RealGM

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.

hands11 wrote:

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.

I don't think Crawford would have gotten much playing time if the game was close given that he just arrived. Crawford could be what Boston is looking for, someone to put the ball in the hoop on his own without much help. Doc Rivers could be someone who is a better coach for him than WIttman. Nonetheless, Crawford in Washington seemed to run its course at least with Randy Wittman.

Yeah. It was always a long shot that it would work out for him here.

Both team and player needed to move on. They needed a role player. He wanted to fight for a starting spot here. It had to be tough for him to except a back up role given the talent the team had. There was an opening for him when he got here and they basically said, we don't trust you to fill it. With Wall and Beal here, he was never going to be a starter.

On Boston, they has a more established winning franchise so excepting the role my be easier for him. Its a clean start. Plus they are headed to the playoffs so he has that to look forward to. I still think he will leave there if there is no path to him eventually starting. I would think he goes FA and picks a team that offers him that chance. If one exists at the time.

Only after that process would he eventually settle on the idea he will only be offered back up job positions and he will only start when there is an injury. The young man still has dreams he wants to achieve right now. One of those is being a starter on a winning team. I can understand that at his age.

Moving on with best for both of them.

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.

I hate that kind of thing, at least being used to attest to the worthiness of the deal, it completely misses the point, engages in character assasination without actually providing any reliable sources to back up the hatchet job and gives EG a get out of jail card on his umpteenth crap trade since 2009. He may be absolutely right about Crawford, I have no idea, but we have no idea what his motivation is behind the scenes, reporters are notorious for their grudges, and we never know the true reasoning behind an attack job piece. The only thing we really know is that Crawfords value was deliberately sabotaged by management as badly as possible before a deal was made (the same exact thing was done with just about every asset traded since '09). Even worse, he attacks Crawfords work ethic and character while giving EG and Leonsis a free pass for sabotaging the rebuild with salary saving stupidity, and quick fix, keep myself from getting fired idiocy like the trade for the two lumps of coal last june. He gives Crawford not an ounce of understanding for perhaps beng sick of working with this organization. Can we blame him? Whose actually been in the clown car in DC the past four decades and actually enjoyed it? Only masochists would enjoy playing for the joke squads trotted out since Carter's last days in 1980. Indeed perhaps a clown car should take the players out of the tunnell and the unioforms bare a resemblance to rodeo clowns as yet another season is sabotaged by incompetent management of any and every sort, but always of the same end result (failure and humiliation). Crawford was sick of playing here, and didn't care about losing? Maybe so. But how do you mentally cope with being stuck in that ----hole to begin with with an organization that hasn't had a rep for winning anything since the early days of disco and Abba. Its absurd. Do I want that attitude around? No. Do i understand it? Absafreakinglutely. What creates these cancerous environments are systematically inept run franchises from Bowden's Nats to Pollin and Leonsis' Boulez, to Dumb and Dumber's Redskins. In each case the rot is at the core, and the players aren't stupid, they are quite capable of smelling whats rotten in Denmark, and that is the problem. Crawford wouldnt have been crawford, or not nearly so Crawford if he had been associated with quality management. He wasn't, and thus we got Steez, instead of a hungry young player looking to win, though perhaps a bit delusional about his own abilities. It isn't a coincidence that we no longer hear weekly commentary about McGee, Young, Blatche being knuckleheads anymore, instead in some cases the word is good, in others, simply neutral. As the players slowly acquaint themselves with legit franchises, the knuckleheadism relents, and a better player emerges in nearly all instances. Not a surprise.

The common denominator in all these situations is management. Management is the change. Shanny and RG3 changed the Redskins lockeroom genius writer, not simply RG3. Just as the Wiz will only be changed by Beal and a new management set up with an accountable front office in place, not a backstabbing crew of no account d-bags always finding a coach or player to blame for their own pathetic failings as individuals. The fans know better. Apparently this fish hack, as per usual, didn't. Can't upset your sources in the F.O. i suppose, so instead you trash the player leaving. Gee takes a lot of cojones to trash a player you dont have to cover anymore. Wonder why that article didnt come out two months ago? Yeah, exactly.

Nivek wrote: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.

I agree with Fish's overall premise that the Wizard's organization does not know how to evaluate talent. However, I strongly disagree and think it's a bit of a revisionist claim that Crawford was a "turd" all along and everyone knew it. Just early last month (see your Jan. 6 post in the Crawford threat), you indicated that Crawford was getting better and had significantly improved from last season. You said that he was wavering between an average or slightly above average player. The fact that he was improving and that he is still a young player is exactly why I think Crawford had value before Wizard's management basically destroyed it by benching him overnight.

I also think it is bull crap to claim that Crawford was sulking because he was put in his proper role as a reserve. Crawford wasn't sulking because he was put in a reserve role, he was sulking because he went from being a piece to the puzzle to being no piece whatsoever. I did not hear anybody claim he was a discontent or cancer when he was coming off the bench at the beginning of the season. I think Crawford was fine in a reserve role. He just didn't appreciate being benched completely after having one of his best month of his career. I can't say that I blame him. I would not be happy either.

It's also kind of funny that the Wizards are saying that Crawford did not fit in their plans because of his shot jacking and lack of defense. Well, he has played that way for 2 years now and until just this month, the Wizards let it happen. There were never any repercussions before when Crawford jacked up shots or played no defense. Yet, with a few weeks before the trade deadline, the Wizards chose that particular time to discipline him. What perfect timing!

Listen, I don't think that Crawford is that special of a player and I don't mind that he is gone. However, a young cheap player that has shown flashes being at least an above average player and that is improving should fetch more than 2 expiring vets that won't ever play here.

Wow. Lots of Crawford apologists.

Crawford was permitted to be a no-D chucker for the first year-and-a-half because we had no other options. Crawford earned heavy minutes in only two instances: last year when Young was hurt, and this year when Beal and Wall were hurt. It's hard to be a disciplinarian and bench players for playing the wrong way when there is literally nobody else to put on the floor. Wittman had to choose between permitting Crawford's no-D chucking, or going with Jannero freaking Pargo.

If you want to blame EG for not acquiring the proper amount of depth, fine. Whatever. But don't blame Wittman. He probably never wanted to permit Crawford's chucking but was forced to because of circumstances. Once we finally had the depth to discipline Crawford, he made an attempt to reel him in. Crawford reacted like a brat.

I can't believe people are defending Crawford for his shenanigans while on the bench. He's a professional athlete getting paid millions of dollars. If the coach tells you not to play, you don't play. You sit, pay attention, cheer your teammates, and stay ready for when you are called. Period.

The Consiglieri wrote:Whose actually been in the clown car in DC the past four decades and actually enjoyed it? Only masochists would enjoy playing for the joke squads trotted out since Carter's last days in 1980. Indeed perhaps a clown car should take the players out of the tunnell and the unioforms bare a resemblance to rodeo clowns as yet another season is sabotaged by incompetent management of any and every sort, but always of the same end result (failure and humiliation). Crawford was sick of playing here, and didn't care about losing? Maybe so. But how do you mentally cope with being stuck in that ----hole to begin with with an organization that hasn't had a rep for winning anything since the early days of disco and Abba. Its absurd.

Koko only looks like a clown in a clown car but he is actually a 6'10" stretch power forward.

dandridge 10 wrote:

Nivek wrote: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.

I agree with Fish's overall premise that the Wizard's organization does not know how to evaluate talent. However, I strongly disagree and think it's a bit of a revisionist claim that Crawford was a "turd" all along and everyone knew it. Just early last month (see your Jan. 6 post in the Crawford threat), you indicated that Crawford was getting better and had significantly improved from last season. You said that he was wavering between an average or slightly above average player. The fact that he was improving and that he is still a young player is exactly why I think Crawford had value before Wizard's management basically destroyed it by benching him overnight.

I also think it is bull crap to claim that Crawford was sulking because he was put in his proper role as a reserve. Crawford wasn't sulking because he was put in a reserve role, he was sulking because he went from being a piece to the puzzle to being no piece whatsoever. I did not hear anybody claim he was a discontent or cancer when he was coming off the bench at the beginning of the season. I think Crawford was fine in a reserve role. He just didn't appreciate being benched completely after having one of his best month of his career. I can't say that I blame him. I would not be happy either.

It's also kind of funny that the Wizards are saying that Crawford did not fit in their plans because of his shot jacking and lack of defense. Well, he has played that way for 2 years now and until just this month, the Wizards let it happen. There were never any repercussions before when Crawford jacked up shots or played no defense. Yet, with a few weeks before the trade deadline, the Wizards chose that particular time to discipline him. What perfect timing!

Listen, I don't think that Crawford is that special of a player and I don't mind that he is gone. However, a young cheap player that has shown flashes being at least an above average player and that is improving should fetch more than 2 expiring vets that won't ever play here.

nate33 wrote:Wow. Lots of Crawford apologists.

Crawford was permitted to be a no-D chucker for the first year-and-a-half because we had no other options. Crawford earned heavy minutes in only two instances: last year when Young was hurt, and this year when Beal and Wall were hurt. It's hard to be a disciplinarian and bench players for playing the wrong way when there is literally nobody else to put on the floor. Wittman had to choose between permitting Crawford's no-D chucking, or going with Jannero freaking Pargo.

If you want to blame EG for not acquiring the proper amount of depth, fine. Whatever. But don't blame Wittman. He probably never wanted to permit Crawford's chucking but was forced to because of circumstances. Once we finally had the depth to discipline Crawford, he made an attempt to reel him in. Crawford reacted like a brat.

I can't believe people are defending Crawford for his shenanigans while on the bench. He's a professional athlete getting paid millions of dollars. If the coach tells you not to play, you don't play. You sit, pay attention, cheer your teammates, and stay ready for when you are called. Period.

My take would be a little different but hard to argue against most of what you wrote. End of the day, your supposed to be a professional. But these player are people. And if you want players that have drive and self confidence, then they are going to be competitive. He is 22. He doesn't want to be a bench player. Specially not to the likes of Mack, Pargo, Temple, and Price. And for a good bit of the season, Beal was shooting like ass.

For me, there is blame to go around and some of it was just a bad situation. Doesn't really matter. Its done.

I hope we play better and I hope he plays well also. If he blows up with highlight, I will cheer him on. He is a fun player to watch.

dandridge 10 wrote:

Nivek wrote: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.

I agree with Fish's overall premise that the Wizard's organization does not know how to evaluate talent. However, I strongly disagree and think it's a bit of a revisionist claim that Crawford was a "turd" all along and everyone knew it. Just early last month (see your Jan. 6 post in the Crawford threat), you indicated that Crawford was getting better and had significantly improved from last season. You said that he was wavering between an average or slightly above average player. The fact that he was improving and that he is still a young player is exactly why I think Crawford had value before Wizard's management basically destroyed it by benching him overnight.

I also think it is bull crap to claim that Crawford was sulking because he was put in his proper role as a reserve. Crawford wasn't sulking because he was put in a reserve role, he was sulking because he went from being a piece to the puzzle to being no piece whatsoever. I did not hear anybody claim he was a discontent or cancer when he was coming off the bench at the beginning of the season. I think Crawford was fine in a reserve role. He just didn't appreciate being benched completely after having one of his best month of his career. I can't say that I blame him. I would not be happy either.

It's also kind of funny that the Wizards are saying that Crawford did not fit in their plans because of his shot jacking and lack of defense. Well, he has played that way for 2 years now and until just this month, the Wizards let it happen. There were never any repercussions before when Crawford jacked up shots or played no defense. Yet, with a few weeks before the trade deadline, the Wizards chose that particular time to discipline him. What perfect timing!

Listen, I don't think that Crawford is that special of a player and I don't mind that he is gone. However, a young cheap player that has shown flashes being at least an above average player and that is improving should fetch more than 2 expiring vets that won't ever play here.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... fjo02.html

I pimped him all year. Its not all his fault at all. They blow it. They blow his trade value. But he doesn't fit in the mold of the personality type they want. I could always see that was a challenge for them and it just became more clear as they removed pieces like Nick, McGee and Dray. They aren't ready for a Crawford type. He isn't like those other three but he was just to much for them to handle given his age and goals. We will see is Boston can make it work.

Both team are better for the trade. We just could have gotten more. But it done with.

I think the Wizards will be more unified and Randy has a roster he likes better. I can see the remaining pieces coming together even better and Beal stepping up even more.

Beal is more important to the team then Crawford was. Thats what it was really all about. And again, while they could have handled it all better and gotten more, Beal was the right decision. His development is more important if not the MOST IMPORTANT. He will be here 10 years. Crawford wasn't going to be.

nate33 wrote:Wow. Lots of Crawford apologists.

Crawford was permitted to be a no-D chucker for the first year-and-a-half because we had no other options. Crawford earned heavy minutes in only two instances: last year when Young was hurt, and this year when Beal and Wall were hurt. It's hard to be a disciplinarian and bench players for playing the wrong way when there is literally nobody else to put on the floor. Wittman had to choose between permitting Crawford's no-D chucking, or going with Jannero freaking Pargo.

If you want to blame EG for not acquiring the proper amount of depth, fine. Whatever. But don't blame Wittman. He probably never wanted to permit Crawford's chucking but was forced to because of circumstances. Once we finally had the depth to discipline Crawford, he made an attempt to reel him in. Crawford reacted like a brat.

I can't believe people are defending Crawford for his shenanigans while on the bench. He's a professional athlete getting paid millions of dollars. If the coach tells you not to play, you don't play. You sit, pay attention, cheer your teammates, and stay ready for when you are called. Period.

I don't see any Crawford apologists on this board. I certainly am not defending Crawford for what he did the last game. I simply said that I understood why he was mad. He went from getting minutes every game to getting none despite really no change in the quality of his play.

And I disagree that the Wizards had no other options. The Wizards certainly had other options if they didn't want to play a "no D, chucker". They had Martin they could have played over Crawford. They could have played Webster at the 2 like they are now on occasion. Heck, if Crawford was as bad as some people are now claiming he was, then they certainly could have called up a D-leaguer for him. I mean, its not like that the Wizards should have been worried that they would be worse without Crawford. After all, as Nivek points out, the Wizards were epically bad with Crawford.

In any event, this isn't about Crawford at all. This is about the Wizards management and how they just find ways to unnecessarily devalue players they have on their roster when they don't have too. They did it with regard to Gilbert and how they handled the gun gate situation. They also did it when they listed Blatche out as "poor conditioning." I don't have a problem with the Wizards wanting to move Crawford, or any of these other players. I have a problem with the Wizards handling situations in a way that causes players to be further devalued at the same time they are trying to move them. It is just poor management.

Again, there was no reason to bench Crawford just before the trade deadline. If they wanted to move him, they should have kept playing him minutes to further bolster his value or at least show to the rest of the league that they valued him, even if they didnt. Indeed, just on January 5, you wrote the following:

"I wonder if his value is reaching the point where he might be a key component of an upcoming Cousins trade?...Crawford has definitely improved to the point where he can be a useful addition to many rosters."

Yet, instead of trying to build on that success to further bolster his value, they basically turned around and said to the rest of the NBA, "this guy is not even good enough to play on one of the worst basketball teams in the NBA." No wonder why no one was willing to give anything up for him than an injured/old expiring vets.

With that said, its not even worth my time arguing this point. I think there is already enough evidence on the table to support that the Wizards management sucks. I don't need this issue for more evidence.

dandridge 10 wrote:It's also kind of funny that the Wizards are saying that Crawford did not fit in their plans because of his shot jacking and lack of defense. Well, he has played that way for 2 years now and until just this month, the Wizards let it happen. There were never any repercussions before when Crawford jacked up shots or played no defense. Yet, with a few weeks before the trade deadline, the Wizards chose that particular time to discipline him. What perfect timing!

Listen, I don't think that Crawford is that special of a player and I don't mind that he is gone. However, a young cheap player that has shown flashes being at least an above average player and that is improving should fetch more than 2 expiring vets that won't ever play here.

+1 Very well put.

dandridge 10 wrote:

nate33 wrote:Wow. Lots of Crawford apologists.

Crawford was permitted to be a no-D chucker for the first year-and-a-half because we had no other options. Crawford earned heavy minutes in only two instances: last year when Young was hurt, and this year when Beal and Wall were hurt. It's hard to be a disciplinarian and bench players for playing the wrong way when there is literally nobody else to put on the floor. Wittman had to choose between permitting Crawford's no-D chucking, or going with Jannero freaking Pargo.

If you want to blame EG for not acquiring the proper amount of depth, fine. Whatever. But don't blame Wittman. He probably never wanted to permit Crawford's chucking but was forced to because of circumstances. Once we finally had the depth to discipline Crawford, he made an attempt to reel him in. Crawford reacted like a brat.

I can't believe people are defending Crawford for his shenanigans while on the bench. He's a professional athlete getting paid millions of dollars. If the coach tells you not to play, you don't play. You sit, pay attention, cheer your teammates, and stay ready for when you are called. Period.

I don't see any Crawford apologists on this board. I certainly am not defending Crawford for what he did the last game. I simply said that I understood why he was mad. He went from getting minutes every game to getting none despite really no change in the quality of his play.

And I disagree that the Wizards had no other options. The Wizards certainly had other options if they didn't want to play a "no D, chucker". They had Martin they could have played over Crawford. They could have played Webster at the 2 like they are now on occasion. Heck, if Crawford was as bad as some people are now claiming he was, then they certainly could have called up a D-leaguer for him. I mean, its not like that the Wizards should have been worried that they would be worse without Crawford. After all, as Nivek points out, the Wizards were epically bad with Crawford.

In any event, this isn't about Crawford at all. This is about the Wizards management and how they just find ways to unnecessarily devalue players they have on their roster when they don't have too. They did it with regard to Gilbert and how they handled the gun gate situation. They also did it when they listed Blatche out as "poor conditioning." I don't have a problem with the Wizards wanting to move Crawford, or any of these other players. I have a problem with the Wizards handling situations in a way that causes players to be further devalued at the same time they are trying to move them. It is just poor management.

Again, there was no reason to bench Crawford just before the trade deadline. If they wanted to move him, they should have kept playing him minutes to further bolster his value or at least show to the rest of the league that they valued him, even if they didnt. Indeed, just on January 5, you wrote the following:

"I wonder if his value is reaching the point where he might be a key component of an upcoming Cousins trade?...Crawford has definitely improved to the point where he can be a useful addition to many rosters."

Yet, instead of trying to build on that success to further bolster his value, they basically turned around and said to the rest of the NBA, "this guy is not even good enough to play on one of the worst basketball teams in the NBA." No wonder why no one was willing to give anything up for him than an injured/old expiring vets.

With that said, its not even worth my time arguing this point. I think there is already enough evidence on the table to support that the Wizards management sucks. I don't need this issue for more evidence.

Dude. You are apologizing for him.

Read what you just said. "they basically turned around and said to the rest of the NBA, "this guy is not even good enough to play on one of the worst basketball teams in the NBA." Really? So you think Randy said, well, we are finally playing the way I want the team to play and I can finally use minutes as a discipline tool to get Crawford to play defense. But you know what? We suck -- I'll just ignore our record over the last two months and give Crawford minutes he doesn't deserve.

They tried going public with their "hustle stats" showing Crawford was one of the two worst defenders on the team. Crawford ignored them. So Wittman benched him. Instead of taking it like a man, like, say, Singleton did, he has a public sulking tantrum.

I don't see Jan sulking. I don't see Singleton sulking. Singleton, Jan, Booker, and Seraphin all seem to appreciate that minutes are a privilege that have to be earned. JC doesn't. It's not like Wittman all of a sudden benched JC, without ever doing anything like that before. He benched Singleton, who took it like a man, took the message to heart and worked in practice until he earned minutes again. Next it's JC's turn to get benched.

Now at this point JC could have quietly gone to EG and asked for a trade. "I see I'm not a part of the equation here, could you try and find a place for me where I might have a chance to earn more minutes?" He could have not telegraphed his desire to be traded to all the other GMs in the league by keeping his damn jersey on. He could have behaved like a goddamn professional on the sidelines. Yes, he was benched, but before his public insubordinate behavior there was still a chance EG could have gotten something for him. Maybe only a second round pick, but damn it, SOMETHING. JC is DIRECTLY responsible for the lousy trade return EG got for him.

And this is true regardless of what else was going on behind the scenes. It doesn't really matter if he was undermining Beal or pooping in Wall's shoes or whatever. Jesus "Christ!" Crawford screwed EG and the Wizards with his idiotic public behavior, and that is 100% HIS FAULT.

Kudos to EG for not coming out publicly and saying "JC approached me and asked for a trade. While I was shopping him around, his public behavior undermined his trade value. I was only offered expiring contracts or low-value players like Fab Melo for JC because all the other GMs in the league knew I had no choice but to get rid of him. I knew I would be criticized for receiving essentially nothing in return for a player who averaged almost 20 points a game in December, but I decided it would be better for our team to resolve the situation sooner rather than later." I would guess that he at least said something like this to Ted and that making the trade was a decision they made together.

Zonkerbl wrote:

dandridge 10 wrote:

nate33 wrote:Wow. Lots of Crawford apologists.

Crawford was permitted to be a no-D chucker for the first year-and-a-half because we had no other options. Crawford earned heavy minutes in only two instances: last year when Young was hurt, and this year when Beal and Wall were hurt. It's hard to be a disciplinarian and bench players for playing the wrong way when there is literally nobody else to put on the floor. Wittman had to choose between permitting Crawford's no-D chucking, or going with Jannero freaking Pargo.

If you want to blame EG for not acquiring the proper amount of depth, fine. Whatever. But don't blame Wittman. He probably never wanted to permit Crawford's chucking but was forced to because of circumstances. Once we finally had the depth to discipline Crawford, he made an attempt to reel him in. Crawford reacted like a brat.

I can't believe people are defending Crawford for his shenanigans while on the bench. He's a professional athlete getting paid millions of dollars. If the coach tells you not to play, you don't play. You sit, pay attention, cheer your teammates, and stay ready for when you are called. Period.

I don't see any Crawford apologists on this board. I certainly am not defending Crawford for what he did the last game. I simply said that I understood why he was mad. He went from getting minutes every game to getting none despite really no change in the quality of his play.

And I disagree that the Wizards had no other options. The Wizards certainly had other options if they didn't want to play a "no D, chucker". They had Martin they could have played over Crawford. They could have played Webster at the 2 like they are now on occasion. Heck, if Crawford was as bad as some people are now claiming he was, then they certainly could have called up a D-leaguer for him. I mean, its not like that the Wizards should have been worried that they would be worse without Crawford. After all, as Nivek points out, the Wizards were epically bad with Crawford.

In any event, this isn't about Crawford at all. This is about the Wizards management and how they just find ways to unnecessarily devalue players they have on their roster when they don't have too. They did it with regard to Gilbert and how they handled the gun gate situation. They also did it when they listed Blatche out as "poor conditioning." I don't have a problem with the Wizards wanting to move Crawford, or any of these other players. I have a problem with the Wizards handling situations in a way that causes players to be further devalued at the same time they are trying to move them. It is just poor management.

Again, there was no reason to bench Crawford just before the trade deadline. If they wanted to move him, they should have kept playing him minutes to further bolster his value or at least show to the rest of the league that they valued him, even if they didnt. Indeed, just on January 5, you wrote the following:

"I wonder if his value is reaching the point where he might be a key component of an upcoming Cousins trade?...Crawford has definitely improved to the point where he can be a useful addition to many rosters."

Yet, instead of trying to build on that success to further bolster his value, they basically turned around and said to the rest of the NBA, "this guy is not even good enough to play on one of the worst basketball teams in the NBA." No wonder why no one was willing to give anything up for him than an injured/old expiring vets.

With that said, its not even worth my time arguing this point. I think there is already enough evidence on the table to support that the Wizards management sucks. I don't need this issue for more evidence.

Dude. You are apologizing for him.

Read what you just said. "they basically turned around and said to the rest of the NBA, "this guy is not even good enough to play on one of the worst basketball teams in the NBA." Really? So you think Randy said, well, we are finally playing the way I want the team to play and I can finally use minutes as a discipline tool to get Crawford to play defense. But you know what? We suck -- I'll just ignore our record over the last two months and give Crawford minutes he doesn't deserve.

They tried going public with their "hustle stats" showing Crawford was one of the two worst defenders on the team. Crawford ignored them. So Wittman benched him. Instead of taking it like a man, like, say, Singleton did, he has a public sulking tantrum.

I don't see Jan sulking. I don't see Singleton sulking. Singleton, Jan, Booker, and Seraphin all seem to appreciate that minutes are a privilege that have to be earned. JC doesn't. It's not like Wittman all of a sudden benched JC, without ever doing anything like that before. He benched Singleton, who took it like a man, took the message to heart and worked in practice until he earned minutes again. Next it's JC's turn to get benched.

Now at this point JC could have quietly gone to EG and asked for a trade. "I see I'm not a part of the equation here, could you try and find a place for me where I might have a chance to earn more minutes?" He could have not telegraphed his desire to be traded to all the other GMs in the league by keeping his damn jersey on. He could have behaved like a goddamn professional on the sidelines. Yes, he was benched, but before his public insubordinate behavior there was still a chance EG could have gotten something for him. Maybe only a second round pick, but damn it, SOMETHING. JC is DIRECTLY responsible for the lousy trade return EG got for him.

And this is true regardless of what else was going on behind the scenes. It doesn't really matter if he was undermining Beal or pooping in Wall's shoes or whatever. Jesus "Christ!" Crawford screwed EG and the Wizards with his idiotic public behavior, and that is 100% HIS FAULT.

Kudos to EG for not coming out publicly and saying "JC approached me and asked for a trade. While I was shopping him around, his public behavior undermined his trade value. I was only offered expiring contracts or low-value players like Fab Melo for JC because all the other GMs in the league knew I had no choice but to get rid of him. I knew I would be criticized for receiving essentially nothing in return for a player who averaged almost 20 points a game in December, but I decided it would be better for our team to resolve the situation sooner rather than later." I would guess that he at least said something like this to Ted and that making the trade was a decision they made together.

Zonker,

Wittman did bench Crawford without ever doing it before. You are mentioning Wittman's treatment of other players. In the 2 years Crawford played here, I don't recall Wittman ever benching Crawford for his no D and shot jacking. It was perfectly acceptable for 2 years and then all of a sudden right before the tradeline they decide, you know what, its not acceptable anymore. Its not like Crawford was all of a sudden playing bad or doing something differently than he had before. That was my problem with the benching. It went from getting to consistent minutes every game to zero minutes overnight, without any significant change in Crawford's play. Its not the same as with Singleton and Ves because they went from playing reasonably well last year, to stinkin' up the joint this year. Their play did change singificantly.

And regarding Crawford sulking, I don't condone that at all. However, I also know that it was not as though it was happening all season long and there has been no evidence whatsoever that he had become a cancer to the team or that he was a distraction in the lockerroom. It happened one game. I find it hard to believe that GM's accross the country would not agree to give up a late first round pick or a 2nd round pick because Crawford sulked one game. Players sulk in the NBA all the time. Heck, Dwight Howard sulked for 2 years.

You are 100% right that Crawford should not have sulked and just should have put on a happy face. However, I personally think that benching Crawford for 2 weeks, AFTER his best month of his career, had more to do with devaluing him than one game in which he sulked because he did not get any playing time. You think that is apologizing for Crawford. I think that is criticizing Wizards management. We will agree to disagree.

Dandridge, I agree completely with your criticism of management in the way the devalued Crawford's trade value just weeks before the Trade Deadline. Management should either have traded him in January, or sucked it up and played him in February until a Trade Deadline deal could be arranged.

I took issue with this portion of your critique:

I also think it is bull crap to claim that Crawford was sulking because he was put in his proper role as a reserve. Crawford wasn't sulking because he was put in a reserve role, he was sulking because he went from being a piece to the puzzle to being no piece whatsoever. I did not hear anybody claim he was a discontent or cancer when he was coming off the bench at the beginning of the season. I think Crawford was fine in a reserve role. He just didn't appreciate being benched completely after having one of his best month of his career. I can't say that I blame him. I would not be happy either.

From reading this, it appeared as though you were blaming management (Wittman) for abruptly benching Crawford for being a no-D chucker after two full seasons of tolerance. I just don't think it went down this way. I think it's unlikely that Wittman woke up one morning and decided to bench Crawford after his best month. I'm sure Wittman communicated with Crawford and explained what he expected from him. It's not like Crawford went from playing 30 minutes to 0 minutes. Crawford's minutes slowly dwindled and yet he didn't seem to respond to Wittman's expectations. His minutes continued to decline until he started betting DNP-CD's.

I would add that the team played good perimeter defense all year long. It has been clear all year long that playing good defense is a priority. As various players got healthy, the ones that played defense better than JC got his minutes. Not a surprise.