Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

Would the Bulls be better, worse or same if Jamal was resigned?

  • The Bulls would be BETTER this year

    Votes: 15 24.2%
  • The Bulls would be WORSE this year

    Votes: 44 71.0%
  • The Bulls performance wouldn't be changed one way or the other with or without Jamal

    Votes: 3 4.8%
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I lurk, more than post, but I've followed the debate with interest.

We recently have discussed the question of whether Kirk is the best player on this team. Since the poll was posted by a person known to daily lament the departure of Jamal Crawford, and by extension, resenting the retention of Kirk Hinrich, whom he presumably thinks is ocupying Kirk's spot, I present the following question:

Using whatever criteria you wish, and making whatever assumptions you believe make sense, since we are playing woulda/coulda/shoulda (as happens every day when some pine over JC and follow his Knicks career with a sense of longing), please post your opinion:

If we had given Jamal Crawford the contract he was looking for, instead of arranging for the sign and trade, do you think the 2004-5 Bulls would be better today, worse, or about the same?

Since there are so many variable factors, please provide an analysis for your response.

This isn't intended to be a trolling type thread. We've got the Kirk poll going, and I think this counterpoint will really shed light on an isssue that has boiled under so many topics and created deep divisions on this board. I want to know what people think. Would we be better, worse or the same, if Jamal was signed to a new Bulls contract?

Please, keep it civil. Not looking for a flame thread that is going to get closed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,349 Posts
We recently have discussed the question of whether Kirk is the best player on this team. Since the poll was posted by a person known to daily lament the departure of Jamal Crawford, and by extension, resenting the retention of Kirk Hinrich, whom he presumably thinks is ocupying Kirk's spot, I present the following question:
This is just not true.

I don't resent Kirk's presence on the team at all. I didn't last season either. I liked the Kirk/Jamal guard tandem.

Clearly Paxson restocked the talent pool in record time this off-season. Every move he made was a good one. The Bulls would be marginally better IMO with Crawford... but not much better.... since we have so many good players now.

I was a Bulls fan decades before Crawford and a season ticket holder before him as well. He's just one player in our grand re-building effort... which has finally reached its conclusion thankfully.

I'm tired of Kirk vs Jamal... since I never really engaged in it. For me... the Jamal trade was losing part of our rebuilding effort and getting average vets in return. Its been a remarkable turnaround here... one that no one anticipated.... and one that I'm quite happy with.

Sadly, the love of Hinrich has little to do with the Chicago Bulls, and that is what I find entertaining/strange.

Mark me down for "better"... but only marginally so.
 

·
Train Em While Young.....
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
Worse, more Jamal means less minutes for Ben Gordon.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Please, K4E, understand this: I simply think this is the flipside question to the other poll. Nothing in particular meant to be personal, but you were the author of the other poll, and right or wrong, you seem to have the reputation of the standard bearer of the "we shoulda kept Jamal" faction.

I know it is somewhat uncool to single you out by name, but since I consider this to be a follow up to your poll, that's how it comes out.

I do wish we had more people staking their position with reasons, rather than just voting...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,349 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

Future said:
Worse, more Jamal means less minutes for Ben Gordon.
Could mean fewer minutes for Duhon.

Let's face it. Most Jamal "haters" were also Curry "haters."

Few thought Curry would be swept up in the "right way." Some still refuse to accept his importance and impact. But... it can happen. We've seen it happen right before our eyes.

Hinrich/Gordon/Jamal would have fun to watch IMO. We've seen Jamal is willing to decrease his shot attempts. Having 2 guards in Hinrich and Jamal that can create for others and score (at least better than Duhon) would be a boon to the team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,660 Posts
Future said:
Worse, more Jamal means less minutes for Ben Gordon.
I think Ben would've shown enough in whatever minutes he'd gotten to establish a significant place on this team. I could see Skiles playing the 3 guard rotation A LOT had JC been here. Of course, this assuming JC's D improving under Skiles', and Bulls' already-good D masking some of Ben and JC's defensive shortcomings.

Tough to say if we would have a better record right now, but i def. can't see us having that much fewer wins had JC been still here. Bulls would still be a playoff team, easily. This team is just so well rounded. JC's shooting and ocassional offensive outbursts(off the bench) would've only been a positive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,349 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

Spud said:
Please, K4E, understand this: I simply think this is the flipside question to the other poll. Nothing in particular meant to be personal, but you were the author of the other poll, and right or wrong, you seem to have the reputation of the standard bearer of the "we shoulda kept Jamal" faction.

I know it is somewhat uncool to single you out by name, but since I consider this to be a follow up to your poll, that's how it comes out.

I do wish we had more people staking their position with reasons, rather than just voting...
That's fine Spud... but when you are incorrectly interpreting my rationale... then I'm going to correct you. :)

For instance... I don't "lament" the departure of Jamal. We replaced him with two good guards (Gordon and Duhon) and Othella has been a key and valuable member of the team.
 

·
Administrator 12/02--7/07
Joined
·
36,839 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

kukoc4ever said:
Few thought Curry would be swept up in the "right way." Some still refuse to accept his importance and impact. But... it can happen. We've seen it happen right before our eyes.

Hinrich/Gordon/Jamal would have fun to watch IMO. We've seen Jamal is willing to decrease his shot attempts. Having 2 guards in Hinrich and Jamal that can create for others and score (at least better than Duhon) would be a boon to the team.
It is pure speculation, but how do you see Jamal interacting with this year's "The Right Way" squad?
 

·
Train Em While Young.....
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

kukoc4ever said:
Could mean fewer minutes for Duhon.

Let's face it. Most Jamal "haters" were also Curry "haters."

Few thought Curry would be swept up in the "right way." Some still refuse to accept his importance and impact. But... it can happen. We've seen it happen right before our eyes.

Hinrich/Gordon/Jamal would have fun to watch IMO. We've seen Jamal is willing to decrease his shot attempts. Having 2 guards in Hinrich and Jamal that can create for others and score (at least better than Duhon) would be a boon to the team.
True, I shouldn't say worse. I think it would be about the same... but I just can't see Ben Gordon going off in the 4th quarter if we have Jamal. Jamal wouldn't like to sit on the bench in the 4th quarter... and if we decide on a 3 guard lineup, we are taking away mins from Deng and Nocioni. It would be a tough situation. I feel it was best Jamal had to go.... I appreciated his game when he was on... but now we have Ben Gordon who picks up the slack for Jamal...even more so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
kukoc4ever said:
This is just not true.

<b>I don't resent Kirk's presence on the team at all. I didn't last season either. </b> I liked the Kirk/Jamal guard tandem.

Clearly Paxson restocked the talent pool in record time this off-season. Every move he made was a good one. <b> The Bulls would be marginally better IMO with Crawford... but not much better.... </b>since we have so many good players now.

I was a Bulls fan decades before Crawford and a season ticket holder before him as well. He's just one player in our grand re-building effort... which has finally reached its conclusion thankfully.

I'm tired of Kirk vs Jamal... <b>since I never really engaged in it. </b> For me... the Jamal trade was losing part of our rebuilding effort and getting average vets in return. Its been a remarkable turnaround here... one that no one anticipated.... and one that I'm quite happy with.

<b>Sadly, the love of Hinrich has little to do with the Chicago Bulls, and that is what I find entertaining/strange.</b>

Mark me down for "better"... but only marginally so.
Stuff hard to believe or that I think you are not telling the truth, nothing but the truth. But I understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,643 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

kukoc4ever said:
Could mean fewer minutes for Duhon.

Let's face it. Most Jamal "haters" were also Curry "haters."

Few thought Curry would be swept up in the "right way." Some still refuse to accept his importance and impact. But... it can happen. We've seen it happen right before our eyes.

Hinrich/Gordon/Jamal would have fun to watch IMO. We've seen Jamal is willing to decrease his shot attempts. Having 2 guards in Hinrich and Jamal that can create for others and score (at least better than Duhon) would be a boon to the team.
No, having a backcourt that plays defense would be a boon to this team. I mean IS a boon to this team.

Jamal doesn't care about playing defense, I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that. Some people don't care about defense, all they tell you is how well Jalen is playing on offense for the Raps.

And we have won the last 3 without Curry, which is the exact number of games we won without Hinrich when you started with the "Duhon can do Kirk's job with similar results."
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

kukoc4ever said:
That's fine Spud... but when you are incorrectly interpreting my rationale... then I'm going to correct you. :)

For instance... I don't "lament" the departure of Jamal. We replaced him with two good guards (Gordon and Duhon) and Othella has been a key and valuable member of the team.
Honestly? You have no negative feelings about the fact that Jamal is no longer a Bull? And you don't resent the Kirk-love even a little bit because between Jamal and Kirk, he was the one who remained a Bull?

You know you better that I do, for certain, and if I have botched my interpretation of several months of your posts, I am sorry for my lack of comprehension. I wil reflect on my own interpretive flaws, and try to determine where I went so horribly wrong.

I feel great shame, for having been so far off base.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,349 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

bullsville said:
Jamal doesn't care about playing defense, I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that. Some people don't care about defense, all they tell you is how well Jalen is playing on offense for the Raps.
I suspect you would have said the same thing about Curry before the season started. Young players often respond to their environments. I don't think Jamal is a "bad apple." People like to win.

As for Jalen... I'm not a huge Jalen fan. I just don't think he's a worthless piece of trash. Yes, his defense is average to below-average. But his offensive game is impressive. I don't let his weaknesses stop me from appreciating his strengths.

My impression of you is that defense is #1 for you... and if the player is not showing you maximum effort on the defensive end... that really turns you off. That's fine. A team full of guys like that is not going to win. You need kick-*** defenders. But... a team can have a couple kick-*** offensive players as well... as long as the rest of the team can adequately make up for their shortcomings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,349 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

Spud said:
Honestly? You have no negative feelings about the fact that Jamal is no longer a Bull? And you don't resent the Kirk-love even a little bit because between Jamal and Kirk, he was the one who remained a Bull?

You know you better that I do, for certain, and if I have botched my interpretation of several months of your posts, I am sorry for my lack of comprehension. I wil reflect on my own interpretive flaws, and try to determine where I went so horribly wrong.

I feel great shame, for having been so far off base.
That's just people putting words in my mouth.

I'm so happy to be watching meaningful Bulls games at this stage of the season and can't wait for the playoffs.

But no... we don't really need Jamal.... since Paxson had an off-season for the ages IMO. Since I rooted for him while he was here, yah, I'd like to see him succeed here... but I like all the players on this current team... no resentment at all... honestly.
 

·
Administrator 12/02--7/07
Joined
·
36,839 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

kukoc4ever said:
But no... we don't really need Jamal.... since Paxson had an off-season for the ages IMO. Since I rooted for him while he was here, yah, I'd like to see him succeed here... but I like all the players on this current team... no resentment at all... honestly.
That may be the definitive Jamal statement, and I believe everyone on the board except bona finde Jamal haters would agree with this one.


And K4E, for what its worth, I don't think anyone doubts the fact that you are a Bulls fan, who is happy as heck that the Bulls are finally doing well, no matter how it is that they are doing it.

As for voting, I voted we would be worse, assuming we still had Ben in the backcourt as well. We have enough good defenders to cover for Ben's defensive lapses, but if we still had Jamal's defensive lapses to cover, there would be a gap that JC's offensive contributions would not negate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,349 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:
It is pure speculation, but how do you see Jamal interacting with this year's "The Right Way" squad?
I think the environment Jamal was a part of was a pretty crappy one. He was not ready his first season. He was hurt his second. The team was losing. They kept drafting new point guards.... which can't help but hurt the feelings of a sensitive youngster. The vets Krause brought in were crap for the most part. Mercer and Oakley? Come on. Jalen has an attitude as well.

I think we've seen in Curry this season that winning can change our perception of the internal makeup of players. When you are playing ball next to guys like Hinrich, Chandler and Nocioni... you feed off their energy. Anyone who plays ball knows this. I don't see any reason why Jamal would not rise up... just like Curry. Maybe I'm wrong. I just don't think he's a "bad apple".... although that current Knicks team is not a good scene at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,643 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

kukoc4ever said:
I think the environment Jamal was a part of was a pretty crappy one. He was not ready his first season. He was hurt his second. The team was losing. They kept drafting new point guards.... which can't help but hurt the feelings of a sensitive youngster. The vets Krause brought in were crap for the most part. Mercer and Oakley? Come on. Jalen has an attitude as well.

I think we've seen in Curry this season that winning can change our perception of the internal makeup of players. When you are playing ball next to guys like Hinrich, Chandler and Nocioni... you feed off their energy. Anyone who plays ball knows this. I don't see any reason why Jamal would not rise up... just like Curry. Maybe I'm wrong. I just don't think he's a "bad apple".... although that current Knicks team is not a good scene at all.
Jamal could have stayed in Chicago, he chose the $$$$ instead. He could have been playing with KH, TC and AN, but he thought it would be better to get a few more $$$$ and play with a team that is going nowhere. So it's Jamal's own fault he didn't have the chance to "rise up", he prefered the Knicks and their "great organization".
 

·
Administrator 12/02--7/07
Joined
·
36,839 Posts
Re: K4E's Poll, next step: Would We be Better, Worse or equal if Jamal Was Still Here

kukoc4ever said:
I just don't think he's a "bad apple".... although that current Knicks team is not a good scene at all.
I don't think Jamal is a "bad apple" either. I doubt there is a malicious bone in his skinny body. I think you are right that he was brought up in the pros in a crappy environment, after a very short career in Michigan, in a crappy environment, and he has ended up in NY, in what is, almost unbelievably, an even more crappy environment.

What I hope for Jamal is he gets traded to a team that has a healthy, supportive, team first, fundamentals first environment. Maybe the kid really could grow, play both ends, and have a career, as a whole, closer to Stockton than to SPYYYYYYDERRRRRRRR!
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top