behind Martell Webster, Nene, and Cartier Martin.
Sort AST%, and Jordan matched Shelvin Mack at 26% and barely trailed AJ Price's 29%.
Sort WS/48 and Crawford is 10th, but far ahead of Wall, Crawford, and Kevin Seraphin.

http://www.82games.com/1213/12WAS5.HTM

Plus/minus would indicate that the Wizards were -8.2 points worse on offense per-100 possessions with Crawford in the lineup. At the same time some of the lineups with Crawford at PG and Beal at SG were largely successful.

I think Jordan Crawford will help the Celtics quite a bit, and not just as an isolation scorer. I think he's a much better passer and a better player than he was last season. He has improved and I think he will continue to improve and be a decent reserve for many years, if not a solid starter. My objection is not with trading him, but with giving him away for nothing. He has value, nate. As someone else stated, this is trade is at best terrible asset management for the Wizards.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1538 ... on-celtics

It seems like a real coup for Boston that it not only retained its healthy 2012 draft pick, but also swapped a player who could no longer help the team this season.

The Celtics get a solid scorer in Crawford, who is only in his third year. Doc Rivers could coach the young man up and give Boston a solid player at the 2 for years to come.

I think Jordan Crawford really won big! He gets to be around Jason Terry, who is going to be an excellent mentor even if Jordan takes his job. He will be around guys with attitude, who will immediately pick up on his confidence. Next season, Rondo can pass to Crawford and vice versa. This deal for the Celtics is going to be good.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Crawford was a chucker no doubt, but he played hard at least. I always got the impression that he was giving his best effort even if he wasn't playing smart. He also wasn't afraid to take important shots at the end of games.

I really don't like the way this was handled.

+1

On top of that I was surprised as hell at his improved passing and his unselfishness.

[nate33]

CCJ, your statistical analysis incorporates the portion of the season when Wall was out, and when Wall and Nene were out. The team was awful then and I agree wholeheartedly that Crawford was an asset to that terrible team. Unfortunately, those numbers don't hold up if you look at the team since Wall's return. Crawford has been a huge anchor since then.

Don't get me wrong. I'm really unhappy with the trade because I think we could have gotten a lot more for Crawford if we hadn't telegraphed to the league that he's a malcontent that we no longer want. And if this deal was the best available at the Trade Deadline, then I think we would have been better off keeping him. I don't know what was going on behind the scenes, but I find it hard to believe that Crawford was so completely insubordinate that Wittman was unable to work with him. Crawford's skill set may not have meshed with the team, but he did work hard and really seemed to care. They could have found a role for Crawford to get through the rest of the season with some of his trade value still intact.

[tontoz]

CCJ, your statistical analysis incorporates the portion of the season when Wall was out, and when Wall and Nene were out. The team was awful then and I agree wholeheartedly that Crawford was an asset to that terrible team. Unfortunately, those numbers don't hold up if you look at the team since Wall's return. Crawford has been a huge anchor since then.

Keep in mind you are looking at a very small sample size there, not to mention that he was coming off an ankle injury that caused him to miss 4 games.

[jivelikenice]

Crawford was a chucker no doubt, but he played hard at least. I always got the impression that he was giving his best effort even if he wasn't playing smart. He also wasn't afraid to take important shots at the end of games.

I really don't like the way this was handled.

Pulling 30 footers is trying hard? Not contesting jumpshots is trying hard? He tried hard when the ball was in his hands, I'll give him that, but that's it.

[mhd]

I'd have kept JC and looked at my options draft time. Taking on Collins and Barbosa is a slap in the face to the fans. I hope the Wiz look at the D-league to find a big. Whomever they take will be a better player than Vesley the moment he flies in.

[tontoz]

Crawford was a chucker no doubt, but he played hard at least. I always got the impression that he was giving his best effort even if he wasn't playing smart. He also wasn't afraid to take important shots at the end of games.

I really don't like the way this was handled.

Pulling 30 footers is trying hard? Not contesting jumpshots is trying hard? He tried hard when the ball was in his hands, I'll give him that, but that's it.

For the record his defensive +/- was 0. This season there was no difference in the defense whether he was on the court or off.

And launching jumpers early in the clock isn't a sign of effort one way or the other. That is a separate issue.

[GhostsOfGil]

Crawford was a chucker no doubt, but he played hard at least. I always got the impression that he was giving his best effort even if he wasn't playing smart. He also wasn't afraid to take important shots at the end of games.

I really don't like the way this was handled.

Pulling 30 footers is trying hard? Not contesting jumpshots is trying hard? He tried hard when the ball was in his hands, I'll give him that, but that's it.

I am not a fan of Crawford but this isn't true.

Crawford was great at chasing players through screens and rotating on the perimeter. In fact he may have been one of the best on the team. That's not to say he was a good defensive player; His size definitely hurt him but playing hard was never an issue I had with him.

[jivelikenice]

I don't agree, I saw a lot of times where defenders shot over him while his hands were down. He may have been tired from dribbling the ball for 24 seconds the possession before. I don't like the trade, but I'm not going to romanticize what Crawford actually was.....