Knicks emerge as front runners for Jamal Crawford?

[KnicksFan007]

Bibby/Shumpert
Fields/Crawford
Melo/?
Amare/Harrellson
Chandler/Jordan/Jeffries

He's not starting and the rest of the rotation now falls on if Barea and Shawne sign.

If they do:

Barea/Bibby
Shumpert/Crawford
Melo/Fields
Amare/Shawne/Harrellson
Chandler/Jordan/Jeffries

[Knicker23]

People who would turn down Crawford are still in the pre-Chandler mindset days of not getting all we can get.... If Bibby is available, you get him in our situation.... If Crawford is available, you get him in our situation...... JJ and Baron as well [probably more so than Crawford]... Just like the Heat.

Bibby was a vet minimum signing. Crawford is a trade so you have to weigh the value of what we'd be giving up.

Right, it's similar in that it isn't a guy we'd ordinarily want, but given the situation, would be stupid not to jump on.

TDs young and hardworking, can play some D... But he really isn't on Crawfords level... We can talk about his shot selection all day [both, actually] but Crawfords experienced and a 6th man of the year, he isn't only some useless chucker from the knicks teams we all want to forget about, that a lot of people want to pin him as... it's convenient to do the conspiracy theorist 'isaiah's back' bit.. pre-chandler it'd be a dumb move.... Now that we have things locked down, not so much...

he's also not a bad guy either, so it's not like he comes with a mentality that'll mess up anything... I get that we'd need defense, but you really think Tony Ds defense outweighs what Craw would bring?? I don't think so.. Saying "JJ and Craw would be the worst defensive backcourt ever" - doesn't change anything either.. May be so, but what else can we do? Keep the worse player for the hell of it?

[Falstaffxx]

I am torn with trading Balkman, Walker, & Douglas for Crawford. If they Knicks are seriously trying to built a culture of defense, they can't trade two of their better defensive reserves (Douglas & Balkman) for a offense-only player like Crawford. But as far as talent and name recognition, Crawford beat those other players so he become a better trade asset for NY to have, in case they decide to go after Howard in the future.

Pros:
Proven NBA talent
Scoring insurance if Melo or Stoudemire miss time
Versatility to play SG and some PG
Good at throwing the alley-oops pass (which is an asset with Chandler & Amar'e)
Excels in the 6th-man role
The Knicks will have probably the best scoring power in the league with Stoudemire, Anthony, & Crawford
Classy guy/solid locker-room presence

Cons:
His nickname was Crawful for a reason
Poor perimeter defender (although now he has some Bigs to protect the paint)
Inefficient chucker
Will lose defensive pieces to add him
Not capable of starting full-time at PG
Will likely take PT from Shumpert and Fields
Will likely hinder the building of defensive culture

Tough decision, but seeing how D'Antoni is unlikely to have played Balkman anyway, Douglas is no more capable of playing the starting PG than Crawford, and Jamal is an upgrade offensively to Billy Walker, I am leaning toward bring Crawful back (assuming that is the correct package going out). I can't believe I'm co-signing this very Isiah-esque move. The years and size of the contract will also matter. The Knicks better not give up any draft picks or money, which they seem to always do. If any additional assets are trading hands, Atlanta should have to give up second round pick or Magnum Rolle or Charles Garcia or something, since they obviously weren't going to re-sign Crawford and the Knicks are giving them their starting PG.

I'm with you on Douglas. Lost me on Balkman being one of our best defensive reserves though. I'd put Crawford being able to "play some point guard" out of our minds. He can't, and won't.

[The_Philosopher]

Barea and Crawford would be one of the worst defensive back courts in the league.

the realgm way!!

You don't agree? You must not watch basketball outside of NY.

[TrueWarrior]

Im good either way on this though. Jamal and Toney are very close when you factor in age, defense, and 3pt shooting going in Toneys favor. You dont know Toney could surprise us as the 3rd option. He will never be a true PG but perhaps his injury last year really hampered him. I just think Jamal is better, and Toney's defense is getting overrated now.

Jamal went for 23, 25, 23, and 25 ptsin the first 4 games of the Magic series in only about 30 minutes. Meanwhile Dougie completely folded against Boston on both ends. This would be the biggest swaying point for me. Crawford is just more ready to win now and is more of a reliable scoring option to handle the load in big games. Get rid of the stigma of his time in NY, no matter how deep it is, and see Crawoford for who he is. One of the best 6th men in the league.

They are probably close. I can see the upside of Crawford, although I prefer Douglas. If we trade Douglas for Crawford our need for another point guard increases though. Douglas played some point for us last year. Crawford is less of a point guard than he is. Maybe we'll hear something on Barea soon, although that seems like a long-shot to me.

What makes you think Douglas is more of a PG than Jamal? Because hes shorter? They both averaged about the same assists but Jamal has better handles and more experience. I also remember him hooking up alot of lobs back in the day. Listen neither of them are PGs and we're in trouble either way if we are going to rely on them to set up our offense, but Jamal is just better overall imo. All last season we were begging to get a backup PG to replace Douglas, and now people think hes okay to start? We'll see what happens.

[Li'l Penny]

Im good either way on this though. Jamal and Toney are very close when you factor in age, defense, and 3pt shooting going in Toneys favor. You dont know Toney could surprise us as the 3rd option. He will never be a true PG but perhaps his injury last year really hampered him. I just think Jamal is better, and Toney's defense is getting overrated now.

Jamal went for 23, 25, 23, and 25 ptsin the first 4 games of the Magic series in only about 30 minutes. Meanwhile Dougie completely folded against Boston on both ends. Crawford had a sh*tty series against the BUlls but then again so did his whole team. This would be the biggest swaying point for me. Crawford is just more ready to win now and is more of a reliable scoring option to handle the load in big games. Get rid of the stigma of his time in NY, no matter how deep it is, and see Crawoford for who he is. One of the best 6th men in the league.

*bingo*

We're no longer in a position to wait and hope guys develop. We're going the proven route. You guys wanted a winner right? You wanted to compete with the championship contending teams right? Well we can't be praying young guys step up anymore. We're going after dudes we know won't shrink in the heat of the moment.

Melo > Gallo
T. Chandler > D. Jordan
M. Bibby > A. Rautins
J. Crawford > T. Douglas

See any trend here, fellas?

We need to dump Pringles and bring in Phil Jackson

[Falstaffxx]

People who would turn down Crawford are still in the pre-Chandler mindset days of not getting all we can get.... If Bibby is available, you get him in our situation.... If Crawford is available, you get him in our situation...... JJ and Baron as well [probably more so than Crawford]... Just like the Heat.

Bibby was a vet minimum signing. Crawford is a trade so you have to weigh the value of what we'd be giving up.

Right, it's similar in that it isn't a guy we'd ordinarily want, but given the situation, would be stupid not to jump on.

TDs young and hardworking, can play some D... But he really isn't on Crawfords level... We can talk about his shot selection all day [both, actually] but Crawfords experienced and a 6th man of the year, he isn't only some useless chucker from the knicks teams we all want to forget about, that a lot of people want to pin him as... it's convenient to do the conspiracy theorist 'isaiah's back' bit.. pre-chandler it'd be a dumb move.... Now that we have things locked down, not so much...

he's also not a bad guy either, so it's not like he comes with a mentality that'll mess up anything... I get that we'd need defense, but you really think Tony Ds defense outweighs what Craw would bring?? I don't think so.. Saying "JJ and Craw would be the worst defensive backcourt ever" - doesn't change anything either.. May be so, but what else can we do? Keep the worse player for the hell of it?

There's no similarity between them. Bibby is someone we were able to pick up without losing anything in the process or hindering any other moves. It's all upside. Douglas for Crawford is a decision to be made that has pros and cons.

[Thugger HBC]

Who cares, they won't have the ball.

My thinking is if they get Crawford, he goes sixth man, and we still have the mini mle for a pg.

I thinking folks are taking "starter" too serious.

It's minute management, just because a player starts means virtually nothing.

Crawford is not going to be sixth man behind Fields, who is a small forward, or Shumpert, who is a rookie. Crawford would start.

What gives you that assumption?

I think the 2 guard spot is for Fields to lose.

I'd rather think Grunwald is looking at Crawford who just so happen to hire his former coach, as a sixth man like Woodson utilized him at.

That makes far more sense.

[Falstaffxx]

Im good either way on this though. Jamal and Toney are very close when you factor in age, defense, and 3pt shooting going in Toneys favor. You dont know Toney could surprise us as the 3rd option. He will never be a true PG but perhaps his injury last year really hampered him. I just think Jamal is better, and Toney's defense is getting overrated now.

Jamal went for 23, 25, 23, and 25 ptsin the first 4 games of the Magic series in only about 30 minutes. Meanwhile Dougie completely folded against Boston on both ends. This would be the biggest swaying point for me. Crawford is just more ready to win now and is more of a reliable scoring option to handle the load in big games. Get rid of the stigma of his time in NY, no matter how deep it is, and see Crawoford for who he is. One of the best 6th men in the league.

They are probably close. I can see the upside of Crawford, although I prefer Douglas. If we trade Douglas for Crawford our need for another point guard increases though. Douglas played some point for us last year. Crawford is less of a point guard than he is. Maybe we'll hear something on Barea soon, although that seems like a long-shot to me.

What makes you think Douglas is more of a PG than Jamal? Because hes shorter? They both averaged about the same assists but Jamal has better handles and more experience. I also remember him hooking up alot of lobs back in the day. Listen neither of them are PGs and we're in trouble either way if we are going to rely on them to set up our offense, but Jamal is just better overall imo. All last season we were begging to get a backup PG to replace Douglas, and now people think hes okay to start? We'll see what happens.

Douglas has actually played big minutes at point guard recently. When was the last time Crawford played point guard for any extended amount of time in a game?

[Greenie]

Do Not Want.


KEEP TD!

[DocZaius]

The only reason I don't want Crawford is because we have to commit more than 1 year.

This will seriously hurt the development of Shumpert as he will see less PT.

[Falstaffxx]

Who cares, they won't have the ball.

My thinking is if they get Crawford, he goes sixth man, and we still have the mini mle for a pg.

I thinking folks are taking "starter" too serious.

It's minute management, just because a player starts means virtually nothing.

Crawford is not going to be sixth man behind Fields, who is a small forward, or Shumpert, who is a rookie. Crawford would start.

What gives you that assumption?

I think the 2 guard spot is for Fields to lose.

I'd rather think Grunwald is looking at Crawford who just so happen to hire his former coach, as a sixth man like Woodson utilized him at.

That makes far more sense.

It's just obvious that if we trade for Crawford and our options for starter at SG are Crawford, who is a natural shooting guard, Fields, who is a small forward, and Shumpert, who is a rookie, then Crawford will be our starting shooting guard.

[Red Vines]

Crawford would be great insurance for Melo. If we lost Melo for a few games he could pick up the scoring, we wouldn't be totally screwed. Would just like to know what other moves we're thinking about.

[Li'l Penny]

Who cares, they won't have the ball.

My thinking is if they get Crawford, he goes sixth man, and we still have the mini mle for a pg.

I thinking folks are taking "starter" too serious.

It's minute management, just because a player starts means virtually nothing.

Crawford is not going to be sixth man behind Fields, who is a small forward, or Shumpert, who is a rookie. Crawford would start.

What gives you that assumption?

I think the 2 guard spot is for Fields to lose.

I'd rather think Grunwald is looking at Crawford who just so happen to hire his former coach, as a sixth man like Woodson utilized him at.

That makes far more sense.

Probably why we getting Bibby too. We know exactly what his skill set is and not expecting more.

[Fury]

Crawford is better off the bench PG/SG and wreck **** against second units.

[DE FENSE]

I would love getting Jamal as a 6th man....I just dont see it happening at least not with the sign and trade they mentioned.

I see you lifted my avy. Its cool though, I know its sexy as hell

[Knicker23]

There's no similarity between them. Bibby is someone we were able to pick up without losing anything in the process or hindering any other moves. It's all upside. Douglas for Crawford is a decision to be made that has pros and cons.

Again... I'm not talking about the way in which the said player is obtained... I'm talking about the mindset behind acquiring said player.. In which case, yes there is a similarity... In that we'd have no real interest in either prior to signing Chandler, but now that we have, and are in a different mode, both become more attractive.... Whether one costs players or not.

[2010]

I am torn with trading Balkman, Walker, & Douglas for Crawford. If they Knicks are seriously trying to built a culture of defense, they can't trade two of their better defensive reserves (Douglas & Balkman) for a offense-only player like Crawford. But as far as talent and name recognition, Crawford beat those other players so he become a better trade asset for NY to have, in case they decide to go after Howard in the future.

Pros:
Proven NBA talent
Scoring insurance if Melo or Stoudemire miss time
Versatility to play SG and some PG
Good at throwing the alley-oops pass (which is an asset with Chandler & Amar'e)
Excels in the 6th-man role
The Knicks will have probably the best scoring power in the league with Stoudemire, Anthony, & Crawford
Classy guy/solid locker-room presence

Cons:
His nickname was Crawful for a reason
Poor perimeter defender (although now he has some Bigs to protect the paint)
Inefficient chucker
Will lose defensive pieces to add him
Not capable of starting full-time at PG
Will likely take PT from Shumpert and Fields
Will likely hinder the building of defensive culture

Tough decision, but seeing how D'Antoni is unlikely to have played Balkman anyway, Douglas is no more capable of playing the starting PG than Crawford, and Jamal is an upgrade offensively to Billy Walker, I am leaning toward bring Crawful back (assuming that is the correct package going out). I can't believe I'm co-signing this very Isiah-esque move. The years and size of the contract will also matter. The Knicks better not give up any draft picks or money, which they seem to always do. If any additional assets are trading hands, Atlanta should have to give up second round pick or Magnum Rolle or Charles Garcia or something, since they obviously weren't going to re-sign Crawford and the Knicks are giving them their starting PG.

Stop pretending Balkman is going to sniff the active roster, let alone get any playing time. He was jettisoned the minute D'Antoni arrived and he didn't get any burn after the Melo trade. So basically we're giving up Walker/Douglas for Crawford. Lets be real here, Walker is a bum. He cannot defend as he has no lateral quickness due to knee woes. He is a good spot-up 3pt shooter but that's really all he has to offer aside from the occasional dunk. Crawford is a proven commodity so that puts him over Douglas for that reason alone. Douglas is considered a good defender when in fact he is not. He is a WILLING DEFENDER but he's not quite good at defense...big difference. Why? Because he's not a smart defender. Dude was told to give Rondo room and he kept backing up and backing up and backing up until he was damn near at the concession stands while Rondo was swooping in for a layup. He's not that bright man. We can sacrifice him for Crawford because we have another willing defender (Shumpert) who is more athletic, bigger and stronger even if he never learns how to shoot.

[The_Philosopher]

Barea and Crawford would be one of the worst defensive back courts in the league.

shumperts and fields one of the worst offensive back courts in league too. so somethin gotta give somehow here. and dougie defense way overrate he isnt that good. he tries which is great but he just isnt that good at it anyways. and we do need more scoring. amare and melo are the only guys on the whole roster that can score. we need another. craw would do it. craw great to take pressure off amare and melo. craw break down defense and lob to chandler or hit amare cutting or melo open 16 feet out. money. money!!!!

Joke post?

[Falstaffxx]

There's no similarity between them. Bibby is someone we were able to pick up without losing anything in the process or hindering any other moves. It's all upside. Douglas for Crawford is a decision to be made that has pros and cons.

Again... I'm not talking about the way in which the said player is obtained... I'm talking about the mindset behind acquiring said player.. In which case, yes there is a similarity... In that we'd have no real interest in either prior to signing Chandler, but now that we have, and are in a different mode, both become more attractive.... Whether one costs players or not.

The mindset behind acquiring them should be quite different, since one had no downside, and the other is a decision that has pros and cons.