RealGM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nivek wrote: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.

You don't need an analytics department. You need an internet connection and a set of eyes.

Every GM knows how to read those stats. Well, almost every GM. The Wizards still found a taker after more than a month of escalating pyschodrama. The declining minutes, DNPs, the loudly whispered hints that no one on the Wizards could stand him. Some of that may have softened the market Jordan H. Crawford. They should have traded him right after that three. Yes, while he was still under the pile.

Traded Big Balls for a couple of rusty nuts. That's a Wizards trade, for sure.

Nivek wrote: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.

Nivek, you've demonstrated that players don't get better when they leave the Wizards. I posted they ended up better off and I think I did say everybody gets better when they leave Washington. You proved me wrong.

I might need a refresher course, because my opinion about Crawford is he's just what the Celtics need and I think he's greatly underrated. Screw all he demonstrated as a Wizard. Crawford's isolation scoring and his passing are going to be a major shot in the arm for the Cs IMO. I think Doc Rivers is THE COACH for him. I think your aforementioned inefficient Crawford was more efficient than Beal this season; and that Crawford is still improving at 22 years old. Jordan's mindset lags far behind his skill set IMO.

I think an attitude adjustment is going to take place with Boston and that what will happen is all those free throws Crawford the Wizard rarely got on drives to the hole are going to turn into free throw opportunities for Crawford the Celtic. I think he's going to have better teammates and his efficiency will go up because his shots won't be as contested. I think Rivers will help his basketball IQ and that Rondo next season will get him the ball where he can score.

I think Crawford is going to be a lot better player for the Celtics.

Maybe I need the remedial course, Nivek. I did fail differential calculus the first time I took it. If you asked me most of that stuff now I wouldn't know it. Maybe I need a refresher course on just how bad Crawford is.

monte, I think every GM knows it is a good thing to trade with Grunfeld, especially at the trade deadline. I think every GM is saying Boston got a steal. They wouldn't say that if the tea leaves say Jordan Crawford is garbage.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400278540

Boston game going on. They have Crawford 1-4 from 3 land in Zero Mins at the half

Only Crawford could pull that off.

hands11 wrote:http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400278540

Boston game going on. They have Crawford 1-4 from 3 land in Zero Mins at the half

Only Crawford could pull that off.

That's hilarious.

Crawford had to take two of those 3's to beat the buzzer. He's looking very good. So is Terrence Williams.

montestewart wrote:

hands11 wrote:http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400278540

Boston game going on. They have Crawford 1-4 from 3 land in Zero Mins at the half

Only Crawford could pull that off.

That's hilarious.

he has 7 and they they have a huge lead.

Crawford ended with 10 points on 4 for 9 shooting, 2 assists, 3 rebs, 1 turnover, in 17 minutes. He passed well and played D. He looked very good. No dumb plays at all that I saw.

Gant wrote:Crawford ended with 10 points on 4 for 9 shooting, 2 assists, 3 rebs, 1 turnover, in 17 minutes. He passed well and played D. He looked very good. No dumb plays at all that I saw.

I saw the game. He played in a blow out game so everything was loose and easy for Boston.

He made one nice highlight pass on a fast break where he drove and did a no look dump to the player running behind him.

I'm sure he had fun playing again. We will wait and see how or if they use him in closer games.

Fun watching the Marcus twins out there together again.

The only way it would have made sense is if WAS dumped Jan Vesely's salary in this trade.

Knighthonor wrote:

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.

Of course I can't prove it. I wasn't there.

I'm going off of a quote by Kevin Jones of WUSA 9. It wasn't EG. I even said that I was reading a lot into one quote. WTF do you want from me? Am I supposed to hang around the locker room with a tape recorder?

^
Actually, you'd probably be a pretty good reporter.

PZiv wrote:The only way it would have made sense is if WAS dumped Jan Vesely's salary in this trade.

Does it make sense to not pick up his option and the use him as an expiring? Even if he does develop, he won't be a player worthy of more than 2-3 million per so we shouldnt worry about losing him if he develops some. Considering the strength of the '14 FA class, having as many expiring as possible will help.

Gant wrote:Crawford ended with 10 points on 4 for 9 shooting, 2 assists, 3 rebs, 1 turnover, in 17 minutes. He passed well and played D. He looked very good. No dumb plays at all that I saw.

WOW -- and against a stacked Phoenix team, no less! The Basketball HOF should look into changing their criteria for enshrinement; why should we have to wait until retirement to give JC his just due?

Two things I noticed during the game that I thought were interesting.

JC was out there on offense pointing for players to get in spots like he was leading the offense. Normally this wouldn't mean anything to me and it would actually be a good thing. But in your first game with a new team playing SG not PG ? On the Celtics who have been a well coached team for a long time ? In a blow out ? Seemed everyone on the team knew where to be without Crawford pointing to a spot.

They just ignored him. Struck me as a little clueless.

Next, he was back to yelling for contact every-time he drove. We all now he did that a ton here and it never really worked for him. He had stopped doing it. Seems its back.

Clearly Crawford has some skills, but we all know there is just something a little off about the cat. Now that doesn't mean he can't be a useful player. MWP and Robman are two players that come to mind that are more then a little off but were productive players. But both of them where forwards. And they are probably more the exception to the rule.

Crawfords issue isn't his talent its his personality and the way he thinks and acts. That stuff is hard to change. Specially if a person doesn't want to change. Should be interesting to see what Doc can do with him.