Knicks · Knicks Emerging in Jamal Crawford Chase (page 2)

I like Jamal. I'd absolutely welcome him back, but as I was just talking about Toney in the Barrea thread, I'd be sad to see him go. Got to give to get, but I'm neutral on this.

Balkman/Walker/Douglas for Jamal? Ok, I'd do it.

please bring back jamal. i love that kid.

If this is our answer to our PG need, this is the wrong direction. Crawford, for all the excitement he brought and the heart he showed, isn't really a PG. He is a volume shooter 2-guard.

Now, as a shooting guard, I must say the option is intriguing. I agree that he isn't the kind of guard I'd like to have with Carmelo and Amare, but as a shooter with range he would be an upgrade over Fields, who would slide as a backup SG/SF and will still have a chance to shine.

I think that, as with Bibby, there are better options to be explored. One thing to note, if the right PG can be had, TD is tradeable. Its hard to see TD become something else than the shooting guard in a point guard body he is. He brings great play everytime, but we need a starting PG and in order to really contend, I don't think he can be that.

Come on people! Knick fans can be so panicky and scared sometimes. Every time there's a deal they swear we're trading all of our best young players. TD is a good young guy, but in this instance it would be a good deal for ATL to get a younger cheaper scoring guard to replace Jamal. Walker is a useful reserve as well and on a short cheap contract.

The Knicks are not just gonna send away Iman. The kid has too much talent. If you notice they've been trying to hide Iman a bit. They never mention him really and have been waiting to sign him. I think this would be a good move.

Who the fuck is Alex Kennedy?

I see his name from time to time and usually what's under the byline is bullshit

SupremeCommander wrote:Who the fuck is Alex Kennedy?

I see his name from time to time and usually what's under the byline is bullshit

I thought the same thing. I don't how we can possibly sign J-Craw unless he takes less money.

unstopaball12 wrote:

RonRon wrote:we do need a shooter but not a high volume shooter.
Someone that is a defender and shooter.

If we go this route, I would rather go for a min Peja.

Although Crawford can play some PG, its tough, i wouldn't be totally against it.... just wont be my first choice.
I would rather have Barea.

Barea is not a defender.

Id get crawford, he shined under both coaches!

He played well under d antoni and won the 6thman award under woodson.

He can give us so many options come clutch time

Exactly. Can Barrea even get his hand in a shooters face?
Jamal was soo clutch with us. When we need a game winner who's on the floor? Amar'e who has proven to be clutch at times, Melo, Crawford, and Tyson for a potential tip in/alley oop. So many options.

nixluva wrote:Hmmm. This is interesting. My memory of Jamal is that he was GREAT at throwing the alleyoop to Curry. He's got a great handle and can get into the lane. If he used his powers for good, he could be a very useful player. People hated on him back when we didn't really have the kind of talent we have now. He's MUCH more of a passer than TD!!! He's a flawed player, but a talented one.

Allow me to jog your memories a bit. When Jamal as playing for MDA he avg'd 19.6 ppg and 4.4 assists. He shot 45% from 3pt range under MDA. I think it makes sense that they'd see Jamal as a better alternative at PG to TD. The way PG's play in this system lends itself to improved play. Just about every guard that plays for MDA sees a boost in their efficiency. It's not as bad an idea as some are making it out to be.

Ahhh memories.

and if Tyson isn't open, then guess what...

I think this would be a good move, and even though I don't see TD as a playmaker it'd be great if we could somehow keep him too.

Knicksfan wrote:If this is our answer to our PG need, this is the wrong direction. Crawford, for all the excitement he brought and the heart he showed, isn't really a PG. He is a volume shooter 2-guard.

Now, as a shooting guard, I must say the option is intriguing. I agree that he isn't the kind of guard I'd like to have with Carmelo and Amare, but as a shooter with range he would be an upgrade over Fields, who would slide as a backup SG/SF and will still have a chance to shine.

I think that, as with Bibby, there are better options to be explored. One thing to note, if the right PG can be had, TD is tradeable. Its hard to see TD become something else than the shooting guard in a point guard body he is. He brings great play everytime, but we need a starting PG and in order to really contend, I don't think he can be that.

I don't necessarily think he would be the answer to the Knicks PG need but Crawford IMHO certainly fills a bunch of holes, one of which is the PG position (whether backup or whatever).

Dynamic scoring off bench when Amare, Melo sit or get into foul trouble not bad either.

I am up and down on this type of move. If S&T is for Walker/Balk/TD, I would miss TD but getting the 6th man scoring intangibles would be interesting. He would also be a decent backup PG.

No, actually, allow me to jog your memory on this chuck master:

11 game under D'Antoni does not make a career.

A career 41% FG percentage makes a career. A career of absolutely awful defense makes a career. A career of absolutely awful shot selection and all around low basketball IQ plays makes a career.

Jamal Crawford is 32 years old and provides nothing to this team that we don't already have, except he'll make it worse with his defense. Toney Douglas provides more to this team than Crawford would and that's saying something.

all the jamal math-o-logists need to sit down. he'd be a good fit here.

I like bringing Craw back as a 2. Especially if it's for Balk, Walker and TD. He can play some point at times, but mostly he is a proven outside threat who can get real hot at times. In addition, he has become a smarter player since leaving the Knicks. I wouldnt expect the same flaws we saw years back. He can defend as well. Bibby and Iman would need to cover the point, which is risky, but overall the move gives us more scoring and defense, and would let Landry develop as a bench player at the 2 and the 3 spots, with significant minutes. Getting Craw would require getting Bibby though.
I like TD, but he is not a PG, and he's small for a two. Jamal is a far superior player overall.

Right.

Let's throw logic and reason out the window so we can be fanboys of a guy who does crossovers and then takes contested fadeaway jumpers.

Childs2Dudley wrote:No, actually, allow me to jog your memory on this chuck master:

11 game under D'Antoni does not make a career.

A career 41% FG percentage makes a career. A career of absolutely awful defense makes a career. A career of absolutely awful shot selection and all around low basketball IQ plays makes a career.

Jamal Crawford is 32 years old and provides nothing to this team that we don't already have, except he'll make it worse with his defense. Toney Douglas provides more to this team than Crawford would and that's saying something.

If TD wasn't involved would you be more receptive to the idea? Balkman and Walker for Crawford sounds good to me.

Can this even happen if TD isn't involved?

Childs2Dudley wrote:No, actually, allow me to jog your memory on this chuck master:

11 game under D'Antoni does not make a career.

A career 41% FG percentage makes a career. A career of absolutely awful defense makes a career. A career of absolutely awful shot selection and all around low basketball IQ plays makes a career.

Jamal Crawford is 32 years old and provides nothing to this team that we don't already have, except he'll make it worse with his defense. Toney Douglas provides more to this team than Crawford would and that's saying something.

i agree with this 100%.

how is he a good fit? STAT & MELO are volume scorers....and so is crawford. i loved crawford as a player. at the time we had nobody who could create their own shot, and he hit several game winning shots. i just don't see how he fits in on this team. he does not run or initiate offense, he dribbles and shoots.

two people i can think of who would be thoroughly opposed to this move are stoudemire and melo. less shots for them, less touches for them. i can see melo looking over to MDA after a typical crawford possession of fancing dribbling, an out of control drive, and a turnover, and melo being like "dude get this guy out of here. i'm all the offense we need."

what NEED does crawford fill? the fact that he can moonlight at point for a few minutes?

i would MUCH rather have douglas. guy can hit the open 3 (lead the league in 3s post-AS break last year), is a gritty and tough player, plays excellent D on opposing guards (crawford is a terrible defender), and will NOT need the ball to score (unlike crawford, who is about the farthest thing from a catch and shoot PG).

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:I think if the Knicks end up with Crawford Iman will be in the deal.

LOL, uh no.

Yeah the Knicks have never given up young talent before or been taken advantage of in a trade. Balk, Walker and TD are desireable guys that should land the Knicks Jamaal.

nychamp wrote:I like bringing Craw back as a 2. Especially if it's for Balk, Walker and TD. He can play some point at times, but mostly he is a proven outside threat who can get real hot at times. In addition, he has become a smarter player since leaving the Knicks. I wouldnt expect the same flaws we saw years back. He can defend as well. Bibby and Iman would need to cover the point, which is risky, but overall the move gives us more scoring and defense, and would let Landry develop as a bench player at the 2 and the 3 spots, with significant minutes. Getting Craw would require getting Bibby though.
I like TD, but he is not a PG, and he's small for a two. Jamal is a far superior player overall.

Who plays point then? Bibby? A rookie?

I'm not opposed to JC, but he'd HAVE to play point with that "rumored" trade. And I'd rather have TD run the point than Craw

Childs2Dudley wrote:Right.

Let's throw logic and reason out the window so we can be fanboys of a guy who does crossovers and then takes contested fadeaway jumpers.

i think you mean MAKES contested fadeaway jumpers.

ATrain wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:No, actually, allow me to jog your memory on this chuck master:

11 game under D'Antoni does not make a career.

A career 41% FG percentage makes a career. A career of absolutely awful defense makes a career. A career of absolutely awful shot selection and all around low basketball IQ plays makes a career.

Jamal Crawford is 32 years old and provides nothing to this team that we don't already have, except he'll make it worse with his defense. Toney Douglas provides more to this team than Crawford would and that's saying something.

If TD wasn't involved would you be more receptive to the idea? Balkman and Walker for Crawford sounds good to me.

Can this even happen if TD isn't involved?

No.

hollinger says its BS:

John Hollinger @johnhollinger

Calm down NYC. Any sign-and-trade for Crawford puts the Hawks in the luxury tax. Non-starter.

my guess is that if it's a S&T, Atlanta would want TD, native to the area. We shall see.

SupremeCommander wrote:

nychamp wrote:I like bringing Craw back as a 2. Especially if it's for Balk, Walker and TD. He can play some point at times, but mostly he is a proven outside threat who can get real hot at times. In addition, he has become a smarter player since leaving the Knicks. I wouldnt expect the same flaws we saw years back. He can defend as well. Bibby and Iman would need to cover the point, which is risky, but overall the move gives us more scoring and defense, and would let Landry develop as a bench player at the 2 and the 3 spots, with significant minutes. Getting Craw would require getting Bibby though.
I like TD, but he is not a PG, and he's small for a two. Jamal is a far superior player overall.

Who plays point then? Bibby? A rookie?

I'm not opposed to JC, but he'd HAVE to play point with that "rumored" trade. And I'd rather have TD run the point than Craw

exactly. bibby freaking stinks! who watched the eastern conference finals in may. calling him a "point guard" is a disgrace to point guard. and crawford is NOT a point guard. the guy is a 2 who looks for his own shot first, second, and third. carmelo & stat would HATE playing with this guy, LOL.