Jamal Crawford (Will the Hawks really lose him and get nothing in return?)

[PaceRam]

I will admit that I live in Florida and I don't keep up with the Hawks news (but, I have been a loyal fan for many years!) as much as I would like but can someone tell me if it looks like the Hawks will really lose Jamal Crawford to FA (and, get nothing in return?)? I like Crawford and I would really like to see the Hawks re-sign him but if they can't then I would have liked to seen them trade him to another team and get a player(s) and/or draft picks in return. I am not trying to be a complainer but I sure do question a lot of moves the Hawks management make (although, I seriously doubt if they care or if they will lose any sleep over it!)!

[frosgrim]

Nothing really can be known until the new CBA is settled. Ownership isn't going to commit to anything until the new agreement is finished.

That said, SnT generally don't give the team that holds the rights much, but we'll see.

[capstone21]

very good chance. I prefer to have a three guard rotation of Joe/Hinrich/Teague (since they play D and it looks like Teague is ready to breakout as a scorer) but I don't want to lose JC for nothing.

I hope at least a sign and trade can be made

[macdaddy]

Jamal is a great scorer but i'm guessing we weren't offered a ton for him at the deadline. We wouldn't have gotten out of the first round without him so I don't think we got nothing. Look at it this way, we get rid of his salary and take none back.

I think the money it will take to re sign him would be better spent on a small forward who can score rather than another guard.

[Crank]

Jamal is a great scorer but i'm guessing we weren't offered a ton for him at the deadline. We wouldn't have gotten out of the first round without him so I don't think we got nothing. Look at it this way, we get rid of his salary and take none back.

I think the money it will take to re sign him would be better spent on a small forward who can score rather than another guard.

We are over the cap regardless of whether Crawford comes back or not . Losing him does not open up money all we have if we bring him back or dont is the MLE .

With that said hes already gone as I stated before barring a lockout he will be getting calls from most of the top teams and there stars in the league .

[capstone21]

Chicago is in desparate need of a sg and have cap money.

although I think JC and Rose would be a terrible combo

[Mdizzle5]

do you really think Chi would take Jamal back though?

[MaceCase]

Chicago is in desparate need of a sg and have cap money.

although I think JC and Rose would be a terrible combo

Teams like Orlando and Chicago wouldn't mind him because they need a secondary ball handler and guy that can create his own shot and they have the schemes and frontcourts to offset whatever defenses lapses he has.

[capstone21]

It depends on how desparate they are for a shooting guard.

[yungsta]

a jamal and d-rose backcourt would be horrible lol. 2 weak defensive shot jackers who need the ball in their hands. he would only help them if he came off the bench.

[Eddielives]

I think you have to consider the money that they could save and spend elsewhere if Jamal isn't resigned and the possibility they could use that money to get someone equal or better who is willing to sign here. The big question is who is willing to sign here. I'm always a little confused when people say are we going to lose someone for nothing unless it's a given that you know the money saved can't be used for someone else with any talent.

[Diesel]

We are over the cap regardless of whether Crawford comes back or not . Losing him does not open up money all we have if we bring him back or dont is the MLE .

With that said hes already gone as I stated before barring a lockout he will be getting calls from most of the top teams and there stars in the league .

This GM loves Crawford. Everything depends on the LT so everything depends on the CBA.

If the CBA comes with amnesty... We drop Marvin, we pick up Crawford and we keep moving. Depending on the CBA, teams that may call him might not call him. If there is no cap in the new CBA, then it's possible he may stay. It just depends on what is done with the new CBA.

[Crank]

I think you have to consider the money that they could save and spend elsewhere if Jamal isn't resigned and the possibility they could use that money to get someone equal or better who is willing to sign here. The big question is who is willing to sign here. I'm always a little confused when people say are we going to lose someone for nothing unless it's a given that you know the money saved can't be used for someone else with any talent.

Eddie what money are you talking about ? Losing Crawford doesnt free up money because Als new deal at 12 million a season kicks in .

All we would have is the 6 million from the mid level exception to use and we have that whether we keep Crawford or not .

I repeat jamal and his 10 mil contract leaving doesnt open up an extra 10 million in which we could sign other players with because we are already capped out either way.

Although Diesel is right about how the new CBA may open or close doors in regards to how it plays out

[Eddielives]

Eddie what money are you talking about ? Losing Crawford doesnt free up money because Als new deal at 12 million a season kicks in .

All we would have is the 6 million from the mid level exception to use and we have that whether we keep Crawford or not .

I repeat jamal and his 10 mil contract leaving doesnt open up an extra 10 million in which we could sign other players with because we are already capped out either way.

Although Diesel is right about how the new CBA may open or close doors in regards to how it plays out

But Jamal is paid a salary and if he leaves, that's money is not being spent on him anymore. If Al's contract kicks in and fills up the cap space, then what's the debate over losing Jamal for nothing for anyway? It doesn't make sense. It's being filled by the raise in Al's salary. If we had to still pay Jamal for another year, we probably wouldn't have been able to sign Al so there is the value in Jamal leaving if he does. It still doesn't make sense for people saying we will lose him for NOTHING is my point. That portion of the team payroll that was Jamal's is going to be filled by someone and according to you, which I assume you're right, Al's contract eats up.

[Crank]

But Jamal is paid a salary and if he leaves, that's money is not being spent on him anymore. If Al's contract kicks in and fills up the cap space, then what's the debate over losing Jamal for nothing for anyway? It doesn't make sense. It's being filled by the raise in Al's salary. If we had to still pay Jamal for another year, we probably wouldn't have been able to sign Al so there is the value in Jamal leaving if he does. It still doesn't make sense for people saying we will lose him for NOTHING is my point. That portion of the team payroll that was Jamal's is going to be filled by someone and according to you, which I assume you're right, Al's contract eats up.

he would be considered leaving for nothing because he has talent and production behind that talent that would be losing him for nothing ?

We can have them both what part of this dont you seem to understand ?

Al is not replacing jamal we are losing a rotation player for nothing

Als contract has nothing to do with Jamal we could still resign jamal but if jamals leaves we get nothing because we have no capspace so jamals departure doesnt open up anything as far as signing players we just lose an asset for nothing .

[atlbraves93]

If by nothing you mean almost $11 million in cap space, then yes, the Hawks will get nothing in return.

[Crank]

If by nothing you mean almost $11 million in cap space, then yes, the Hawks will get nothing in return.

we arent getting capspace cmon keep up here

[Eddielives]

we arent getting capspace cmon keep up here

Okay well help me understand it better then. How does Jamal leaving, along with his salary, mean he is leaving and the Hawks don't have that money not being spent anymore to show for it? It sounds like you are saying that the cap is fluid and changes based on signing Jamal or not. I thought that a cap is set in stone barring certain free agent bird rights type deals where a team can sign a player over the cap and not be hit with the tax.

[Supporter]

Capspace is gone cuz of Horford's extension and other guys' increase in salary. http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/hawks.jsp Also we need to sign some players and meet the roster requirements

[lunar]

the bottom line is that there already is a cap on the hawks salary because the ASG isn't going to pay luxary tax for crawford (which they would have to do if they wanted to keep him since other increases in salary would push us over). losing crawford would mean keeping other players on the team.

a big thing to keep in mind is some players had it built into their contracts to take less salary this year and to see a bigger bump in salary next year (ASG was worried about the recession when making marvin williams salary in particular).