Andre Miller for Jamaal Crawford?

shagadelic45 · Post #1 » by **shagadelic45** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:45 am

Would give Philly a backcourt of Williams-Crawford-Iggy for the next 10 years.

NY gets a pass-first pg to feed all the ballhogs....

Post #2 » by **BBallFreak** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:46 am

I've gotta believe Andre Miller has more value than that...

Post #3 » by **loserX** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:47 am

The Sixers have plenty of wings to try out. I doubt Crawford is how they want to tie up the capspace they'd have by trading Miller.

BR0D1E86 · Post #4 » by **BR0D1E86** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:20 am

NY wishes.

youngcrev · Post #5 » by **youngcrev** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:34 am

noooo, noo, noo, no.

Sixers have no desire to take on Crawford, especially not at the expense of Andre Miller.

Post #6 » by **moocow007** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:41 am

BR0D1E86 wrote:NY wishes.

They do?

If Miller was so good why are the Sixers beginning to fall right back in line with NY as awful teams in the East? Wait...let me guess...unless the Knicks, the Sixers have a valid excuse for stinking?

I mean the possible reasons for this is mind boggling but lets visit this anways....

The Sixers has Igoudala who is >>>>>>>> than any Knick (right?).

The Sixers have a defensive force in Dalembert who is >>>>>>>>> than either Randolph or Curry (right?).

And obviously anyone as head coach is >>>>>>>>>> than Isiah Thomas (right?).

And the Knicks bench players are all overrated (right?).

So what is it then? Nate Robinson is the difference? David Lee? Or is the Philly coach sabotaging the Sixers (although he's obviously better than Thomas even if he is doing that)?

What exactly are the Knicks (who, like the Sixers are years away from being serious, if ever) going to do with a 32 year old PG that can't defend and can't stretch the defense for Curry or Randolph by hitting the outside shot????? Let me guess...Crawford can't defend either and his FG% is bad (the same old, same old)?

IggyTheBEaST · Post #7 » by **IggyTheBEaST** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:57 am

I was assuming the next 3 words of the post were going to be:
"and David Lee"

Millr fo Jamal straight up is a joke

BR0D1E86 · Post #8 » by **BR0D1E86** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:26 am

[quote="moocow007"][/quote]

Yeah they do... Miller's got a shorter contract, plays a position, passes, shoots around 8% higher and is essentially a better player in every way except 3 point shooting.

And I never said anything about anybody else so don't put words in my mouth. Dalembert is not good. Igoudala's good but insanely overrated on these boards (although he is better than any Knick).

As for the Knick bench players I think they're rated about right. Nate Robinson is a 4'3 shooting guard with an ego the size of 5 Shaq's, David Lee is a solid player with a limited offensive game.

What do you want? Andre Miller is a better all-around player on a better contract at a harder to fill position than Jamal Crawford.

Post #9 » by **moocow007** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:33 am

BR0D1E86 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Yeah they do... Miller's got a shorter contract, plays a position, passes, shoots around 8% higher and is essentially a better player in every way except 3 point shooting.

And I never said anything about anybody else so don't put words in my mouth. Dalembert is not good. Igoudala's good but insanely overrated on these boards (although he is better than any Knick).

As for the Knick bench players I think they're rated about right. Nate Robinson is a 4'3 shooting guard with an ego the size of 5 Shaq's, David Lee is a solid player with a limited offensive game.

What do you want? Andre Miller is a better all-around player on a better contract at a harder to fill position than Jamal Crawford.

AND STILL DOESN'T FIT THE KNICKS ANYMORE THAN HE DOES THE SIXERS.

And the way Crawford has been playing of late (has lead the Knicks to 3 straight impressive wins against Detroit, Washington and the Nets) the Knicks have absolutely no reason to trade him.