ImageImageImageImageImage

Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING

Moderators: LyricalRico, pineappleheadindc, nate33, WizStorm, miller31time

User avatar
pancakes3
Head Coach
Posts: 7,053
And1: 205
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#316 » by pancakes3 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:58 pm

That's why I maintain this discipline issue is more on Randy than Crawford. This kind of personnel management is exactly what the NBA head coach is supposed to handle. Phil Jackson this mess. That's why Pitino and other college coaches don't hack it in the NBA. They don't know how to manage players - only control them.
Bullets -> Wizards
jivelikenice
Analyst
Posts: 3,005
And1: 119
Joined: Jul 15, 2005

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#317 » by jivelikenice » Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:05 pm

Higga wrote:I get that Crawford was being a dick, but that doesn't mean you give him away. He has some talent, and this team needs talent more than it needs boy scouts.


You're right that we need talent. But you're wrong if you think players like him help build a winning team and culture. Javale, Dray, Nick, and Jordan all had talent, but none of that talent helped this team. Not a surprise that all three of them have failed to break out
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 956
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#318 » by Nivek » Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:30 pm

jivelikenice wrote:Got a question/comment I want to toss out there that I posted in the quasi-game thread. If a GM had real interest when Steez was "lighting it up" in December, wouldn't they at least have tried to buy low when he was basically being given away at the deadline? Doesn't the fact that nobody else joined the fray lead you to believe his value was crap to begin with?


This is an interesting point, and may have validity. It could be that GMs around the league more or less shared the assessment some of us had of Crawford -- that he was an inefficient player merely being permitted to play lots of minutes and take lots of shots because the team was awful. Coaches and GMs are generally unimpressed with players on bad teams. I've heard some say Crawford "kept the team afloat" early in the season. This is something that strikes me as nonsense -- the team was historically bad when he was posting his numbers.

The one thing that keeps from agreeing with you is that in December there was no hint of an attitude issue or a rift between Crawford and the team. Teams that may have had interest could have grown leery as they saw Crawford's increasing dissatisfaction with a smaller role. Especially since that's the role he's going to get wherever he goes.

By waiting, by letting Crawford's discontent become common knowledge around the league, the Wizards diminished his value and weakened their bargaining position. In effect, the Wizards told the rest of the league they didn't want Crawford and that Crawford was unhappy with a role "less than" being a high-minute starter. It's no shock that other teams weren't willing to give value for a guy the Wizards wanted to dump -- a guy NO ONE (except Crawford) thinks can be a starter for a good team.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
User avatar
tontoz
RealGM
Posts: 14,282
And1: 903
Joined: Apr 11, 2005

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#319 » by tontoz » Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:43 pm

Keep in mind that the Wizards turned down one prospect because he wasn't an expirer. There may have been others that we don't know about.
User avatar
DCZards
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,072
And1: 411
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#320 » by DCZards » Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:48 pm

I don't think Crawford's attitude problems were something new or something unknown to other GMs prior to his recent benching. Wasn't there a game last season where Craw said he shot the ball every time he touched it because he was pissed that he had been taken out of the starting lineup?

My guess is that both JC's game and attitude have long been well-known to GMs throughout the NBA.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 41,850
And1: 2,310
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#321 » by nate33 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:11 pm

Higga wrote:I get that Crawford was being a dick, but that doesn't mean you give him away. He has some talent, and this team needs talent more than it needs boy scouts.

Let's not make Crawford out to be more than he is. He is a "talent" in that, maybe, he improves enough to be a competent backup SG. Competent backup SG's aren't all that hard to find. You don't disrupt team chemistry and undermine your developing young #3 pick just to cater to a potential backup SG.
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,441
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#322 » by hands11 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:21 pm

nate33 wrote:
McGully Culkin wrote:I just came across this...I still dont think we got good value for JC, but now I understand WHY the trade was made. There was obviously more going on behind the scenes that we knew about.

http://www.wusa9.com/sports/article/244 ... d-Riddance

Thanks for posting this. It explains a lot.

It's about time somebody in the media start telling us what's going on in the locker room. If Crawford was going out of his way to undermine Beal, then I can understand why they would view dumping Crawford as addition by subtraction.



Ouch.

Never mind :D

Well if that was the case they had to ship him out. Still doesn't excuse the timing.
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,441
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#323 » by hands11 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:33 pm

DCZards wrote:I don't think Crawford's attitude problems were something new or something unknown to other GMs prior to his recent benching. Wasn't there a game last season where Craw said he shot the ball every time he touched it because he was pissed that he had been taken out of the starting lineup?

My guess is that both JC's game and attitude have long been well-known to GMs throughout the NBA.


Then have a plane.

Extending him. Playing him to where he was producing then sitting him to rot and trading him for nothing is not a plan.

Playing him ahead of Price to show he can do that as well and posting nice stats like the triple double and then trading him while he is hot. That is an actual plan.

Mack, Livingston, Temple and Price all got minutes ahead of Crawford. That is just stupid. Had he been playing, he probably would have been a lot happier and more of a team player. Then ship him out when his value is high when you see Wall returning and Beal getting hot.
AWIZZINGBULLET
Pro Prospect
Posts: 776
And1: 33
Joined: Apr 08, 2012

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#324 » by AWIZZINGBULLET » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:34 pm

The Wizards can really say the culture that was in place when McGee, Blatche, and Young were still Wizards is completely done away with now. I saw Crawford as being the last guy who could pose a problem but he flew under the radar and didn't stand out the way the other three guys did. Can remember posting many months ago that I saw Crawford as having an attitude that wasn't conducive to the culture change Wittman was trying to usher in and that he could eventually fall into the same category as Young, Blatche, and McGee. He was willing to play defense unlike Young, would dive for a loose ball unlike Blatche, and had basketball smarts unlike McGee and this I think helped his negative traits to go largely unnoticed or just caused folks to turn a blind eye to it, but the attitude was always there as I saw it. Wish the Wizards could've gotten something more beneficial in return, but I am happy there's no more negative team/chemistry killing players on the roster.
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,441
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#325 » by hands11 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:39 pm

So now that J Craw is gone.

Who will be the next player to get exposed. Next, it might not be malcontents as much as it is players that just are very bright or don't have enough heart.

On that list are.

Wall - Heart. Not smart
Kevin S - honestly, I question both to some degree with him.
Ves - I question the heart more then smart but not sure on either
Martin - I question both
Price - heart but not sure how smart
Singleton - heart but not sure how smart
Booker - heart but not sure how smart
AWIZZINGBULLET
Pro Prospect
Posts: 776
And1: 33
Joined: Apr 08, 2012

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#326 » by AWIZZINGBULLET » Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:07 am

hands11 wrote:So now that J Craw is gone.

Who will be the next player to get exposed. Next, it might not be malcontents as much as it is players that just are very bright or don't have enough heart.

On that list are.

Wall - Heart. Not smart
Kevin S - honestly, I question both to some degree with him.
Ves - I question the heart more then smart but not sure on either
Martin - I question both
Price - heart but not sure how smart
Singleton - heart but not sure how smart
Booker - heart but not sure how smart


I think the whole team has heart, I'm not going to make the team out to be full of dummies either. I think Kevin Seraphin lacks a natural feel for the game and understanding of the game more than any other player, maybe that has something to do with him picking up the game of basketball "late". I think Wall is a smart player but he needs to become more of a player that thinks first, then acts---I think he's a bit too impulsive of player. The Wizard roster isn't full of players who have basketball IQ's through the roof, I think it's average to good though.

I think Seraphin's game and growth could possibly be the most positively affected by the Crawford trade because I think the emphasis on team play becomes that much more emphasized.
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,441
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#327 » by hands11 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:10 am

AWIZZINGBULLET wrote:
hands11 wrote:So now that J Craw is gone.

Who will be the next player to get exposed. Next, it might not be malcontents as much as it is players that just are very bright or don't have enough heart.

On that list are.

Wall - Heart. Not smart
Kevin S - honestly, I question both to some degree with him.
Ves - I question the heart more then smart but not sure on either
Martin - I question both
Price - heart but not sure how smart
Singleton - heart but not sure how smart
Booker - heart but not sure how smart


I think the whole team has heart, I'm not going to make the team out to be full of dummies either. I think Kevin Seraphin lacks a natural feel for the game and understanding of the game more than any other player, maybe that has something to do with him picking up the game of basketball "late". I think Wall is a smart player but he needs to become more of a player that thinks first, then acts---I think he's a bit too impulsive of player. The Wizard roster isn't full of players who have basketball IQ's through the roof, I think it's average to good though.

I think Seraphin's game and growth could possibly be the most positively affected by the Crawford trade because I think the emphasis on team play becomes that much more emphasized.


No Crawford does peel back the onion a little more.

I think how smart Wall and Kevin play will now be more of the focus. Of the two, Kevin will feel the brunt of that more then Wall. Wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't start getting hooked sooner when he messed up.
User avatar
Knighthonor
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,865
And1: 97
Joined: Feb 15, 2012

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#328 » by Knighthonor » Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:12 am

nate33 wrote:CCJ, he's the key quote, as far as I'm concerned:

Now Beal won't feel like he's stepping on anybody's toes. Using one of Crawford's old quotes, "people gravitate towards me," is actually true in a good way about Beal. Without Crawford snorting laughter in the background and undermining any type of serious approach to basketball, Wizards fans are about to meet the real Bradley Beal.

It sounds to me that when Beal tried to get serious and take a leadership role like he did in Florida, Crawford would laugh or make a snide comment in an attempt to undermine him. Management absolutely did not want that kind of attitude poisoning the team's perception of Beal. They (rightfully) want the team to emulate Beal's natural unselfishness and professionalism, not Crawford's me-first attitude and showy flamboyance.

Obviously, I'm reading a lot into one quote, but we don't have much else to go on at this point.

What?!? Can you prove he did any of that? Seem like you made all that BS up based on what EG says, who has a track record of tossing people under the bus to save his ass.
AWIZZINGBULLET
Pro Prospect
Posts: 776
And1: 33
Joined: Apr 08, 2012

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#329 » by AWIZZINGBULLET » Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:21 am

hands11 wrote:
AWIZZINGBULLET wrote:
hands11 wrote:So now that J Craw is gone.

Who will be the next player to get exposed. Next, it might not be malcontents as much as it is players that just are very bright or don't have enough heart.

On that list are.

Wall - Heart. Not smart
Kevin S - honestly, I question both to some degree with him.
Ves - I question the heart more then smart but not sure on either
Martin - I question both
Price - heart but not sure how smart
Singleton - heart but not sure how smart
Booker - heart but not sure how smart


I think the whole team has heart, I'm not going to make the team out to be full of dummies either. I think Kevin Seraphin lacks a natural feel for the game and understanding of the game more than any other player, maybe that has something to do with him picking up the game of basketball "late". I think Wall is a smart player but he needs to become more of a player that thinks first, then acts---I think he's a bit too impulsive of player. The Wizard roster isn't full of players who have basketball IQ's through the roof, I think it's average to good though.

I think Seraphin's game and growth could possibly be the most positively affected by the Crawford trade because I think the emphasis on team play becomes that much more emphasized.


No Crawford does peel back the onion a little more.

I think how smart Wall and Kevin play will now be more of the focus. Of the two, Kevin will feel the brunt of that more then Wall. Wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't start getting hooked sooner when he messed up.


That's the thing, I feel Seraphin cuts back on the quick, ill-advised shots. I think he begins to pass out more also. It will be interesting to see if the message sent through the Crawford trade has any effect on how he approaches games now.
fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,109
And1: 1,110
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#330 » by fishercob » Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:55 am

Nivek wrote:
jivelikenice wrote:Got a question/comment I want to toss out there that I posted in the quasi-game thread. If a GM had real interest when Steez was "lighting it up" in December, wouldn't they at least have tried to buy low when he was basically being given away at the deadline? Doesn't the fact that nobody else joined the fray lead you to believe his value was crap to begin with?


This is an interesting point, and may have validity. It could be that GMs around the league more or less shared the assessment some of us had of Crawford -- that he was an inefficient player merely being permitted to play lots of minutes and take lots of shots because the team was awful. Coaches and GMs are generally unimpressed with players on bad teams. I've heard some say Crawford "kept the team afloat" early in the season. This is something that strikes me as nonsense -- the team was historically bad when he was posting his numbers.

The one thing that keeps from agreeing with you is that in December there was no hint of an attitude issue or a rift between Crawford and the team. Teams that may have had interest could have grown leery as they saw Crawford's increasing dissatisfaction with a smaller role. Especially since that's the role he's going to get wherever he goes.

By waiting, by letting Crawford's discontent become common knowledge around the league, the Wizards diminished his value and weakened their bargaining position. In effect, the Wizards told the rest of the league they didn't want Crawford and that Crawford was unhappy with a role "less than" being a high-minute starter. It's no shock that other teams weren't willing to give value for a guy the Wizards wanted to dump -- a guy NO ONE (except Crawford) thinks can be a starter for a good team.


This strikes me as a little bit of 20-20 hindsight. Crawford wasn't sulking when he was playing -- because he was playing. It didn't take a detective to see him acting like a turd once he was slotted into his proper role.

It seems like the major frustration among fans is that the Wizards didn't get more for Crawford and that they didn't time the market correctly in terms of when to "buy" and "sell" a particular asset. That stuff actually isn't a big deal to me. I remember feeling that exact way about Nick Young -- wanting to deal him in his first two years to someone who loved the dunks and the pretty jumpers before the book was totally out on him.

But the real story here is that this administration that unloaded Crawford (and Young and Mcgee and Blatche) is the SAME ONE that valued them in the first place. I don't think Sam Presti or RC Buford or Morey could have created any more of a market for Crawford than there was. But none of those guys would cared to trade for him in the first place! How is there not accountability for that? Why are we giving a guy away who we were supposedly fortunate to trade for two years ago? It's yet another sad example of how Ernie's front office doesn't know the first thing about evaluating talent.

I also must say that with a little more time to think on it, I'm in no way sorry to see Crawford go. In fact, I'm glad he's gone -- despite the meager return. So this was Crawford's best year. Great. Even if you go from having the runs to pooping perfect logs, what's coming out of you is still feces. Jordan Crawford is a turd of a basketball player who is all about the name on the back of the jersey and not the front. It's evident in the way he plays the game. He cares about his shots, his highlights, his "steez" but could never be troubled to give a rat's ass about his teammates or their success or failures.

In a vacuum, I have no problem with the Wizards saying "you know what, dude? You stink, and if you're not on board with being a team guy, you're gone. You're in no way worth the trouble you're causing." It's the fact that they thought he was decent in the first place that bugs me so much.
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 956
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#331 » by Nivek » Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:05 am

You know, fish... I agree 100% with what you just posted. Crawford is Crittenton 2.0. Maybe he shapes up in Boston, maybe he's playing in Slovenia in 2 years.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
User avatar
TGW
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,644
And1: 1,028
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#332 » by TGW » Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:06 am

Nice post fish...totally agree.

It's shocking just how bad this FO is at not only judging talent, but character as well. As any other team traded more players due to attitude issues than the Wizards in the past 3 years? I mean, it didn't take a psychologist to see that Arenas, McGee, Blatche, Young, and Crawford severely lacked professionalism from the get-go.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
Mr. Grundle
Sophomore
Posts: 182
And1: 2
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#333 » by Mr. Grundle » Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:57 am

I do believe we could have gotten more for Crawford. It would have been possible if we hadn't been so transparent that we wanted to dump him.

Grunfeld possessed a talented yet flawed player. A player who could put up numbers but didn't give you what you wanted in the locker room. So he decides despite the talent it is in the best interest of the team to get rid of this player. That's fine, no problem with that.

But why would you bench that player 2 weeks before the trade deadline? You are essentially blurting out to the entire league that we do not value this player at all, so why would they offer anything of value in a trade?

A savy GM would have played Crawford big minutes leading up to the trade deadline in hopes he puts up numbers to inflate his trade value. You might have pulled a late 1st rd pick from a playoff contender in need of scoring off the bench.

I've got no issue with moving Crawford. But Grunfeld absolutely minimized the possible return for him by benching him 2 weeks before the trade deadline. That was absolutely idiotic. A guy that can put up numbers will always draw interest from other teams, UNLESS its obvious he has other issues.....which we made abundantly clear by benching him for no good reason.

Grunfeld blows.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 956
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#334 » by Nivek » Sat Feb 23, 2013 2:12 am

I think fish is right and that playing Crawford big minutes wouldn't have made any difference. The league knows his game. Most teams know that he's inefficient and that his inefficiency hurts a good team. Most teams have an analytics department. They all know by now to look beyond pts per game.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
montestewart
General Manager
Posts: 8,469
And1: 1,222
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Big Balls traded to Boston for (almost) NOTHING 

Post#335 » by montestewart » Sat Feb 23, 2013 2:16 am

TGW wrote:Nice post fish...totally agree.

It's shocking just how bad this FO is at not only judging talent, but character as well. As any other team traded more players due to attitude issues than the Wizards in the past 3 years? I mean, it didn't take a psychologist to see that Arenas, McGee, Blatche, Young, and Crawford severely lacked professionalism from the get-go.

Even on an attitude issue level they fail. Most teams that somehow assemble a collection of malcontents have at least a few badd @$$ psycho types (think Jailblazers or "Malice in the Palace" Pacers), but all we end up with are whiny class clowns.

Return to Washington Wizards