Jamal Crawford and Atlanta Hawks have come to terms on a buyout

[sturt]

I'm seriously disappointed that there's that much left to even consider stretching it out to begin with. Crawford should have paid dearly, dearly, dearly for this luxury. I knew, though, when I saw Crawford's tweet thanking the Hawks for allowing him to exit, he wouldn't be thanking us if he didn't feel he got a really comfy deal. Could there be something in the equation I'm missing? Sure. But then, it's going to be incumbent on Schlenk to explain himself on this, and it's incumbent on the beat writer to ask him to explain himself on this.

C-Viv, don't blow this one.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, GameTime said:

 

 

Yep. I see you'se guys saw it too. (Had to be away from access for an hour or two.)

THIS might as well have said, "HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" (140 characters of that.)

[mrhonline]

Stretched over five years, right? So between $2-$3M per season?

[thecampster]

35 minutes ago, mrhonline said:

Stretched over five years, right? So between $2-$3M per season?

I'm thinking we're going to have to wait on an official article from HF on this to know the amount, terms and real cap impact.

[AHF]

3 hours ago, ATL_BALLER said:

Can you kindly explain in layman's why the contract is gold? Because it would have been an expiring next offseason?

Related note: if you acquire an expiring, can you immediately waive the player and get the cap space, or do you have to wait til it actually expires?

 

It would not just have been expiring next year it would have only been guaranteed for 3M.  So over 11M of it was not guaranteed.  That is gold.

Next season almost every team will be capped out with little to no room under the cap.  They will be at a huge disadvantage if they want to sign a significant free agent.  However, they could do something like package $9M Crowder and $8 Bradley together to us for Crawford and then cut him.  So they go from $17M in cap space tied up in those players to only $3M in Crawford - freeing up roughly $14M.

That is gold for any team that feels the need to spend - which is a lot of teams.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, mrhonline said:

Stretched over five years, right? So between $2-$3M per season?

That makes me ill that we will be tying up cap space when we want to be competitive to free up room next this year when we don't want to be.  Schlenk better hit a FA home run.

[Thomas]

If moving up from what will be undoubtedly an early or fairly early second rounder to a late first is enough to give us a good rotational player or even one that we are confident will develop into one then that Craw's 2.8 per year stretch won't look so bad, about three percent of the cap as it is now. Yeah, thats glass half full there.

[Afro]

The constant mismanagement of assets. And I mean constanttttt. Paired with the whole "Hey guys! Barber shop! Come to the games!" Stuff makes me really really question just how much this management cares about winning.  

[sturt]

And you know, this one's different than any other decision because it doesn't involve (a) talent assessment or (b) a question of what other teams might be offering.

In the former, a few of us (too few if you ask me) grant the guy benefit of a doubt because, after all, he was supposedly hired because of the good things on his track record. He probably has a better eye to project a player than I do, or, most assuredly, @Diesel (*ducking*)... *wink*. So... until we have some specific on-the-court intel that says otherwise, decisions involving talent assessment? I'm going along with his judgment. For now. A year at least, and probably even a couple of years.

In the latter, it's simply objective truth that we don't know what we don't know, and we can pretend that we do, but we're only fooling ourselves, because we just can't. We can't know what other offers were on the table or were not on the table for Dwight for instance. We can't know what Schlenk may have turned down in terms of moving up or moving down in the draft. So, it's difficult to complain with complete integrity when we can't actually know each of the vital facts that went into a given decision.

But. This is different.

There's no talent assessment involved. There's no wondering what other options there were, because at the very least we know that one option was to hold on to Crawford and that one option was to hold out for him to settle up with a buyout that gave him $1.00.

This is a simple matter of judgment.

And once it becomes public knowledge what that judgment was, he will have no excuses or reasons, whichever, to hide behind. This will be a fairly definitive statement as to his ability to make good business decisions.

I hope we're surprised. Crawford's tweet is so so damning.

 

 

 

 

[CP61]

Eh it ain't my money so I don't care

[mrhonline]

7 minutes ago, CP61 said:

Eh it ain't my money so I don't care

Not that simple. It counts against the salary cap.

[sturt]

Who said anything about money.

It's not about money.

It's about business judgment.

There is no overt cloudiness in this that obscures our vision.

Teams need casual fans. So, it's true that not everyone necessarily should be concerned about the GM's capacity to make good decisions. But many of us are more than that.

[CP61]

19 minutes ago, mrhonline said:

Not that simple. It counts against the salary cap.

Only 3 million a year. I mean I'm not exactly happy with that but it's not like it's crippling. They couldn't trade him and we did the guy a solid. Also we probably need the money we save to fill out the roster. 

[Thomas]

Schlenk's main move with Craw was to acquire a 2018 first rounder (though it will be a late one). It cost us the extra second rounder from the Wiz in 2019 and a 2.8 per year (at most) stretch. A third string center included to us as well. Whether Stone develops or not was the only risk really. Overall it still looks ok to me as long as that first round pick counts. Think Schlenk is looking at it as nothing other than gaining that first rounder and it still leaves about ten million to use this offseason without Craw here and Stone being here. Would have been nice to get some more as opposed to the buyout but apparently folks don't want Craw at 14.2 million next year in a move right now.

[Bankingitbig]

Has anyone seen any actual terms of Crawford's buyout? Curious to know how much we agreed on that will impact the cap.

[sturt]

14 minutes ago, Bankingitbig said:

Has anyone seen any actual terms of Crawford's buyout? Curious to know how much we agreed on that will impact the cap.

Nope. And with every passing hour, it gets more suspicious that there's a reason it hasn't been released yet... there's a reason when people sense a need to time-up an announcement.

[Admin]

Man we're not going to be anywhere close to sniffing the playoffs. Our regular season roster isn't a whole lot better than what our rag tag summer league bunch are looking like. 

[Admin]

 

[GameTime]

17 minutes ago, sturt said:

Nope. And with every passing hour, it gets more suspicious that there's a reason it hasn't been released yet... there's a reason when people sense a need to time-up an announcement.

Quote

Jamal Crawford would play for the Cavaliers if they offer him the full $5.2 million they can pay to any free agent, sources told cleveland.com.

http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2017/07/jamal_crawford_is_clevelands_t.html

You do have to wonder why Jamal is demanding the full $5.2 million for teams that are interested in him though.

[Afro]

2 minutes ago, Dolfan23 said:

 

Who is on a terrible contract that a team is desperate to get rid of? 

Half Portlands roster? 

Anyone that's even half fun to watch even if we're trash?