The evolution of my thinking on the Crawford deal

[niremetal]

First, I'll give you my thoughts in short form:

At first, I was way negative on the Crawford deal. The way I saw it, why would we need a chucker with a ~.400 career shooting percentage who hadn't played on a winning team since high school? Why would we want to pay $20M over two years for a guy who had spent his career shooting terrible percentages for terrible teams while playing less-than-no defense? Wouldn't the expiring deals of Speedy and Acie have been better spent on improving our frontcourt depth? The more I thought about it, though, the more I liked the deal. There were four big reasons for this:

1) We didn't give up much, even in terms of "opportunity cost." Unless we packaged Josh or Al, there weren't many big men who fit into the salary range of the combined contracts of Speedy and Acie. Those that were in that range were either 1) grossly overpaid (see: Kenny Thomas) or 2) not likely to be pried away in exchange for expiring contracts (see: Joel Przybilla). No one that we could get with those contracts, I realized, would have been an upgrade over Al at center. Which leads to my second point...

2) Our "undersized" frontcourt is not the problem people make it out to be. The NBA is no longer a league where the shadow of Shaq is cast over the entire league. The dominant center in the league today is 6'11, not 7'3. He beats you as much with his athleticism and quickness as he does with his size and strength. In fact, the teams with truly "big" centers like Portland, Phoenix, Cleveland, and Indiana gave Dwight little-to-no more trouble than teams with smaller-but-smarter centers like Boston, Charlotte, Golden State, and the Chandler-less Hornets (he only got 12 and 8 in a blowout loss with Hilton Armstrong opposing him at the pivot). In any case, there's absolutely no evidence that size is the answer to stopping Dwight. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I would rather have Horford on Howard than someone 2 inches taller but not quite as strong, not as athletic, and/or not as smart. Dwight burns Brook Lopez as easily as he burns Horford. There CERTAINLY was no one we could get in exchange for Speedy and Acie that would do any better. On the other hand, Crawford allowed us to use those contracts to fill another need...

3) Last year, one of our biggest weaknesses was our overreliance on JJ - both in terms of minutes played and in terms of possessions in which he is asked to make a play (usually against 2 defenders, and sometimes even 3). The ISO-heavy offense that Woody ran put a ton of pressure on JJ while he was on the floor, and Woody didn't trust the people on our bench enough to give Joe more than 8-9 minutes of rest per game. Crawford killed two birds with one stone - he gives us a second proven scorer to draw defensive attention away from JJ, and gives Woody someone that he can trust to play as many minutes at SG per night as is necessary. Crawford was almost the perfect acquisition at backup SG given the way our offense is run.

4) The years where Crawford's shooting percentage was in chucker territory were all years in which he was the primary offensive option of another team (or, in any case, where he was being asked to make a lot of difficult to shots in order for his team to score, not unlike the man he now is backing up). Here, we were asking him to be basically SuperFlip - a little taller and a little better across the board than our Sixth Man last year. The more I thought about it over the summer, the more I thought that his shooting percentages likely would not stay in the depths that they were at throughout his years in NYC (and his brief run in Frisco). There was every reason to think that as long as he wasn't being asked to be "the man" on offense, he would be a much more efficient player than he had been in the past.

Anyone who was bored enough to read my posts over at Sekou's blog probably saw this evolution in thinking, not just from me but from several people. In any case, my thinking on Crawford and the wisdom of that trade has gotten more and more positive throughout the offseason and now through the first quarter of the season.

But, of course, Statler and Waldorf summed up my feelings better in 15 seconds than I could in 6 paragraphs.

Edited December 15, 2009 by niremetal

[Diesel]

It's a wonder what Winning does for people.

for Craw, it gives him a 46% FG% and makes him 6th man of the year possibly.

For Niremental, it changes his mind on a deal where we totally robbed GS.

For Hawks fans, it gives us another guy to root for.

For Sund, it gives us bargaining power ( if needed) with Joe.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I was definitely against the move. I flat out hated Jamal Crawford's game.

But I got to hand it to Woody, he's using the guy perfectly. And most important, he's managing him perfectly. He's going to let Crawford do his thing, but he's not going to let Crawford lose games for him either. When Marvin was struggling at the beginning of the year, it was easy to go with Crawford, and let him finish games. But now that Marvin has started to come around somewhat, it's not a given that Crawford is going to be on the floor to finish a game, especially if we have a lead or if Marvin is playing decent ball.

And although Jamal does have the ability to be a playmaker, Woody has clearly defined his role as strictly an instant offense type scorer, ala Jason Terry. He hasn't put any pressure on him in trying to be a playmaker, which I think has been good for him. He's also made sure Jamal knew his role and how to play it, before worrying about the playing time of the other bench players. It was important to establish him as the leader of the 2nd unit, and it was important to play him with JJ as well. And the lineup that I thought would be a defensive nightmare, ( the Bibby - Crawford - JJ guard lineup ), has turned out to be our best scoring lineup and not bad at all defensively ( mainly because it forces other teams to keep up with us scoring ).

The only thing Woody has to really watch with him, is Jamal reverting back to strictly relying on his jumper. He has to stay on him to drive the ball on occasion. Earlier in the year, Jamal saw 30% of his shots being right at the rim. Now, that number has been reduced to 21%. This is why his FG% has dropped from over 50% to 46%. So that's the only thing Woody needs to watch with him on offense. He has to stay on him about not taking quick long range jumpers, because he really isn't shooting a higher percentage on his jumper this year. To me, he's taking way too many 3's, instead of taking the 18 foot jumper that he can knock down with consistency.

Defensively, he's still a work in progress. Woody and the staff have to constantly stay on him about his defense.

Overall, the additioin of Crawford has been a B+ . . . and I wouldn't have ever thought that in a million years.

[mrhonline]

For this season, the Crawford deal was a complete no-brainer.

I've said all along that it gets more complicated next year with the luxury tax looming.

[WraithSentinel]

I am happy to say I was for the deal from the start. Of course I know how quickly things can turn. Let say we lose JJ for nothing. Then everyone will start looking for an escape goat. They will pile on Sund for adding Crawford. Saying along the lines of "you don't pay $10 million for a 6th man" "getting Crawford hurt our chances of going after Wade" etc.....

[niremetal]

It's a wonder what Winning does for people.

for Craw, it gives him a 46% FG% and makes him 6th man of the year possibly.

For Niremental, it changes his mind on a deal where we totally robbed GS.

For Hawks fans, it gives us another guy to root for.

For Sund, it gives us bargaining power ( if needed) with Joe.

I had changed my mind about it being a bad deal even before the season started, but I know the Great Diesel doesn't bother with minutiae like reading the whole post.

[jerrywest]

I posted some insights from some knicks fanatics on the board after that trade. Those who didn't believe me are pleasently surprised.

Enjoy when it lasts.

[AHF]

I was fine with this as long as we were going to have Crawford in the "instant offense" role that Woodson has used him in this year and not as a starter in a Bibby/Crawford backcourt. I am not surprised by the success he is having so far or that he is exceeding the production we got from Flip in a similar, smaller role last season.

Woodson has used Crawford the right way, IMO.

[jerrywest]

I was fine with this as long as we were going to have Crawford in the "instant offense" role that Woodson has used him in this year and not as a starter in a Bibby/Crawford backcourt. I am not surprised by the success he is having so far or that he is exceeding the production we got from Flip in a similar, smaller role last season.

Woodson has used Crawford the right way, IMO.

I thought our three guard lineup would be one of the worst defensive back-court in the history of NBA. Small in all 5 positions. Glad to be wrong on that. I thought Crawford would be great as a starting PG or back-up SG. People who look at the box-scores only do not realize how superb Bibby has been this year.

[Diesel]

I am happy to say I was for the deal from the start. Of course I know how quickly things can turn. Let say we lose JJ for nothing. Then everyone will start looking for an escape goat. They will pile on Sund for adding Crawford. Saying along the lines of "you don't pay $10 million for a 6th man" "getting Crawford hurt our chances of going after Wade" etc.....

Craw is JJ insurance. He plays great off the bench ... however, in the absence of JJ, we still have Craw who can do most of what JJ does.

.

[Diesel]

I had changed my mind about it being a bad deal even before the season started, but I know the Great Diesel doesn't bother with minutiae like reading the whole post.

You're right nire. because just like this response... you're coming on here trying to be right when you were wrong. A simple, "I was wrong about the Crawford deal" would have sufficed.. Instead you want to be John Kerry and say... I was wrong about Crawford but I was right about it before the season started... yada yada yada... If your intent was to admit that you were wrong about the Crawford deal... we got that. However, what's all this other crap? You trying to rejustify yourself. You trying to save face? Moreover, I didn't attack you... I pointed out that winning changes things. If Crawford was doing the same thing he's doing now and we were losing, you would be singing a totally different song.... Right? You would be talking about how he's a chemistry killer or something along those lines. The Great One has written!

[Diesel]

I was fine with this as long as we were going to have Crawford in the "instant offense" role that Woodson has used him in this year and not as a starter in a Bibby/Crawford backcourt. I am not surprised by the success he is having so far or that he is exceeding the production we got from Flip in a similar, smaller role last season.

Woodson has used Crawford the right way, IMO.

I still believe we are most effective when Craw plays 2 and Joe rolls to the 3. There's a great chemistry when Joe is on the floor with Craw and Bibby. Our perimeter becomes magic. However, I would say our winning this season has been by the improved play of Smoove and Horf. I think us injury free is a problem for the rest of the league.

[niremetal]

You're right nire. because just like this response... you're coming on here trying to be right when you were wrong. A simple, "I was wrong about the Crawford deal" would have sufficed.. Instead you want to be John Kerry and say... I was wrong about Crawford but I was right about it before the season started... yada yada yada... If your intent was to admit that you were wrong about the Crawford deal... we got that. However, what's all this other crap? You trying to rejustify yourself. You trying to save face? Moreover, I didn't attack you... I pointed out that winning changes things. If Crawford was doing the same thing he's doing now and we were losing, you would be singing a totally different song.... Right? You would be talking about how he's a chemistry killer or something along those lines. The Great One has written!

Actually, no I wouldn't be saying "I told you so" if Crawford turned out to be a failure. And I won't say that if he goes through a bad shooting slump. I have no problem admitting that my initial reaction to the Crawford deal was bad/wrong/whatever magic words you think are necessary. I didn't even post over here back in June, so I have no need to save face. But I thought explaining WHY I changed my mind was beneficial not for anything having to do with me, but for the sake of starting a discussion on the things I discussed in my post - that Crawford filled a need that many people didn't even realize we had, and that some of our perceived weaknesses that weren't addressed by the Crawford trade (namely our "undersized" frontcourt) are not as big a problem as many people make them out to be.

Not everyone is petty like you, waiting to say "I told you so" at every opportunity. In your world, it's impossible for a person to explain "I'm wrong" and then go on to say "these are the things that made it wrong" without being a hypocrite. You see, Diesel, most people on here start threads to engender discussion, not to try to make themselves look superior. You apparently don't understand how that's possible, but that's not surprising. There's a reason you have more negative ratings than pretty much everyone on this site combined - you are arrogant and condescending. I take comfort in knowing that you're being no more arrogant and condescending towards me than you are towards everyone else.

Edited December 16, 2009 by niremetal

[Diesel]

Actually, no I wouldn't be saying "I told you so" if Crawford turned out to be a failure. And I won't say that if he goes through a bad shooting slump. I have no problem admitting that my initial reaction to the Crawford deal was bad/wrong

Not everyone is petty like you, waiting to say "I told you so" at every opportunity. In your world, it's impossible for a person to explain "I'm wrong" and then go on to say "these are the things that made it wrong" without being a hypocrite. You see, Diesel, most people on here start threads to engender discussion, not to try to make themselves look superior. You apparently don't understand how that's possible, but that's not surprising. There's a reason you have more negative ratings than pretty much everyone on this site combined - you are arrogant and condescending. I take comfort in knowing that you're being no more arrogant and condescending towards me than you are towards everyone else.

Dude your response to my post was the most petty thing on this board yesterday. All I was saying is that winning changes things... and you come back with an "Oh, the great diesel doesn't read all of the post." Excuse me if I don't buy your line of BS nire. Read my post again sir. There was no attempt to make me looks superior. I was singing the praises of the Hawks winning. That's why most people come to these boards... I now see that you're not for positive discussion, you are about stereotyping. Nire, I have been stereotyped on this board more than any other poster. One more stereotyper doesn'tbothers me one bit. I just would like to see that you would be more honest .. Tell me...

How does this:

"It's a wonder what Winning does for people.

for Craw, it gives him a 46% FG% and makes him 6th man of the year possibly.

For Niremental, it changes his mind on a deal where we totally robbed GS.

For Hawks fans, it gives us another guy to root for.

For Sund, it gives us bargaining power ( if needed) with Joe."

Make me look superior?? Where is all this BS that you're spewing about me being arrogant and condescending? Nire, if you just want to throw out an attack on me... get in line with the rest of them... however, don't lie to yourself and this board about things that I said.

Watch the language - AHF

Edited December 16, 2009 by AHF