Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Crawford traded for Harrington

Rumors reported at the Knicks Fix and the New York Post. So what would these deals mean to the teams involved?

UPDATE: ESPN is reporting the deal is a Crawford for Harrington straight swap.

Crawford for Harrington

Does it work for the Knicks: Yes.

Walsh lavished tons of praise on Crawford when he arrived in New York, but who knows what he was really thinking. Obviously getting under the cap is a priority for the Knicks, so it’s possible that he’s willing to sacrifice Jamal for the greater good. Or it’s also possible that Walsh’s kind words were a way to increase his value so to trade him. Maybe watching Jamal’s inability to fight through anything resembling a screen up close soured Walsh on Jamal. The Knicks are deep at guard, and if they get desperate enough they can activate Marbury.

Does it work for the Warriors: Yes.

Harrington has been feuding with coach Don Nelson & has appeared in only 5 games this year, so the Warriors aren’t really losing anything by trading him. In Crawford they get another scorer, something Nellie can’t have enough of in his system. And Golden State is short a guard with Ellis’ injury. It’s possible that Nelson can get Jamal to improve his play, but even as-is he’ll help them out more than Harrington currently is

Malik Rose for Harrington

Does it work for the Knicks: Yes.

They’re not saving any cap here, since Malik’s deal runs out this year. But they’re getting a more serviceable player in Harrington. Rose is one of the smarter players in the league, but watching him trying to score in the paint with George Constanza’s ups has become almost comical.

Does it work for the Warriors: No.

It doesn’t make sense for Golden State other than slashing a year off Rose’s deal. Hoopshype has them at $39M next summer with Harrington, but they don’t have Ellis & Biedrins at $21M total. So they would be at about $50M next year – I’m not sure if that’s a big enough savings to dump Harrington. They would not benefit this year with this kind of deal. Unless the Knicks are sweetening the pot (and I don’t mean Mardy Collins), they could do a lot better than Malik Rose.

Quentin Richardson for Harrington

Does it work for the Knicks: Maybe.

Unlike Rose, Richardson is mildly useful, and the Knicks are paper thin at small forward. Richardson is actually shooting well (3P%: 38.6%, eFG%: 54.3%, TS%: 56.8) and can rebound (6.8 REB/36). However he seems to have lost his ability to create shots, and doesn’t score much (13.0 PTS/36). Harrington could play SF, but like his former coach Mike D’Antoni likes to play small, which means Harrington would probably see a lot of minutes at the 4 as well. Harrington would be an upgrade over Richardson, but it’s a lateral move.

Does it work for the Warriors: No, not really.

Richardson’s contract is almost as big, and just as long as Al Harrington. Is Quentin Richardson an upgrade over Al Harrington? So why is Golden State doing this move? Other than to dump Harrington for a semi-live body, beats me.

Zach Randolph and Mardy Collins to the Clippers
Jamal Crawford to the Warriors
Cuttino Mobley, Al Harrington, and Tim Thomas to the Knicks

Does it work for the Knicks: Yes.

This would hurt the team this year, as the Knicks would be thin in the frontcourt. David Lee, Al Harrington, Wilson Chandler, Tim Thomas, Jared Jeffries?, Eddy Curry?, Danilo Gallinari?, and Jerome James? One thing is for certain – Lee’s rebounding would almost have to go up due to the lack of competition. The timing would be almost just right with Jeffries scheduled to come back from injury in the next week. And they would get enough players to offset the major minutes lost to Randolph & Crawford.

But from a salary cap perspective, this deal is nearly a home run. New York sheds nearly $29M in 2010 and the only overpriced contract would be Eddy Curry’s $11M (and perhaps Jared Jeffries $7M). It would be the first step toward respectability, and would be a major victory for Walsh to get rid of these contracts only a month into the season.

Does it work for the Warriors: Yes.

It’s the same deal as #1.

Does it work for the Clippers: Yes.

Los Angeles tried to extract a draft pick for taking Randolph’s contract off New York’s hands over the summer. It’s ironic that the Knicks appeared to be the desperate ones this summer, and the Clippers operating from a position of strength. However 11 games into the season, and the tables have turned.The Clippers are 2-9 with the league’s second worst offense. With their new acquisitions Baron Davis (29 yrs) and Marcus Camby (34 yrs) being on the downside of their career, the Clippers need to start winning now. Randolph will give Los Angeles some scoring and should compliment the defensively minded Camby & Kaman.

66 comments on “Crawford traded for Harrington

  1. Danisrob

    “ESPN.com has since confirmed that those two players, barring a late adjustment, would be the only two involved in the trade. “

  2. jon abbey

    Caleb (or anyone else), what are we guessing that the cap number will be in the summer of 2010?

    this would bring NY down to $40 million including Chandler and Gallinari, not counting Lee or Nate or next year’s #1.

  3. Ray

    I really dont think they’ll re-sign Lee. I think he’ll be gone by February. Maybe we can deal him for a pick in 2010? Crawford could score and sometimes when we really needed it. I guess this deal will create more balanced scoring and is a sacrifice for the greater good that is to come in the future. Hopefully that good will be LeBron or Bosh or even both. Kudos to Donnie Walsh for staying on track so far and i dont think hes done. Somebody will needy Eddy in the post. Someones going to need Z-Bo and his plentiful double doubles. We’ll see what happens.

  4. Italian Stallion

    yeah, ESPN is saying it’s Crawford/Harrington. presumably this means that Marbury plays now?

    If this puts Marbury back into the rotation, I’m going to stop watching basketball and start watching soap operas (they seem so much more realistic now). ;-)

  5. Gorky

    Aw man, I always like Crawford. Though he is basically expendable as a player, and Harrington isn’t bad at all.

  6. o_boogie

    Now that Crawford is gone, itll be nice to get a better look at what Roberson can do. Thats assuming D’Antoni doesn’t give more minutes to Mardy. If Mardy gets more minutes I may start waqtching soap operas like IS.

  7. justin

    crawford is best served as a sixth man. Now im even more excited to go to the knicks-cavs game on tuesday..possibly harringtons first game as a knick…could it also mean stephs first game as a knick this year too?

  8. jon abbey

    unless the Clippers deal happens roughly simultaneously and we get Mobley, I think Marbury has to be in the plans again. who’d be the starting SG? Nate is best off the bench, maybe Chandler?

  9. Italian Stallion

    unless the Clippers deal happens roughly simultaneously and we get Mobley, I think Marbury has to be in the plans again. who’d be the starting SG? Nate is best off the bench, maybe Chandler?

    Either another deal is almost imminent or Qrich is going to be playing some SG. I just can’t see Marbury back in the mix.

  10. PaulNoize

    Starbury IS on the All-Star ballot, i just voted for him yesterday!

    i prefer him back over some kind of Roberson/Mardy/Q platoon.

  11. cmac343

    The weird thing about this is last night I watched the movie “The Warriors” for the first time. As I live in ct I have not seen Harrington play all that much anyone know strengths and weakness? Looks like a 14pts. 6 reb. guy. Any defense how do you guys think he will be used?

  12. Dan Panorama

    Just for the record, I absolutely loved Crawford despite his flaws and it will be sad to see him in another uniform. I think any trade that gets us under the cap is a good one and Crawford and Randolph are both obvious candidates so I have no objections to either of these proposed moves. Now if we could just dump Curry, Walsh would be executive of the year.

    I hope we can sign Nate and Lee to something reasonable now and still be in the Lebron-stakes. Also we better pray the lottery is as crazy deep in 09 as it was in 08 because we are definitely going to be building up a lot of ping pong balls this year. Just when we were getting fun to watch….

  13. DS

    OR… bass (or do they like him in dallas?), terry and stackhouse for randolph and jared jeffries… we’d shed $11 million in 2010.

  14. Italian Stallion

    Wow, this is really starting to get exciting!

    I have a funny feeling we are really going to suck after today, but we’ll be a great position to get a good 2009 pick and bring in some players. ;-)

  15. jon abbey

    I don’t see a match with Dallas that makes sense for either team. what makes sense is Randolph and Mardy Collins for Camby and Mobley. then our team would look like this:

    Camby
    Harrington
    Chandler
    Mobley
    Duhon

    with Lee, Nate and Jeffries off the bench. I hate Mobley, but that team could arguably be better than the current roster (once they had some time to gel).

    the next goal would be to try to get Curry healthy and feature him as much as possible, maybe they could move him too…

  16. D

    OR… bass (or do they like him in dallas?), terry and stackhouse for randolph and jared jeffries… we’d shed $11 million in 2010.

    Id be thrilled with that deal but i think that it would be too lopsided in the knicks favor

  17. Italian Stallion

    I don’t see a match with Dallas that makes sense for either team. what makes sense is Randolph and Mardy Collins for Camby and Mobley. then our team would look like this:
    CambyHarringtonChandlerMobleyDuhon
    with Lee, Nate and Jeffries off the bench. I hate Mobley, but that team could arguably be better than the current roster (once they had some time to gel).
    the next goal would be to try to get Curry healthy and feature him as much as possible, maybe they could move him too…

    If this works and gets done, I’d be really happy.

    I hope we get the second part of the trade off (and get it over with) and the results are not too devasating to the team while we get rid of all that salary. I want to enjoy watching them a little too.

  18. jon abbey
    OR… bass (or do they like him in dallas?), terry and stackhouse for randolph and jared jeffries… we’d shed $11 million in 2010.

    Id be thrilled with that deal but i think that it would be too lopsided in the knicks favor

    not really, because Terry is under contract for two seasons after 2010, and would be pretty much unmovable. right now, all of our veteran deals expire after 2011, and so all are at least somewhat movable as we get closer to summer 2010.

  19. Ben R

    I do not like this trade. I like the salary cap ramifications, and I think moving Crawford will be good long term, but I think we could have gotten something of value besides a one year shorter contract on a player that does not fit long term. I would have really liked to see a prospect or a draft pick in exchange for Crawford. Harrington is a replacement level starter in the NBA and Crawford was worth more especially because Harrington wasn’t even playing in Golden State.

  20. Z

    Holy shit– I don’t check Knickerblogger for a few hours and miss al this!! Is Randolph really about to go, finally?! Is Crawford really off our books? My head is spinning…

  21. Ray

    Id like to see Camby back in NYC. His shot blocking ability would be fantasic. We would have no post game with Z-Bo gone but with all the new faces in town it would be interesting to watch. Lets assume that these are all players that Coach can work with then he will put an exciting product on the floor. The system works. As of right now we dont have a real shooting guard. Roberson basically parks him self on the 3 point line and shoots. Can Donnie get us some draft picks!!??? For heavens sakes what does it take?

  22. Brendan

    I’m very much on board with the Crawford trade- it’s another one of those makes-sense-for-both-teams deals, helps the cap, and could potentially allow the Knicks to play some fun athletic semi-small-ball lineups and use athleticism in the D’antoni offense. Lee-Harrington-Chandler-Nate-Duhon isn’t a title-winning unit, but in the right matchups it could drive some teams crazy. This is really a short and long-term win.

    My god, the Knicks made a good trade.

  23. Frank O.

    If by the end of the day the Knicks are minus Crawford and Zach and their contracts, I will be very happy.
    The Knicks still have Duhon, Robinson and Collins, with Collins being a decent 10-15 minutes per.
    Then you have Lee, Harrington, Jeffries and Chandler at 3, 4 and 5.
    Athletic, fast, with scoring spread out across the lineup. Robinson’s role increases.

    I like this team.

  24. TDM

    I don’t see the Dallas deal going down because it doesn’t have anything better to offer to NY that the Clips’ purported offer – not to mention as stated above, the salaries don’t match. Regarding Terry, never been a fan and his contract runs past 2010.

    I’d jump at Zach for Mobley and Camby. Mobley would help offset some of the offense lost by trading Craw, while Camby will provide the shotblocker we haven’t had since . . . Camby.

  25. Nick C.

    Any move that gets rid of the core of a losing franchise is a step forward. I would think that Walsh is no idiot and the reason he didn’t get a young player or a pick is becuase nobody in their right mind woudl give up anything of worth for Jamal. For crying out loud this is his own team’s board and he is almost universally derided as a basketball player.

  26. Ted Nelson

    I do not like this trade. I like the salary cap ramifications, and I think moving Crawford will be good long term, but I think we could have gotten something of value besides a one year shorter contract on a player that does not fit long term. I would have really liked to see a prospect or a draft pick in exchange for Crawford. Harrington is a replacement level starter in the NBA and Crawford was worth more especially because Harrington wasn’t even playing in Golden State.

    At this point I think these are pretty much my sentiments… What else did GS have on the table? I doubt much, and if that’s the case you squeeze for draft picks. He had a couple of miserable games, but Crawford was basically on fire so far this season while Harrington was basically GS’s Marbury.

  27. ess-dog

    Crawford seems like a fine person, but he’s a god awful basketball player. When people mention “basketball IQ” they are talking about something Crawford doesn’t possess. So I’m glad he’s gone.
    That being said, is Al Harrington really a good player? I don’t know that much about him, but it doesn’t seem like he rebounds or defends that well. If Belinelli was included, I would say definitely a great deal. But if it opens the door for a Zach/Curry deal then it was definitely worth it. I just think it will be hard to rebuild without draft picks. I guess if Nate, Chandler, Gallinari and Lee become all-stars, it will be easy to get LeBron or Bosh, but I would not put money on that…

  28. Italian Stallion

    Oh please Lord trade Randolph for something worthwhile before the end of the evening and let me feel like we are finally on the road to recovery. LOL

  29. Ted Nelson

    Any move that gets rid of the core of a losing franchise is a step forward. I would think that Walsh is no idiot and the reason he didn’t get a young player or a pick is becuase nobody in their right mind woudl give up anything of worth for Jamal. For crying out loud this is his own team’s board and he is almost universally derided as a basketball player.

    I tend to disagree. Crawford is not a 1st option, but as a combo-guard off the bench I think he has a lot of value. I’m not saying I’d give a mid-1st for him, but I think a lot of teams would. I really have to question why the Knicks were so desperate to get Al Harrington and why they made basically a lateral move.

  30. Alec

    I think the new line-up will look like Zach, Al, Chandler, QRich, and Duhon with Nate and Lee getting a lot of time off the bench.

    By doing this trade, the Knicks got more versitale. Harrington can play the 4 or 3. This also gets Chandler more time at his natural position the 3

  31. Z

    Unlike most of the other Knicks of the past few years, Jamal is a guy that I could actually find it in me to root for. I accepted his flawed game for years because I found him to be a decent person (on a team, in a league, overrun with complete assholes). I really wish it could have worked out where he played on a winning team in NY, but it became painfully obvious that there was no chance of that ever happening.

    I hope Jamal does well in GS and is no longer known as “the guy with the most games played who’s never been in the playoffs”. Good luck Jamal.

    Now can we please finish the day off right and trade Zach Randolph!!!!!!!!!

  32. Italian Stallion

    The fact that the Knicks activated Marbury “AND” the Knicks have still not held a press conference about Crawford suggests that something is still going on.

  33. Ted Nelson

    Crawford seems like a fine person, but he’s a god awful basketball player. When people mention “basketball IQ” they are talking about something Crawford doesn’t possess. So I’m glad he’s gone.
    That being said, is Al Harrington really a good player? I don’t know that much about him, but it doesn’t seem like he rebounds or defends that well. If Belinelli was included, I would say definitely a great deal. But if it opens the door for a Zach/Curry deal then it was definitely worth it. I just think it will be hard to rebuild without draft picks. I guess if Nate, Chandler, Gallinari and Lee become all-stars, it will be easy to get LeBron or Bosh, but I would not put money on that…

    Every coach he’s had has loved him, it’s not saying much but Jamal was Einstein in Jordans next to most of the Knicks.

    Belinelli was not a particularly good player in Europe and has been downright bad in the NBA… he’s their Mardy Collins. He’s a one dimensional shooter who doesn’t shoot well.

  34. Owen

    I guess Anthony Morrow hasn’t made a believer of Don Nelson yet…

    I am happy to see Crawford go. That leaves us with just two toxic contracts. But I really don’t like Harrington as a player. I will take it though I guess.

  35. Brendan

    FWIW, the Warriors owe the Nets a conditional first over the Marcus Williams trade, which will likely be degraded to a couple of seconds as Marcus isn’t hitting the conditions currently. That would probably hamper any effort to squeeze them for draft picks.

  36. Anthony

    I tend to disagree. Crawford is not a 1st option, but as a combo-guard off the bench I think he has a lot of value. I’m not saying I’d give a mid-1st for him, but I think a lot of teams would. I really have to question why the Knicks were so desperate to get Al Harrington and why they made basically a lateral move.

    I agree it is close to a lateral move- which is why it is a great move. You don’t drop off on talent yet get a contract expiring after next year.

  37. Anthony
    Any move that gets rid of the core of a losing franchise is a step forward. I would think that Walsh is no idiot and the reason he didn’t get a young player or a pick is becuase nobody in their right mind woudl give up anything of worth for Jamal. For crying out loud this is his own team’s board and he is almost universally derided as a basketball player.

    I tend to disagree. Crawford is not a 1st option, but as a combo-guard off the bench I think he has a lot of value. I’m not saying I’d give a mid-1st for him, but I think a lot of teams would. I really have to question why the Knicks were so desperate to get Al Harrington and why they made basically a lateral move.

    I messed that up before– 1st time, long time.

    Anyway, even if it is lateral or a small step down, the team stays competitive while getting a contract off the books…. Brilliant!

  38. BigBlueAL

    Harrington for Crawford is a great trade for the Knicks in terms of helping their future w/o necessarily hurting the present. John Hollinger has an article on the trade up already, nice read.

  39. Italian Stallion

    This may be more or less a lateral move talent wise, but we picked up a F (that we really didn’t need) and gave up a SG that will leave a gap on the team. I think there has to be a second part to this trade for it to make much sense from any perspective other than removing salary.

  40. Dan Panorama

    By the way, as long he seems out the door, here’s my moment of praise for Randolph:

    He got in shape over the off-season, did everything the coach asked him this season, and not once got into a nightclub shootout or similar off-court disaster. That’s all we could ask of the guy and the fact that we’re on the verge of trading him means he did his job. So props to Z-Bo, we who are about to trade salute you.

  41. njhoop

    If all of these moves result in the Knicks having the cap room to go after two(and the key word is “two”) of the top free agents in 2010, I’m all for it. Then your recruiting pitch to LeBron is “what do you think about playing along side D Wade or Chris Bosh in the Big Apple?” The rest of the team just has to be basically serviceable for the next 2 years. Believe me, as a season ticket holder, having to suffer through 2 more 20+ win seasons will suck, but it would all be worth it..

  42. njhoop

    By the way, as long he seems out the door, here’s my moment of praise for Randolph:
    He got in shape over the off-season, did everything the coach asked him this season, and not once got into a nightclub shootout or similar off-court disaster. That’s all we could ask of the guy and the fact that we’re on the verge of trading him means he did his job. So props to Z-Bo, we who are about to trade salute you.

    LOL love the Gladiator reference. And well said about Zach, he’s been a model citizen and has been playing at a pretty high level all season. He could actually help the right team in the right circumstance.

  43. Z

    The Knicks, as of this moment, have about $32 million in expiring contracts next year. Since sign and trades often make sense for free agents, those pieces could be significant in landing cornerstones in 2010.

  44. Ted Nelson

    I tend to disagree. Crawford is not a 1st option, but as a combo-guard off the bench I think he has a lot of value. I’m not saying I’d give a mid-1st for him, but I think a lot of teams would. I really have to question why the Knicks were so desperate to get Al Harrington and why they made basically a lateral move.
    I agree it is close to a lateral move- which is why it is a great move. You don’t drop off on talent yet get a contract expiring after next year.

    Harrington for Crawford is a great trade for the Knicks in terms of helping their future w/o necessarily hurting the present. John Hollinger has an article on the trade up already, nice read.

    I don’t see what the point of staying competitive now was. I have no idea what Jamal Crawford’s trade value was, but if you could gotten even a late first rounder for him I would have taken that and an earlier 2009 1st over Harrington. I think the problem was that Walsh was desperate to get Harrington for some unknown reason, and he got outmaneuvered by one of the most disfunctional organizations in the NBA.

    I am happy to see Crawford go. That leaves us with just two toxic contracts. But I really don’t like Harrington as a player. I will take it though I guess.

    Jamal was the easiest of the 3 to move, IMO. I thought they could have done better, but I’m not upset with it either.

  45. Ted Nelson

    “I have no idea what Jamal Crawford’s trade value was, but if you could gotten even a late first rounder for him I would have taken that and an earlier 2009 1st over Harrington.”

    Meaning Knicks lose more games and their pick is higher, if that was confusing

  46. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) Post author

    I tend to disagree. Crawford is not a 1st option, but as a combo-guard off the bench I think he has a lot of value. I’m not saying I’d give a mid-1st for him, but I think a lot of teams would. I really have to question why the Knicks were so desperate to get Al Harrington and why they made basically a lateral move.

    I can think of 10 million reasons.

  47. Captain Merlin

    it’s pretty simply a financial move helping to lay the groundwork for the much ballyhooed 2010 offseason. hopefully it will prove to be worth it. i’d say this would have to set the win/loss predictions back to around what they were at the start of the year before the optimistic ballooning. Clearly it will be very interesting to see who’s in the backcourt from here out–duhon and nate? seems a tad sketchy…i am quite hopeful, for my own personal motives alone, that marbury will not be activated, as i always love seeing mardy just eat up the spotlight.

    But really…is that now the three guard rotation–nate, duhon, and mardy? shit. sounds fantastic.

    Also, does this mean that D Lee might be having the squeeze put on him? as he’s my personal favorite, I hope not, but with the emergence of Chandler (who Harrington mimics to a near exact extent) and the immovability of Zbo, I can’t see how not. One can only hope Zbo becomes more movable and is dealt for some second rate center who can swat 1-2 a night and do nothing else.

  48. Brendan

    The counterpoint to wanting to tank the current team- which I have some sympathy for- is that who will want to join this team as a free agent if the squad consists of scabby urchins limping their way towards 25 wins? And with the 2010 pick already owed elsewhere, that puts an even greater damper on direct building through the draft. Given the Knicks’ locational advantages and the problem of previously owed draft picks, I can’t argue with Walsh thinking that betting on the lure of free agency with (fun coach/system+cap room+location+decent current team) is a higher odds play than the draft (X number of years tanked for picks-2010 1st).

  49. BigBlueAL

    I just hope w/o Crawford and Harrington the Knicks can somehow split these next 2 games since Harrington wont play til Tuesday apparently. I know the playoffs are a pipe-dream this season assuming eventually Zach gets traded, but hey as long as he is still here, with Harrington and Jeffries back soon it should mean Q at SG which improves the D alot and makes the Knicks at the very least longer and more athletic in the frontcourt.

    Im just real curious what they get for Zach eventually cause there have been alot of rumors, some will leave the Knicks with no chance at all to fight for a playoff spot, but a couple of other rumors Ive read would still leave the Knicks very competitive. No matter what happens, gonna be a VERY INTERESTING season and all I have to say is GOD I CANT WAIT til the summer of 2010….

  50. BigBlueAL

    Daily News reports Randolph and Collings for Mobley and Tim Thomas.
    Is Mobley any good? Is he the starting two now?

    Yeah he is starting at SG for the Clippers but he is a shell of his former self. Tim Thomas actually played great with his time in Phoenix under Coach D. This trade would seriously weaken the Knicks and most likely kill any chance of making the playoffs in the next couple of seasons.

  51. Captain Merlin

    I just came across the same story Anthony had before about Zbo and Collins to the Clips for Tim Thomas and Cuttino…wow..if it’s true…just wow…the season shall be an adventure indeed. A starting 5 of Duhon, Mobley, Chandler, Harrington, Lee? hm..uncouth. Tonight will be worth watching, particularly. Maybe the big JJ will get some burn.

  52. njhoop

    Not sure I understand the rush to deal Zach. His value isn’t going to get any worse, and he keeps us somewhat competitive in the near term. Donnie sure seems to be in a big old hurry.

Comments are closed.