Quick question on Jamal Craw

[deke55]

Now I know that he is an unrestricted free agent and he can sign a deal with anyone outright and they don't have to deal with us in a sign and trade or anything. But my question is that if we just let Jamal walk, does that mean we would have some kind of extra money to sign another player, even if it's not all the money that Jamal would get elsewhere. And if not, then what's the difference between us signing him and not signing him, wy wouldn't we just sign him then. Does it save us money down the line somewhere? Also, if we go ahead and do a sign n trade with a team for Craw, doees that mean Craw would be able to get a more lucrative deal?

If anyone could help me out on this I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

[NineOhTheRino]

Now I know that he is an unrestricted free agent and he can sign a deal with anyone outright and they don't have to deal with us in a sign and trade or anything. But my question is that if we just let Jamal walk, does that mean we would have some kind of extra money to sign another player, even if it's not all the money that Jamal would get elsewhere. And if not, then what's the difference between us signing him and not signing him, wy wouldn't we just sign him then. Does it save us money down the line somewhere? Also, if we go ahead and do a sign n trade with a team for Craw, doees that mean Craw would be able to get a more lucrative deal?

If anyone could help me out on this I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

I think Jamal's future is in the hands of LD. LD recently talked about making serious changes to this team's defensive mental makeup. Crawford is nice, but defensive minded he is not so that 's why I see his departure as a non-issue from Coach Drew's perceptive. If given the choice I say LD would rather spend Jamal's money on a couple defensive minded players

Edited June 29, 2011 by Not5Not6Not7

[Randy]

May be that LD is just taking the party line - we got to have more defense, "addition by subtraction" so no Jamal.

[Dragitoff]

Now I know that he is an unrestricted free agent and he can sign a deal with anyone outright and they don't have to deal with us in a sign and trade or anything. But my question is that if we just let Jamal walk, does that mean we would have some kind of extra money to sign another player, even if it's not all the money that Jamal would get elsewhere. And if not, then what's the difference between us signing him and not signing him, wy wouldn't we just sign him then. Does it save us money down the line somewhere? Also, if we go ahead and do a sign n trade with a team for Craw, doees that mean Craw would be able to get a more lucrative deal?

If anyone could help me out on this I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

In the short-term, most would say bring Jamal back to help us because we're already over the cap so any money we use on Jamal is not really money we could use elsewhere. The exception to that is re-signing Jamal would put us right on the edge of the luxury tax or possibly over it (based on old CBA rules). If we don't re-sign Jamal, we could use the MLE (partial or full) to sign a player or players. If Jamal is re-signed and we're close to the LT, it's less likely we'd use the MLE to sign those player(s).

Long-term, Jamal on the books certainly ties our hands greater. We've got some less-than-favorable contracts on the books and as a team, you'd like to clear cap space if possible. Jamal is a nice piece, but more of a complimentary piece seeing we already have an All-Star playing the same position as him. Wouldn't we rather have a start caliber SF rather than 2 good players who play the same position? Jason Terry is great as a 6th man but the Mavs start DeShawn Stevenson at SG. Lamar Odom is a great 6th man, but the Lakers start Ron Artest at SF. Typically (and I know Jamal won 6th man in 2009-10), your 6th man is a guy who plays starter minutes and fills a slot where you have a less than starter quality player starting. If Jamal played SF, he might be looked at more favorably at being brought back.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

When Sund/ASG refused to extend Jamal before and during the season, combined with not trading him before the trade deadline, it illustrated that they wanted to let Jamal's contract expire so that it would fall off the books.

If they want to bring him back, they now want to get Jamal as cheap as possible. If they can't get him cheap, they won't bring him back. And they probably wouldn't conduct a sign and trade, unless it was for an expiring contract.

Expiring contracts are like gold nuggets to a team like the Hawks. Especially when you have 2 guys making over 10 million and another guy who will make 20+ million in the nar future.

[Randy]

When Sund/ASG refused to extend Jamal before and during the season, combined with not trading him before the trade deadline, it illustrated that they wanted to let Jamal's contract expire so that it would fall off the books.

If they want to bring him back, they now want to get Jamal as cheap as possible. If they can't get him cheap, they won't bring him back. And they probably wouldn't conduct a sign and trade, unless it was for an expiring contract.

Expiring contracts are like gold nuggets to a team like the Hawks. Especially when you have 2 guys making over 10 million and another guy who will make 20+ million in the nar future.

Depending on how the cookie crumbles (CBA) guys in this years FA class may either be really in demand, or really screwed. If they set up a tough cap with few limits, with most teams already over, the FA class of 2011 may have few opportunities. So the Hawks might be able to get him back cheap. (I guess the players know that too, but this would only impact a small group vs. the 400 or so players who are not big $ FA this year.)

[Diesel]

Now I know that he is an unrestricted free agent and he can sign a deal with anyone outright and they don't have to deal with us in a sign and trade or anything. But my question is that if we just let Jamal walk, does that mean we would have some kind of extra money to sign another player, even if it's not all the money that Jamal would get elsewhere. And if not, then what's the difference between us signing him and not signing him, wy wouldn't we just sign him then. Does it save us money down the line somewhere? Also, if we go ahead and do a sign n trade with a team for Craw, doees that mean Craw would be able to get a more lucrative deal?

If anyone could help me out on this I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

When Horf's salary kicks in , we're already over the salary cap.. and approaching the old LT.

So there's no money.

[deke55]

When Horf's salary kicks in , we're already over the salary cap.. and approaching the old LT.

So there's no money.

Crap!!! That's what I was afraid of. We seriously need to give up Marvin for an expiring contract...anyone, I don't care....he has zero value on our team. I'm sick of people talking about his defense...it's overrated...he's overrated...period...I don't care where he was draft...he sucks he sucks he sucks....I tried to stick by him for 6 or 7 years but I'm done....he's done...ship him out and free up some cash...

[DrReality]

LD can say what he wants but the decision will be in the hands of the new owner(s)