# Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Tyrus?



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Tyrus?

What do YOU think?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

He's Back!!!

I think we have a good team. I do not think this question can be answered as questioned. PJ and Tyrus may add more to practice or to the locker room for example than we can see. That could affect on-court play. Eddy and Tyson may have changed the chemistry. That could affect on-court play.

Just cannot answer it. I do know we are contending for the 2nd seed in the EC with a still unbalanced roster. Paxson and Skiles have succeeded.


Mods/Kukoc4Ever -- Please add a third option: *Unknown / Impossible to Know*


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Why isn't Ben Wallace listed as a Bulls player? I know, I know we could have had all 3 if you crunch the numbers. 

But the reality is if we had Curry and Chandler, we wouldn't have gone after Wallace. 

We all know this. 

So my answer is "no". 

And did I miss the memo that the NBA was closing up shop after this season?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm not sure I believe our record would be markedly better or worse either way.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Can we please... PLEASE just enjoy the fact that we have a solid team this year? I've been reading this board since 2002 and I find it hard to believe we haven't progressed beyond this point yet.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Dornado said:


> Can we please... PLEASE just enjoy the fact that we have a solid team this year? I've been reading this board since 2002 and I find it hard to believe we haven't progressed beyond this point yet.


Actually the board had progressed beyond this point. Whether it regresses remains to be seen.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

It's interesting that we have all of these Knick fans coming and posting polls on our board after we play them....


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Wynn said:


> It's interesting that we have all of these Knick fans coming and posting polls on our board after we play them....



Well played old friend. Well played. 

:clap2:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

That 47th win must have really stuck in the craw, especially considering the opponent.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Welcome back K4E. 

Yes the Bulls would be better off with Chandler and Curry on the team this year -- provided Jerry Reinsdorf would have OKed the Wallace acquisition with their salaries on board, which he may not have done. 

But the Bulls would have lost one excellent rookie prospect, Tyrus Thomas, and would probably had to have drafted Carney instead of Sefolosha. In the long term these two guys could be major contributors to the Bulls. They would not have Sweeney, PJ and Khryapa this year or Khryapa next year. They would be drafting very low in the 1st round instead of the lottery this summer, and would not have three extra second rounders to trade or draft supporting players with. Finally, they would have a salary base that would leave them very little room to acquire free agents this year or in the future and would have jeprodized the chances of resigning Nocioni, Deng and Gordon.

So, maybe the Bulls would be better this year, but all-in-all they're better off now than they were two years ago; particularly when you consider the cheapskate nature of the ownership.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



TripleDouble said:


> That 47th win must have really stuck in the craw, especially considering the opponent.


I think I picked the Bulls to have 47 wins and the #3 seed this year... so no, not really.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

The season isn't over until the playoffs are over-- it depends on how Tyrus and PJ perform in the playoffs.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Tyrus?
> 
> What do YOU think?


I dunno. But if your point is to ask who won the Knicks trade, then we'll have to see how are next draft pick performs next year.

I was kinda down at first at the Tyrus selection, but lately I've had a taste of what he can do for the team. If we get Hibbert or Hawes, or maybe even Oden, then I think there's a good chance we're better with the recent youngsters then the Curry/Chandler frontcourt.

But we do not know that yet, so your question is premature. What we do know is that:

1. Tyrus is looking good.
2. Bulls are second seed in the East.
3. The Bulls have a better record than the Hornets and Knicks

I was a big fan of Curry and Chandler, but I've moved on. What I miss the most is the great personality of both. What I miss the least is the mental toughness of both.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> So, maybe the Bulls would be better this year, but all-in-all they're better off now than they were two years ago;


Given that our main source of improvement this season has been the emergence of Ben Gordon and Luol Deng as great NBA basketball players, we would have been better off than we were two years ago either way.

We should have been better off than we were two years ago last season.

Its nice to see that this team is back on an upward track. Let's hope that Wallace defies time, Tyrus becomes a great player and the lotto balls bounce our way.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I dunno. But if your point is to ask who won the Knicks trade, then we'll have to see how are next draft pick performs next year.


My point is pretty clear. What group would be better this year.





> I was kinda down at first at the Tyrus selection, but lately I've had a taste of what he can do for the team.


I wasn't. Tyrus was who I wanted Paxson to pick.



> so your question is premature.


No its not. Your question (who "won" the trade) is. I care about this season more. "Win Now." 




> I was a big fan of Curry and Chandler, but I've moved on.


Tell that to the rest of the board. Lotsa Curry threads today.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> Its nice to see that this team is back on an upward track. Let's hope that Wallace defies time, Tyrus becomes a great player and the lotto balls bounce our way.


Yes, because then all of the Bulls success can be attributed to luck and Paxson and Skiles will in no way be responsible for it.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Question for K4E:

Do you think the Bulls would be the consensus favorites to win the championship this year of they still had Curry and Chandler as oppossed to Tyrus and Wallace?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> Given that our main source of improvement this season has been the emergence of Ben Gordon and Luol Deng as great NBA basketball players, we would have been better off than we were two years ago either way.


Not necessarily. A big part of the improvement came from the grind of being the best perimeter players on a perimeter oriented team.

With Curry, we might not have been.

Why not be happy with what we have?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> I think I picked the Bulls to have 47 wins and the #3 seed this year... so no, not really.


So perhaps it's the fact that they're going to exceed that magic number?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> Lotsa Curry threads today.


No man-crush ones though.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> Lotsa Curry threads today.


No man-crush ones though. Well, one.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Tell that to the rest of the board. Lotsa Curry threads today.


I.....judt....did.....didn't I? :uhoh: Did I send a pm by mistake?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



TripleDouble said:


> So perhaps it's the fact that they're going to exceed that magic number?


Its a good thing. 

Two years ago we were 47 and #3 with the youngest team in the playoffs.

Its nice to see that lady luck smiled on us (wallace, "found money") along with the great development of Gordon and Deng and the ship was righted.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Soulful Sides said:


> Why not be happy with what we have?


..


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Soulful Sides said:


> Why not be happy with what we have?


I'll be happily attending every playoff game.

Let's hope the Bulls make me happy by winning.

#2 seed ……. Expectation should be ECFs.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Given that our main source of improvement this season has been the emergence of Ben Gordon and Luol Deng as great NBA basketball players, we would have been better off than we were two years ago either way.
> 
> We should have been better off than we were two years ago last season.
> 
> Its nice to see that this team is back on an upward track. Let's hope that Wallace defies time, Tyrus becomes a great player and the lotto balls bounce our way.


upon joining this board, seems i remember all these threads/debates/discussions revolving around the fact C&C were central to the team winning 47 games a couple of years ago; now i'm reading that the team's better because of ben and luol.......

damn.....deja vu.....all over again....


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> Its a good thing.
> 
> Two years ago we were 47 and #3 with the youngest team in the playoffs.
> 
> Its nice to see that lady luck smiled on us (wallace, "found money") and the ship was righted.


So your point is that a young team that won 47 games would OBVIOUSLY improve 5 or 10 games in the next two seasons. Of course you couldn't prove that. For all you know the Bulls could have finished 38-44 with Curry and Chandler last season due to whatever.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> now i'm reading that the team's better because of ben and luol.......


ummmm... you disagree? really?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I would say that THIS year, we'd be better off with Curry/Chandler, because Sweets and PJ don't belong in the league at all. I was always a Chandler fan, so I wish he was still here instead of Wallace, whom I think is vastly over-rated, undersized, and did I mention over-rated? Curry on the other hand, I'd gladly trade straight-up for Tyrus. So Curry/Chandler is better than Tyrus/Sweets/PJ, if you look at it in an isolated view, non-contingent upon everything else that happened as a result of those trades. 

Tyrus is still the guy I'd take over everyone else mentioned. I'd take Chandler over Ben. Those 2 together would be a much better post duo than what we have now, especially in the next 3-5 years when Wallace either sucks or has retired. 

As to the trade, there's no doubt in my mind we got the better end of that deal. Tyrus himself >>>>>> Curry by a mile. Add to that another lotto pick, and if there was any doubt about Tyrus being better, that should more than tip the scales in our favor. I'm hoping we end up #5, and win the lotto, or at least get top 3. One of Oden/Durant/Brandan Wright tips that trade so heavily in our favor it would appear to be highway robbery.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

I have to split this into two:

Curry Component: Bulls win hands down; I think Tyrus by himself will be more valuable than Edward; I think in the playoffs this year, Tyrus will help us more than Edward would have this year, even if it is limited minutes. I have a very good feeling about Tyrus and what he can bring to the team now and what he'll eventually be able to deliver, down the road. It's all abbout work ethic and desire. Edward's still a child in that respect. Coup'd grace: throw in another lottery pick--Pax comes out smelling like roses!

Now, to counter-balance that aroma:

Chandler Component: this remains a completely bone-headed trade. To those who say that Tyson duplicates Wallace to a large extent, I say: so what?? Is it wrong to stockpile 7' defenders and rebounders?? Wallace is gone in 3/4 years; Tyson will be entering his prime years at that time. Ultimately, this trade was about Reinsdork's tight purse strings and shareholder bottom line. Further: the only way this trade is remotely excusable is if we luck into Oden or Durant.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> Why isn't Ben Wallace listed as a Bulls player? I know, I know we could have had all 3 if you crunch the numbers.
> 
> But the reality is if we had Curry and Chandler, we wouldn't have gone after Wallace.


That's an assumption on your part, not reality. I generally find such conventional wisdom assumptions about reality to be subject to rapid change. To me the "reality" is signing Wallace to add to Curry and Chandler would be the best possible means they'd have of replacing the really good thing they had going with the Curry/Chandler/AD lineup. 

Obviously Wallace is a much different, but better player than AD, so there's no certainty at all it would work, but it doesn't seem any riskier to me than some of the moves they actually pulled and if it did work, then we'd pretty obviously have one of the league's strongest frontcourts.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> due to whatever.


Probably due to Curry dropping dead.

Ya don't mess around with the heart.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> ummmm... you disagree? really?


no; the point i was alluding to was that gordon, deng, hinrich, duhon and nocioni were the primary factors in the team rising from the dead in the 47 win season, not the consistently inconsistent chandler and curry (please don't repost their stats) as you so unfailingly attempted to illustrate. now, it seems you've flip-flopped; but hey, whatever, [edit - no personal stuff. -vf] GO BULLS......

:cheers:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> Curry Component: Bulls win hands down


I have 0 doubt that the Bulls would be a better basketball team this season with Curry in place of Tyrus and Sweets.

The poll is about "this season" not who "won" the trade.

The East is wide open and the path to the NBA Finals seems attainable. This would have been a great season to have maximized our chances.

We'd clearly be better off with Chandler/Curry in place of Sweets/Tyrus/PJ. Probably the favorites.

It works under the cap. (if you want to make assumptions or use "conventional wisdom" to make this seem impossible, feel free. I disagree.)


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> Why isn't Ben Wallace listed as a Bulls player? I know, I know we could have had all 3 if you crunch the numbers.


We could have had all 3 if Ben Wallace were to accept a 4-year deal at $56 million and not have his contract frontloaded also with a guarantee Nocioni would be gone seeing how this seasons has played out.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



MikeDC said:


> That's an assumption on your part, not reality. I generally find such conventional wisdom assumptions about reality to be subject to rapid change. To me the "reality" is signing Wallace to add to Curry and Chandler would be the best possible means they'd have of replacing the really good thing they had going with the Curry/Chandler/AD lineup.
> 
> Obviously Wallace is a much different, but better player than AD, so there's no certainty at all it would work, but it doesn't seem any riskier to me than some of the moves they actually pulled and if it did work, then we'd pretty obviously have one of the league's strongest frontcourts.


I didn't say it was risky. I said it wouldn't happen. And it wouldn't. The Bulls would not spend that kind of money for a 3rd center with Curry and Chandler in the fold, so they never would have contacted Wallace in the first place. And even if they had contacted him, and he was interested under those circumstances, the team would have subsequently traded one of Curry or Chandler for financial reasons. 

Which is something they did anyway, even without Curry's $10 million annual contract in the fold.

It is an assumption, but it is a reasonable one both based on simple logic and *based on what we know actually happened* (which is that even without Curry, the Bulls dumped Chandler for financial reasons after signing Wallace).

I'd be interested to see how many Bulls fans think the organization would have kept Wallace (assuming he was interested), Curry and Chandler all at once on their contracts. 

Simply put, you are the only person who has ever expressed a belief that this is something that could have ever happened in the real world as opposed to your salary projection vaccum.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Rhyder said:


> We could have had all 3 if Ben Wallace were to accept a 4-year deal at $56 million and not have his contract frontloaded also with a guarantee Nocioni would be gone seeing how this seasons has played out.



Being financially possible under certain parameters is not the same thing as it being even remotely likely taking all factors into consideration, let alone likely enough to incorporate as an assumption in a poll through ignoring the fact that Ben Wallace is the starting center for the team.

The poll is meaningless if it doesn't consider that Ben Wallace is a Bull. 

Big surprise. 

How about this poll:

Bulls better with Crawford/Hinrich/Gordon or Duhon/Thabo/Barrett?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> I'd be interested to see how many Bulls fans think the organization would have kept Wallace (assuming he was interested), Curry and Chandler all at once on their contracts.


Uncle Jerry claims he'll "pay for a winner."

I think the Curry/Chandler/Wallace Bulls would have a great shot to at least make the NBA Finals this season.

And the amount paid this season would be the same.

The only guy that would be hard to dump in the future if the Bulls decided they wanted to not "pay for a winner" would be Wallace.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

Let's keep the sniping out of this thread, guys. If you think the poll is ridiculous or whatever, make an argument that doesn't attack the messenger.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> Uncle Jerry claims he'll "pay for a winner."


You believe him now? It's quite clear that is not true -- why else would Chandler have been trade for a washed up expiring?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Same old, same old. (and it's just about time K4E started something like this thread)

For my two cents, I am glad that all 3 Cs are not Bulls any more. Do I make myself clear? 

Oh, Yes I did vote for "NO".

I also think what Ron Cey said is quite true. Wallace's name should be in the poll question but you know why his name is not in there.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

I didn't vote because I find the premise too flawed.

Whether or not the Bulls have the cap room to pay Wallace, Curry and Chandler is irrelevant. All 3 are high-priced centers who should play 35+ minutes/game. 

I know, I know, "well, we just make one of them a power forward." Gosh, that was easy, but which one? Wallace?...he stays with the Pistons. Chandler?...if there's one thing Tyson has shown this season, it's that he's a center, period. Curry?...puh-leez.

It's the kind of misguided thinking that puts Marbury, Francis and Crawford on the same roster at a cost of about $40MM.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



TripleDouble said:


> You believe him now?


He's "paid for a winner" in the past. (MJ Bulls, Sox) 



> It's quite clear that is not true -- why else would Chandler have been trade for a washed up expiring?


They must have not thought that the Curry/Chandler/Wallace team was enough of a "winner." Either that or its all bull****. That could be as well.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Tyrus?What do YOU think?


Wallace, PJ, Tyrus, Sweets, 2007 Lottery Pick, Expiring Contract to Resign Noc or Deng or Gordon

v.

Chandler and Curry

Our record is better now without those two jokers. Just wait until we get the lottery pick and maybe a free agent.

Easy choice.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> Uncle Jerry claims he'll "pay for a winner."
> 
> I think the Curry/Chandler/Wallace Bulls would have a great shot to at least make the NBA Finals this season.
> 
> ...


Let me make this very direct: Do you, K4E, actually believe that Bulls' ownership would have signed Ben Wallace if they already had Curry and Chandler on their contracts? 

Its a yes or no question that requries no qualification or "maybes" because it simply asks what you believe. And you know what you believe.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> He's "paid for a winner" in the past. (MJ Bulls, Sox)
> 
> 
> 
> They must have not thought that the Curry/Chandler/Wallace team was enough of a "winner." Either that or its all bull****. That could be as well.


Hardly fair to equate paying the greatest money-making athlete in the history of sport with paying for a winner in general terms.

The Sox payroll jumped up after they won. That's a little different.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

I think the K4 entity should be suspended or banned for baiting.

Am I allowed to express that opinion? All the mental power and good feeling the board had now seems to be funneled into defeating his illogical ramblings. Its like crack cocaine. The board can't get enough of it.

Why is this allowed? He might be a fan, but he's not a fan like the rest of us. Why allow him to do this to the board?

Deleting my posts or suspending me to shut me up just highlights the point. Deal with the problem, and he is the problem.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

lougehrig said:


> Wallace, PJ, Tyrus, Sweets, 2007 Lottery Pick, Expiring Contract to Resign Noc or Deng or Gordon
> 
> v.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

rightly or wrongly, it could very well be that the chicago bulls as an organization wanted to go in a direction chandler wasn't capable of contributing toward; it happens.

the evidence herein (47-32) has quite clearly shown that this wasn't a *bad* decision; just a decision some don't approve of.

further, should the bull come away with a big in the draft, the future looks rather bright (EC finals or bust, anyone??); seeing otherwise is defeatist since neither of the previous 2 bigs will be returning. but, keeping up with their progress *is* very fan-friendly FWIW. i'm sure chandler and curry are comforted by the concern.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I'm voting yes for now.

But if you ask me this: Tyrus and NYK pick, in a few years I would say No. I'm sold on Tyrus but I hope he provides IMPROVEMENT and PRODUCTION that we HOPED Curry and Chandler would have provided.

The X-Factor is the NYK pick.

I did think that 47 win team would have been special. The aura around here was changing and C&C started to taste winning and were surrounded by jib.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

K4E, where did you go/why did you leave?

Welcome back.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> Let me make this very direct: Do you, K4E, actually believe that Bulls' ownership would have signed Ben Wallace if they already had Curry and Chandler on their contracts?
> 
> Its a yes or no question that requries no qualification or "maybes" because it simply asks what you believe. And you know what you believe.


And, again, please answer my question too, K4E.



Electric Slim said:


> Question for K4E:
> 
> Do you think the Bulls would be the consensus favorites to win the championship this year of they still had Curry and Chandler as opposed to Tyrus and Wallace?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> Let me make this very direct: Do you, K4E, actually believe that Bulls' ownership would have signed Ben Wallace if they already had Curry and Chandler on their contracts?
> 
> Its a yes or no question that requries no qualification or "maybes" because it simply asks what you believe. And you know what you believe.


I'm not sure if K4E is going to answer this or not, but I'd direct it to MikeDC as well since he suggested that it could happen in "reality".

The question, though, is not whether it could happen. The question is whether you believe it would be more likely to happen than not happen considering the entirety of the circumstances.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> The question, though, is not whether it could happen. The question is whether you believe it would be more likely to happen than not happen considering the entirety of the circumstances.


You're SUCH a lawyer. Except, I think it should be "considering the _totality_ of the circumstances." :lol:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Soulful Sides said:


> I think the K4 entity should be suspended or banned for baiting.
> 
> Am I allowed to express that opinion? All the mental power and good feeling the board had now seems to be funneled into defeating his illogical ramblings. Its like crack cocaine. The board can't get enough of it.
> 
> ...


Enough. 

The "problem" is that people who disagree with k4e have an insatiable thirst to go after _him_ rather than the points he's trying to make. If his ideas are so ludicrous, it shouldn't be hard to stay on topic and refute him on the merits.

We're not an echo chamber or a conformist society. If you find k4e's contrarian point of view or his argumentative style annoying, don't open his threads or read his posts.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



ViciousFlogging said:


> You're SUCH a lawyer. Except, I think it should be "considering the _totality_ of the circumstances." :lol:


"Totality" is an excellent word. :biggrin: 

The lawyer part of me wants answers to my question. The basketball fan/Bulls board poster part of me wants . . . . answers to my question.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The "problem" is that people who disagree with k4e have an insatiable thirst to go after him rather than the points he's trying to make.


disagreeing is fine, however if there's a problem i have, it's that i'm never quite sure what *point* is the author trying to make;

is it that curry's a great player?
is it that the bull would be better with C&C
paxson's a bad/lucky/gm?
skiles can't coach problem players?
do the bull favor "jib" over talent? 

what is it?

i'm just not clear on what his position is, so when i read something that is clearly redundant, my response may very well be less than engaging debate-wise anyway.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



ViciousFlogging said:


> Enough.
> 
> The "problem" is that people who disagree with k4e have an insatiable thirst to go after _him_ rather than the points he's trying to make.


Is it possible for you to consider that kukoc4ever's priority is going after _us_ as posters rather than the "points" he supposedly trying to make?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> disagreeing is fine, however if there's a problem i have, it's that i'm never quite sure what *point* is the author trying to make;
> 
> is it that curry's a great player?
> is it that the bull would be better with C&C
> ...


Exactly.

My guess is he wants the poll to read "yes" to confirm a contradiction of sorts, however narrow. This satisfies him I guess. Am I violating the TOS by saying this? Or must we not be able to criticize the narrowness of the topic for the basis it is "attacking" the thread starter? Can you not comment on the fact a certain poster repeats the same polls over and over?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



ViciousFlogging said:


> If his ideas are so ludicrous, it shouldn't be hard to...refute him on the merits.


The OP:



> Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Tyrus?
> 
> What do YOU think?


There is no point. There is no opinion. If you see it in those 19 words, please point it out.

We all know how he thinks, but he doesn't say _that_. Instead he lobs a loaded question onto the board, stirs the pot a bit, and walks away knowing what the response will be.


He does this again and again and again and again. If he were a fan from another team and another board -- and I challenge the administration to tell me I'm wrong on this -- the third or fourth time he did it they'd be threatening him with everything under the Sun. Now if I'm told that thats wrong, then maybe I'm going to going to take very liberal steps to test it out on some other boards on this site.

So tell me I'm wrong. 


More "unstated" inuendo called out: http://www.basketballforum.com/chic...er-instead-sweets-pj-tyrus-2.html#post4649115


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> Is it possible for you to consider that kukoc4ever's priority is going after _us_ as posters rather than the "points" he supposedly trying to make?



Thumbs up.

Put on your :fball:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> Is it possible for you to consider that kukoc4ever's priority is going after _us_ as posters rather than the "points" he supposedly trying to make?


Of course. The "let's not make it personal" entreaty applies to everyone. I just don't see where k4e is making things personal here. 

If it's OK with the interested parties, I'd rather not drag this tangent on in public any longer.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



ViciousFlogging said:


> Of course. The "let's not make it personal" entreaty applies to everyone. I just don't see where k4e is making things personal here.
> 
> If it's OK with the interested parties, I'd rather not drag this tangent on in public any longer.



I'm not saying he's making it personal either. I think his aim is wide-spread. He wants a reaction out of many.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

Beep beep, troll detector sounding on this thread.

I have really missed the *Bulls suck lol* posts on this site. Let's please unlock the Curry Update Thread so K4E can bump that too.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



ViciousFlogging said:


> Of course.
> --
> I just don't see where k4e is making things personal here.


:jawdrop:

Of course it's not personal in the sense of being against _one_ particular poster. It is personal in the sense of making digs at and taking potshots at a _whole group_ of people who think differently than he does!



> If it's OK with the interested parties, I'd rather not drag this tangent on in public any longer.


Hmmm. :sadbanana:


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

I just don't get what's wrong with K4E's posting? I for one am glad he's back. 

Of course he has an agenda and a bias, but most everyone knows it. And the fact is that the point of view that he expresses is not that out of line with a lot of people. In my observation, if people react to him assuming he's just being plain contrary, then his replies get less thoughtful, but if people talk to him with respect and giving him credit for his being a fan and a good observer of the game, then he talks to you at that level.

So, let's not blame him for what we do.

And as far as the Bulls being better this season, I think what's going to define being better is how we perform in the postseason. 

And as far as I can see, Tyrus is going to be heads and shoulders above either one of those two now when it comes to making an impact when the spotlight is on and when it counts. I trust Tyrus more now as a player to do the right thing at the right time (on the court) than I do either one of those two, now.

And that's not even mentioning Ben W. 

But, that's just my opinion. The proof will be in how we perform in the playoffs. But as far as I can see, we're going to be a much better playoff team with Ben and Tyrus than with Eddy/Tyson.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> Being financially possible under certain parameters is not the same thing as it being even remotely likely taking all factors into consideration, let alone likely enough to incorporate as an assumption in a poll through ignoring the fact that Ben Wallace is the starting center for the team.
> 
> The poll is meaningless if it doesn't consider that Ben Wallace is a Bull.
> 
> ...


One thing is for sure, had we signed Wallace with Curry and Chandler already under contract, I would have pushed for something like a Chandler for P.J. swap.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> I'm not sure if K4E is going to answer this or not, but I'd direct it to MikeDC as well since he suggested that it could happen in "reality".
> 
> The question, though, is not whether it could happen. The question is whether you believe it would be more likely to happen than not happen considering the entirety of the circumstances.


Respectfully to call on your last post, I think the lawyer part of you is trying very hard to reframe the original question because you didn't want to be seen as agreeing with K4E in any instance.

Rather than simply demur or agree but say you didn't think it was likely, you manufactured an additional clause to add onto the original question.

Regarding whether it could happen, my belief is that it could, but people in general are very unwilling to think out of the box or question conventional wisdom. I didn't think Reinsdorf would pony up for the last championship run either. I thought the Jalen Rose trade was nutty and it was, according to some reports, an Arn Tellem-Jerry Reinsdorf production.

Regarding this one hypothetical, of course it could have happened in reality. While you consider Eddy Curry a piece of trash, the Bulls considered him highly enough to offer him something like a $56M contract. 

Point being, they obviously valued him highly. And it's likely, with AD and Curry on board, last season turned out somewhat more favorably. So that brings us to last summer.

AD was obviously done, but it would be believeable to add Wallace as a replacement/improvement and hope to take a quantum leap. And that's the real feature of the situation that makes it a real possibility. It's a little like the end of the MJ-Pip dynasty. If a title run looked to be in close reach, Reinsdorf might pay to grab it.

What he won't do, possibly, is pay in advance. That's perhaps why Chandler was dumped (short-sightedly IMO) this past summer. Because Reinsdorf has different approaches to different situations. If you've already got Curry and Chandler, and it looks like adding Wallace might put you over the top, then it makes some sense to take the plunge. It's got a fair chance of succeeding and if it doesn't you can dump one or more of them in a year or two.

If Curry's gone, adding Wallace to Chandler alone isn't as compelling proposition because you still don't have a good chance at the title, so you add the former and dump the latter.

So to answer your question, yes. Taking all three would still give the Bulls a two year window of avoiding the luxury tax. While you don't value Curry, the Bulls valued him, and keeping that in mind, it's consistent with Reinsdorf's behavior and statements to think the Bulls might have been willing to add Wallace to Curry and Chandler but not keep only Wallace and Chandler. 

Essentially it's like a switch on two sets of train tracks; if the stars align, Reinsdorf may be willing to spend in the short-term to get somewhere. Otherwise, he'll stay on the strict financial discipline path (personally I'd add that the Bulls are probably intransient in that they would be willing to spend more in certain short-term situations to gain probability X of winning than they would be willing to spend in the same short-term to get the same probability X (or higher) at some point in the future).


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Soulful Sides said:


> I think the K4 entity should be suspended or banned for baiting.
> 
> Am I allowed to express that opinion? All the mental power and good feeling the board had now seems to be funneled into defeating his illogical ramblings. Its like crack cocaine. The board can't get enough of it.
> 
> ...


Couldn't disagree more.

From where I sit, the fact that this board has some posters who don't see things the way I do is part of the fun. Yeah, it sometimes gets tiresome, but it beats the heck out of constant "happy talk." 

The contrarians hurt no one, though the best of 'em undoubtedly have the ability to p*** me off from time to time. They have their "agendas." I have mine. These agendas differ, but that's not such a bad thing.

I choose to believe that these posters want a Bulls championship as much as I do and will join in on the ovation when this happens. Of course, I've been wrong before. The only way of knowing for sure is for the Bulls to win the title. I'm looking forward to finding out.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

In the framework of the original poll, I voted "yes". I'd much prefer Curry & Chandler to Brown\Tyrus\Sweetney _this season_. Going forward, probably not. Especially if that going forward meant losing one of (or possibly more than one of) Nocioni/Gordon/Deng because of cap constraints put on by Reinsdorf. Most assuredly no going forward if we luck into Oden or Durant or even get a decent post prescence who'll help keep defenses honest (Hawes/Splitter/Hibbert). But, for this season and this season alone - I'd take Curry/Chandler.

I did like this masterful bit of groundwork laying though...



> I'll be happily attending every playoff game.
> 
> Let's hope the Bulls make me happy by winning.
> 
> #2 seed ……. Expectation should be ECFs.


Nicely done K4E. Nicely done.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

I just don't really understand how keeping Chandler does anything for us all things being the same otherwise (as opposed to Sweets or Tyrus).

Chandler may be doing well THIS YEAR and Curry may be doing well THIS YEAR but during their years in Chicago they had their big year (the 27 home wins, domination, everbody thought the next year we were going places season). But those good seasons, or stretches of a season were always followed by major down turns that made many question Krauses drafting of them.

Chandler doesn't bring anything to the table with Wallace, the two out there at the same time is very redundant. Curry could be used as a sport guy of the bench to provide some scoring during those droughts but would also be a sieve on Defesnse so I am not sure how much we'd gain with him around either.

The Pax/Skiles model is to find a guy that can score in the post AND Defend and Rebound. I am pretty confident we'll find that guy in the draft or trade. I personally still think we have a pretty good shot at a top 3 pick.

I always get a kick out of these threads where for 4-5 years Krause was pummeld like a piniata for drafting these two guys (stiffs) and the second Pax ships them out the door it becomes the biggest mistake of Pax's career.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



> Respectfully to call on your last post, I think the lawyer part of you is trying very hard to reframe the original question because you didn't want to be seen as agreeing with K4E in any instance.


As K4E will no doubt attest, I've agreed with him on numerous things in the past. I reframed the original question because it is patently incomplete. 

And I didn't "try very hard" to do it. I very openly and simply did so. 

Don't presume to suggest that I am the type to refuse to publicly agree with a point I truly agree with, simply based on stubborn principle. That ain't me. 

That isn't how I discuss things and, indeed, its the type of disingenuous "debate" that I detest. 

As will be shown below, however, your entire post stinks to high heaven of that type of approach. Maybe you are just projecting?



> Rather than simply demur or agree but say you didn't think it was likely, you manufactured an additional clause to add onto the original question.


So? 



> Regarding whether it could happen, my belief is that it could, but people in general are very unwilling to think out of the box or question conventional wisdom. I didn't think Reinsdorf would pony up for the last championship run either. I thought the Jalen Rose trade was nutty and it was, according to some reports, an Arn Tellem-Jerry Reinsdorf production.


I very specifically noted that I'm not asking if it "could" happen. Whose reframing so as to avoid answering a simple question, Mike? 

I want to know whether you think it "would" have happened. And I want to know what K4E and everyone else who wants to chime in thinks "would" have happened. 



> Regarding this one hypothetical, of course it could have happened in reality. While you consider Eddy Curry a piece of trash, the Bulls considered him highly enough to offer him something like a $56M contract.


Not "could". Would. Your belief as to whether Wallace/Curry/Chandler "would" have all been Bulls together had Curry not been traded. 



> Point being, they obviously valued him highly. And it's likely, with AD and Curry on board, last season turned out somewhat more favorably. So that brings us to last summer.


I agree that they valued him highly. I've always maintained this. And I've always pointed out its the only time I've had my faith in John Paxson shaken.



> AD was obviously done, but *it would be believeable* to add Wallace as a replacement/improvement and hope to take a quantum leap. And that's the real feature of the situation that makes it *a real possibility*. It's a little like the end of the MJ-Pip dynasty. If a title run looked to be in close reach, Reinsdorf might pay to grab it.


"Believeable"? "Possibility"?



> What he won't do, possibly, is pay in advance. That's perhaps why Chandler was dumped (short-sightedly IMO) this past summer. Because Reinsdorf has different approaches to different situations. If you've already got Curry and Chandler, and it looks like adding Wallace might put you over the top, then it makes some sense to take the plunge. It's got a fair chance of succeeding and if it doesn't you can dump one or more of them in a year or two.


Then why did he immediately dump Chandler? Why didn't he wait "a year or two" before doing that? 



> So to answer your question, yes. Taking all three would still give the Bulls a two year window of avoiding the luxury tax. While you don't value Curry, the Bulls valued him, and keeping that in mind, it's consistent with Reinsdorf's behavior and statements *to think the Bulls might have been willing to* add Wallace to Curry and Chandler but not keep only Wallace and Chandler.


"Might have been willing to"?



> Essentially it's like a switch on two sets of train tracks; if the stars align, Reinsdorf *may be willing to *spend in the short-term to get somewhere.


"May be willing to"?

It just took you multiple paragraphs and sevearl hundreds of words to avoid answering a very simple question about your very own state of mind.

Do you think the Bulls "would" have signed Wallace with both Chandler and Curry on extended contracts? 

All of the rest of it is hedging bull****. Just answer the question.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



transplant said:


> From where I sit, the fact that this board has some posters who don't see things the way I do is part of the fun. Yeah, it sometimes gets tiresome, but it beats the heck out of constant "happy talk."



One can disagree without being disagreeable. One can be contrary without giving way to uncivil discourse. 


There was plenty of high spirited conversation with multiple opinions and viewpoints while he wasn't posting (see pages 2 through 7,8,9,10). And the reaction to his return speaks volumes about how people felt both about his return and the way he chose to do so. Read the first page.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



transplant said:


> Couldn't disagree more.
> 
> From where I sit, the fact that this board has some posters who don't see things the way I do is part of the fun. Yeah, it sometimes gets tiresome, but it beats the heck out of constant "happy talk."
> 
> ...


Very true.

What we (myself included sometimes) too often forget is you can just ignore a poster who is spouting an agenda, and sometimes the best way to diffuse the agenda is to not add any fuel to the fire he's trying to start.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



transplant said:


> Couldn't disagree more.
> 
> From where I sit, the fact that this board has some posters who don't see things the way I do is part of the fun. Yeah, it sometimes gets tiresome, but it beats the heck out of constant "happy talk."


I don't even see where people are "disagreeing" with K4E because he dances around everyone's questions including his own. And yes, this is a lot more productive than "happy talk" for sure.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



MikeDC said:


> Regarding this one hypothetical, of course it could have happened in reality. *While you consider Eddy Curry a piece of trash*, the Bulls considered him highly enough to offer him something like a $56M contract.


And another thing, I don't think Curry is or was a "piece of trash". I thought, and continue to think, that in the balance of it all he's largely inconsequential and don't trust his committment to future improvement and conditioning. 

There is a big difference.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> What we (myself included sometimes) too often forget is you can just ignore a poster who is spouting an agenda, and sometimes the best way to diffuse the agenda is to not add any fuel to the fire he's trying to start.


In theory only. 

Reality, both the past and this present thread, have shown something very different. 

Other posters are telling me to let it drop because this is the 'googillionth' time it's been discussed and management is pretty unmoved by the arguments its heard. A shame. An otherwise pretty neat thing going on here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

Uncle Jerry can surprise you.

Signing Albert Belle. 
Making the Jalen Rose trade.

He has shown that he will pay for a winner. (at least for 1 year)

Let's say that we didn't dump Curry the season after 47-#3. Let's say we improve to 52 wins and make it within a whisper of the ECFs or actually to the ECFs.

Would he sign Ben Wallace? Given that Chandler and Curry are very productive young big men signed to reasonable contracts, they are valuable commodities and can be liquidated (as we have seen first hand). 

This would seem like a situation where Uncle Jerry would be willing to take the next step and spend some money. If things go south, you can liquidate a tower into exp deals, as we've seen, and avoid the tax, at least for the long term.

I'm not sure what Jerry would do. He's surprised me in the past, both for the good and for the bad.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

BTW, its stunning to me that the majority of people think that two of the most productive big men in the game would not make this team better. 

Sweets is damn near useless. PJ sucks. Tyrus looks promising, but he's quite inconsistent. 

Hey, to each their own. 

If you think its IMPOSSIBLE for Curry, Chandler and Wallace to be on the same Bulls team, fine, I disagree, but that's not the question.

I hope we have enough for the playoffs. The East may never be easier to take down than it is this year. This would have been a great year to max out our chances.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

*Edit: *First, sorry for the "as a lawyer commment", I was simply taking off on your back and forth with VF, but it looked insulting reading it back now.



Ron Cey said:


> As K4E will no doubt attest, I've agreed with him on numerous things in the past. I reframed the original question because it is patently incomplete.
> 
> And I didn't "try very hard" to do it. I very openly and simply did so.
> 
> ...


OK, sorry, it just seemed that way since you added on some sort of proviso instead of just answering his question. 

As to you detesting this sort of debate, It seems to me you've deposited yourself in the briar patch. I don't see anything disingenuous about it, it's just another way to talk about things. Disingenuous implies some lying, and I'm not being dishonest in anything I've said. 



> I very specifically noted that I'm not asking if it "could" happen. Whose reframing so as to avoid answering a simple question, Mike?


Err, I dunno Ron. I guess at worst both of us have.  For my part, I was trying to give a detailed answer as to why it "would" happen. No, I don't think it's a certainty, but since we're talking about a hypothetical anyway, it seemed more consistent with the spirit of things to me than to just defining the original question out of existence but answering it anyway.



> I want to know whether you think it "would" have happened. And I want to know what K4E and everyone else who wants to chime in thinks "would" have happened.
> 
> ...
> 
> It just took you multiple paragraphs and sevearl hundreds of words to avoid answering a very simple question about your very own state of mind.


Well, I think you misread those multiple paragraphs and several hundred words :cheers:



> Do you think the Bulls "would" have signed Wallace with both Chandler and Curry on extended contracts?
> 
> All of the rest of it is hedging bull****. Just answer the question.


Well that's pleasant :lol: 

Hey, I'm here to think about things and have fun. To me, thinking out a few paragraphs about how it'd might happen was kind of interesting. But hey, I like alternate history and sci-fi books too.

I think it also provided the answer to your question. Maybe not to your liking, but if you're going to ask for that much certainty and limit any response to what you think absolutely would have happened, I think you're asking a lot given that we're talking a completely hypothetical scenario.

But like I said at the outset of things, I think there'd be a lot of interesting discussion if people opened up and considered the entire range of possibilities anyway, not just immediately ****-canning anything they thought Jerry Reinsdorf might not approve of. At worst, the fact Jerry Reinsdorf wouldn't do it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate idea, topic of discussion, or wrong.

But it's also possible to say Jerry Reinsdorft might approve. He shelled out, somewhat regretfully, for the last couple years of MJ. If you want certainty, I'll say sure, that's what would have happened.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

My answer to the thread's question: Yes. Curry would be quite helpful inside, as would Chandler off the bench for rebounding, energy, and blocked shots. However, it's hard to say exactly what would happen with those two on our team - would chemistry be severely worse? As a cut and dry, on paper assessment though, I say yes.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> BTW, its stunning to me that the majority of people think that two of the most productive big men in the game would not make this team better.


Law School Trial Advocacy, Rule 1:

Never ask a question that you do not know the answer to in advance.

The result will invariably blow up in your face and potentially damage your case.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> BTW, its stunning to me that the majority of people think that two of the most productive big men in the game would not make this team better.



I <B>doubt</b> it stuns you. 

To bring them back we'd have to can the coach because they obviously can't play for him.

Can the coach and we'd be looking at a changed system (not unlike what Detroit went through from Brown to Flip)

We'd lose momentum. We lost them, and we didn't get hurt in the process. We have a long and bright future ahead of ourselves.

At this point the past and past players, ESPECIALLY CHANDLER AND CURRY, are irrelevant.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



MikeDC said:


> If you want certainty, I'll say sure, that's what would have happened.


I don't want certainty. I want your belief. It should be very easy for you to give a simple and straight answer as to what you consider to be more likely than not. It is, after all, an answer regarding your own state of mind. 

And I still don't get the impression you are actually doing that.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> BTW, its stunning to me that the majority of people think that two of the most productive big men in the game would not make this team better.
> .



I would disagree with this statement. 

2 of the most productive big men in the league are:

Shaq
Tim Duncan


One year of decent play from either guy doesn't mean a thing.

As has been mentioned neither has impacted greatly the win/loss figures of their particular team. Much like the other cried about spilled milk of Elton Brand who has seen one season of playoffs but has not been a guy that has an impact on a teams win/loss column either.


As I said before during the 5 years either of these guys were on the team they had moments were they played very well and we all thought they final had hit their stride followed by equal periods of horrendous play. Neither of which have ever shown any great BB IQ either.

If Curry and Chandler continue to not only perform at their current level of play, but IMPROVE and learn new things, THEN we can talk in a couple years.

I think this team is clearly better this year, forget about last year, without them and will continue to get better without them.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Law School Trial Advocacy, Rule 1:
> 
> Never ask a question that you do not know the answer to in advance.
> 
> The result will invariably blow up in your face and potentially damage your case.


Actually, I find it more interesting the majority of people voted no. 

I'm not a lawyer. I don't get off on "case making" and nitpicking. 

Sweets,Tyrus,PJ > Curry,Chander for this year.

Hmmm. OK. Wow.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Orange Julius Irving said:


> 2 of the most productive big men in the league are:
> 
> Shaq
> Tim Duncan


Yao Ming too.

Any of the three would improve our team. They are true franchise, game changing centers. Oden might be too.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Orange Julius Irving said:


> I think this team is clearly better this year, forget about last year, without them and will continue to get better without them.


And would be even better with them this year.


Curry,Chandler > PJ, Sweets, Tyrus (this year)


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, I find it more interesting the majority of people voted no.
> 
> Sweets,Tyrus,PJ > Curry,Chander for this year.
> 
> Hmmm. OK. Wow.



Chemistry. With teammates, with coach.

Like I said, we have a good thing going. Why shake it up?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Very true.
> 
> What we (myself included sometimes) too often forget is you can just ignore a poster who is spouting an agenda, and sometimes the best way to diffuse the agenda is to not add any fuel to the fire he's trying to start.


Agreed. In fact, there's an "Ignore" feature built right in to be used by any who need to use it. If K4E's provocation is too bothersome, that's a perfectly suitable remedy.

It's possible to be both positive and negative and behave properly or improperly. Neither "side" (although I don't think this dichotomy is accurate, but nevertheless) has any monopoly on being a great poster or being an ***.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Soulful Sides said:


> Chemistry. With teammates, with coach.
> 
> Like I said, we have a good thing going. Why shake it up?


Keeping Curry/Chandler would not have been shaking anything up.

We were a successful team 2 years ago with them under the current regime.

Keeping them would have been business as usual.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not sure what Jerry would do. He's surprised me in the past, both for the good and for the bad.


[edit - uncalled for -vf]

I'm not asking you to be sure what he would have done or if its possible for him to surprise you.

I'm asking you what you think - in your opinion - he would have done. You don't have to right or wrong. I just want your honest opinion as to your own belief. 

I don't know why you and Mike seem so resistant to provide a simple answer. Actually, I do know why. You both know that you don't believe Bulls' ownership would have done it. Based on your respective histories of ripping ownership's refusal to spend, you *can't* say now with a straight face that you would hold such an patently inconsistent opinion today. 

But you won't say it because you know it will invalidate your own premise. 
[edit -vf]


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> Later. I'll let everyone else waste their time with the two of you and your refusal to engage in honest conversation.


"I have no further questions for this witness!!!!!"


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> And would be even better with them this year.
> 
> 
> Curry,Chandler > PJ, Sweets, Tyrus (this year)



This may have been covered already but you also have to consider the $$$ value.

Are Curry/Chandler which is what around $100 M? 

Compared to PJ, Sweets, Tyrus = $5-10M

Would we be getting a 20 fold increase in production from these guys? I think not.

And then you would probably not be able to re-sign Nocioni, Gordon and/or Deng.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



jnrjr79 said:


> Agreed. In fact, there's an "Ignore" feature built right in to be used by any who need to use it. If K4E's provocation is too bothersome, that's a perfectly suitable remedy.


PM me when it stops us from seeing his posts floating to the top of the board. I'll jump right in.

Other than that, like I said, his thread titles, polls, etc are like yelling 'fire!' in a movie theater.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Orange Julius Irving said:


> This may have been covered already but you also have to consider the $$$ value.
> 
> Are Curry/Chandler which is what around $100 M?


Hmm. Do each make 50 million this season? I'm talking about this season. This season the Bulls would be fine.

Oh yah, this has been covered, at least a dozen times.

At some point in the future, you run the risk of paying the tax. But, as we've seen, you can liquidate a tower into exp deals and draft picks. Paxson is really good at that.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> Keeping Curry/Chandler would not have been shaking anything up.


Read the thread title.

Having them now would require re-acquiring them. 

THIS season. We moved them and we're good. Why take the danger of re-acquiring the problems we had with them if we can re-acquire their skills without the problems?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

K4:

Who bears *more* responsibility for Curry and Skiles not producing in Chicago, during the time they were here, as they are producing now...?

Themselves or the current management team/staff?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> "I have no further questions for this witness!!!!!"


Keep it about basketball.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> I would get a pm from MikeDC for saying that. So help me God.


you'll get one for that!


----------



## arhie (Jul 4, 2006)

Curry and Chandler didn't see the floor together enough. They complement eachother greatly. One provides the D the other provides the O. Scott Skiles didn't know what to do.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



The Truth said:


> you'll get one for that!


:rules: 

:wahmbulance:


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> [edit - uncalled for -vf]
> 
> I'm not asking you to be sure what he would have done or if its possible for him to surprise you.
> 
> ...


I don't see any uncalled for in Ron's post. In fact, I think Ron nailed it pretty much.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



lgtwins said:


> I don't see any uncalled for in Ron's post. In fact, I think Ron nailed it pretty much.


He edited the parts where I said "Jesus Christ" and accused them of failing to engage in an honest discussion.

I realize after having such a long break from threads of this nature that my temperment might not be well suited to their return. 

I've grown too accustomed to discussing the current team and the season/impending offseason.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> I would get a pm from MikeDC for saying that. So help me God.


Ziiiing!


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

Here's the ultimate problem with threads like this. Clearly, we all know this particular poster's agenda. However, none of these threads have any relevance on BULLS basketball. Are either a member of the Bulls? Do either impact the Bulls chances this year in the slightest? Would this be considered baiting because this isn't July or August i.e. the Bulls are in the middle of a run to the playoffs and many, many more things deserve discussion? No. No. Yes. This thread doesn't make any sense. In the immediate past, of course, it makes sense because the trades are newsworthy and therefore open to discussion. But we've already had this discussion a thousand times. Why make it one thousand and one? We all know you think the Bulls would be better with Curry and Chandler. Not one person who posts here regularly doesn't know that, so why make yet another useless thread detailing your opinion. And please spare me the "but I asked if YOU guys if you thought we'd be better" because I guarantee that this subject would never have been approached unless you started it. I think that is the overall point posters on this thread are trying to make. 

The Curry threads right now are discussions about last night's game and Eddy's comments which occured recently. Not a trade from two years ago and a trade from one year ago. 

Anyways, and I've said this a million times, are people ignorant of the fact that we base our success around defense. And who might be one of the worst defenders in the league? Oh yea, that's right, Eddy Curry. Sure he's a great scorer. He had similar success two seasons ago. Has he improved one iota? No. Has he gotten the ball a lot more? Yes. Perhaps this has something to do with his scoring numbers going up. 

If anything, Wallace for Chandler can be considered a push. Not only does Big Ben lend a veteran presence inside, but he's a better man-to-man defender than Chandler is as opposed to swatting shots coming in from the help side. Of course, making this point would require an understanding of the game of basketball as opposed to simply looking at stats and claiming someone had the better year. 

So not only does Curry probably give us what he gave us in 2004, but his defense severely weakens our scheme, forces our guards to double down on post players, leaving wide open shots for the other team's guards. The same situation occurs for Chandler. Again, watch basketball, play basketball, and stop looking at stats, and I think you'll understand the difference.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



T.Shock said:


> Here's the ultimate problem with threads like this. Clearly, we all know this particular poster's agenda. However, none of these threads have any relevance on BULLS basketball. Are either a member of the Bulls? Do either impact the Bulls chances this year in the slightest? Would this be considered baiting because this isn't July or August i.e. the Bulls are in the middle of a run to the playoffs and many, many more things deserve discussion? No. No. Yes. This thread doesn't make any sense. In the immediate past, of course, it makes sense because the trades are newsworthy and therefore open to discussion. But we've already had this discussion a thousand times. Why make it one thousand and one? We all know you think the Bulls would be better with Curry and Chandler. Not one person who posts here regularly doesn't know that, so why make yet another useless thread detailing your opinion. And please spare me the "but I asked if YOU guys if you thought we'd be better" because I guarantee that this subject would never have been approached unless you started it. I think that is the overall point posters on this thread are trying to make.
> 
> The Curry threads right now are discussions about last night's game and Eddy's comments which occured recently. Not a trade from two years ago and a trade from one year ago.


Thumbs up.

What is the administrations plan for dealing with threads and posts that are similar in nature? What will happen to this thread?



> Anyways, and I've said this a million times, are people ignorant of the fact that we base our success around defense. And who might be one of the worst defenders in the league? Oh yea, that's right, Eddy Curry. Sure he's a great scorer. He had similar success two seasons ago. Has he improved one iota? No. Has he gotten the ball a lot more? Yes. Perhaps this has something to do with his scoring numbers going up.
> 
> If anything, Wallace for Chandler can be considered a push. Not only does Big Ben lend a veteran presence inside, but he's a better man-to-man defender than Chandler is as opposed to swatting shots coming in from the help side. Of course, making this point would require an understanding of the game of basketball as opposed to simply looking at stats and claiming someone had the better year.
> 
> So not only does Curry probably give us what he gave us in 2004, but his defense severely weakens our scheme, forces our guards to double down on post players, leaving wide open shots for the other team's guards. The same situation occurs for Chandler. Again, watch basketball, play basketball, and stop looking at stats, and I think you'll understand the difference.



Great post.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> I don't want certainty. I want your belief. It should be very easy for you to give a simple and straight answer as to what you consider to be more likely than not. It is, after all, an answer regarding your own state of mind.
> 
> And I still don't get the impression you are actually doing that.


I get the impression you actually do want certainty. I just give you a simple straight answer. You didn't like it. You seem especially not to like it that I supplemented it with a bunch of detail in my thinking.

What magic word are you looking for? "More likely than not". Yes, I think it's more likely than not. Why?
* Because I think the Bulls would have had a better record last year with Curry/Chandler/AD. Probably they get over 50.
* Add cap space, and the Arn Tellem buddy-buddy relationship
* Those things "more likely than not" push Reinsdorf to the magical, mystical "I'll pay for a winner" threshold.
* And thus, they spend on the highest impact piece they can get, knowing they can get out later.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



T.Shock said:


> Here's the ultimate problem with threads like this. Clearly, we all know this particular poster's agenda. However, none of these threads have any relevance on BULLS basketball. Are either a member of the Bulls? Do either impact the Bulls chances this year in the slightest? Would this be considered baiting because this isn't July or August i.e. the Bulls are in the middle of a run to the playoffs and many, many more things deserve discussion? No. No. Yes.


That doesn't seem to be a very good definition of baiting to me. It's all because you feel something else deserves more discussion at a given time. That's just personal opinion.

To put it another way, to consider a post baiting simply because its priorities aren't yours would be to establish your agenda as the official one. That's hardly fair.

The nice thing about the board is that it's got a built in way to handle that. People are free to post about what interests them. And to do so without getting a bunch of grief at a personal level about it. If you want to disagree with the post, that's cool. If you want to ignore it as irrelevant, that's cool too. Scroll on by and it'll disappear off the board.



> This thread doesn't make any sense. In the immediate past, of course, it makes sense because the trades are newsworthy and therefore open to discussion. But we've already had this discussion a thousand times. Why make it one thousand and one?


Where's the fair place to draw the line? Obviously other people have had stuff to say about it. 

Very often, topics start off one way and head in another and make for interesting discussions. I don't see any reason to start censoring them.



> We all know you think the Bulls would be better with Curry and Chandler. Not one person who posts here regularly doesn't know that, so why make yet another useless thread detailing your opinion. And please spare me the "but I asked if YOU guys if you thought we'd be better" because I guarantee that this subject would never have been approached unless you started it. I think that is the overall point posters on this thread are trying to make.


So what? It's a message board. Have fun and let the guy have his opinion.



> The Curry threads right now are discussions about last night's game and Eddy's comments which occured recently. Not a trade from two years ago and a trade from one year ago.


Reading through those threads there's quite a bit of discussion about the past mixed in. Should we go through and strictly edit all that out too? Or only the parts you agree with?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

I've got my answer. Thanks MikeDC.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> [edit - uncalled for -vf]
> 
> I'm not asking you to be sure what he would have done or if its possible for him to surprise you.
> 
> ...


Be nice.

And no, I pretty clearly elaborated on that. I don't believe I've ever said the Bulls wouldn't spend at all, just that they wouldn't spend in advance.

I've pointed that out a few times, so I don't think you're being "honest" in representing my opinion. You're fudging it to try and make a point. 

Further, I don't think you're being "honest" in representing your own opinion when you say:



Ron Cey said:


> And another thing, I don't think Curry is or was a "piece of trash". I thought, and continue to think, that in the balance of it all he's largely inconsequential and don't trust his committment to future improvement and conditioning.
> 
> There is a big difference.


Could you explain that big difference? I mean, you can't even say you don't think he's a "piece of trash" without saying he's "largely inconsequential" and "don't trust his committment".

I'm sorry... I guess my characterization of your view was wrong. You think he's garbage, not trash? :lol:

I don't think it's at all an understatement to say I could pick through the archives here and find pretty strong evidence to support my opinion you think Curry is trash or pretty close to it? The record would show a whole lot of disparaging remarks (some like - paraphrasing - "I'm glad he's gone and I wouldn't want him under any circumstances") and precious few positive ones (and yeah, i noticed the one you pointed out today... which was convenient, of course, in the context of this line of discussion, but to me seemed forced and very inconsistent with the weight of your other opinion on him). Which is why I think pulling out the honesty card every time you simply disagree with someone is a bit much. It's a message board and the point is to debate and have fun, but we all have complex opinions that aren't fully stated. It'd be a much friendlier, more enjoyable place if we made the effort to meet each other halfway instead of going down the road of calling everyone liars when they disagree with us.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Why isn't Ben Wallace listed as a Bulls player? I know, I know we could have had all 3 if you crunch the numbers.


While we would of had some cap space, it's not even close to the figure Wallace is getting paid now.

I apologise if its already been stated, just quickly browsing trough.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



MikeDC said:


> Have fun and let the guy have his opinion.


Oh thats it...he's just like aaaannnnyyyy other poster.

He must have pictures of someone in comprising positions. I've seen other threads locked and other posters banned (was it Matrix?) for not much different. 

Sad.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



MikeDC said:


> I get the impression you actually do want certainty. I just give you a simple straight answer. You didn't like it. You seem especially not to like it that I supplemented it with a bunch of detail in my thinking.
> 
> What magic word are you looking for? "More likely than not". Yes, I think it's more likely than not. Why?
> * Because I think the Bulls would have had a better record last year with Curry/Chandler/AD. Probably they get over 50.
> ...


3 posts later, you finally did answer it definitively instead of "could happen" "may happen" "believeable it could happen" and all such other nebulous nonsense. 

Though I don't know why it took so long. You can say you answered it all you want, but you didn't until just now.

And I don't like or dislike your answer. I just wanted to know what it was.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Soulful Sides said:


> Oh thats it...he's just like aaaannnnyyyy other poster.
> 
> He must have pictures of someone in comprising positions. I've seen other threads locked and other posters banned (was it Matrix?) for not much different.
> 
> Sad.


Actually it's very different. Despite being a contrarian, a guy like K4E rarely has a negative word to say about anyone. He's a good guy who treats other people well and is a big time Bulls fan.

On the other hand, Matrix (who was tolerated and protected far too long) was rightly banned for continually attacking other posters, several racist rants, and some other creepy, sort of stalkerish behavior.

Unless K4E starts down that path, I guess I'll just get it out of the way and state the obvious. He's in no danger at all of being banned whatsoever. 

Some of you guys that are becoming a real disruption however, by treating other posters poorly and refusing to do what the staff is asking you to do, well, I don't think we'll put up with that forever. You've made your opinions know, and we've made our opinions known. In the end, it's our board and bottom line is that we want people to have a good time and be tolerant of and nice to each other. I think that's a very simple, very fair line to ask people not to cross.

And yes, I find the idea that posting a thread like this is some sort of outlandish provocation and insult that should lead to someone being banned as very thin-skinned. 

You mentioned that things have been going well here in the last couple months. What? Activity is down tremendously... there are practically tumbleweeds rolling by for large parts of the day. Our best days, going back to the beginning, have almost always come from being willing to let all voices be heard and having good debate back and forth. And at the end of the day, we understand we're all fans. 

You guys that say that isn't how other places do it are right. But so what. We want this to be an open-minded, fun place. That's been our thing from the beginning. Take a look at posts from guys like Transplant and Good Hope as well as the staff here. If anything, a big problem is that we haven't been true to that spirit and over the last couple years we've let people have their way when they say "oh no, you can't let people say that".


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Ron Cey said:


> 3 posts later, you finally did answer it definitively instead of "could happen" "may happen" "believeable it could happen" and all such other nebulous nonsense.
> 
> Though I don't know why it took so long. You can say you answered it all you want, but you didn't until just now.


I answered it, just not to your satisfaction. Understand that there was one for you, but to me, there's not much point in distinguishing between "could happen" or "more likely than not" in a case that's admittedly all our speculation. It doesn't have any operational meaning in any case. The fun to me is in thinking it through.

Not saying that has to be what makes it fun or you or anyone else, just giving my opinion of what's interesting to me.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



MikeDC said:


> That doesn't seem to be a very good definition of baiting to me. It's all because you feel something else deserves more discussion at a given time. That's just personal opinion.
> 
> To put it another way, to consider a post baiting simply because its priorities aren't yours would be to establish your agenda as the official one. That's hardly fair.
> 
> ...


Here's my point. It brings the quality of the board down. I'm not dissin k4e's intelligence or his fandom, but his tactics in trying to make his point. It's a cycle of posts dedicated to making the one opinion he seems to have known throughout the land. If he posted other things about other topics, I wouldn't even have posted here, but I feel I've read this exact same thread a dozen times. 

I'm not saying we have to draw the line. But why doesn't anybody talk about the Jalen Rose for Brad Miller/Ron Artest deal anymore? It's because it has no affect on the Bulls at all, and I do consider it baiting because as opposed to posting a thread about the playoffs or last night's Knick game, this post is an attempt to lure people back into a discussion we've had before. I took the bait as did many others. I guess I'm an addict. But again, I see no discussion of Curry's skills or Chandler's skills simply a hypothetical question with no real analytical perspective at all. 

I'm not saying ban him at all. Because banning is a harsh action and he hasn't really done anything wrong but bait people into his one argument (okay two counting I hate Pax/Skiles) and generally annoy several of us. Not grounds for a ban, IMO, but I think its fair to expect many of us to express our opinions in a negative manner because of these types of posts.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

The reason it matters is obvious.

The Bulls need a big man post scorer. Just ask Paxson.

Curry is one of the best in the game. We dumped him for draft picks that luckily (according to Paxson) should be/were high.

Still though, the glaring need remains. While its fun for some to rail on this ex-Bull and native Chicagoian, he's the piece this team needs. And he was on the roster.... wanting to be a Bull for life.

Let's hope we can still get it done. Real NBA basketball starts soon. Go Bulls.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



T.Shock said:


> Here's my point. It brings the quality of the board down. I'm not dissin k4e's intelligence or his fandom, but his tactics in trying to make his point. It's a cycle of posts dedicated to making the one opinion he seems to have known throughout the land. If he posted other things about other topics, I wouldn't even have posted here, but I feel I've read this exact same thread a dozen times.
> 
> I'm not saying we have to draw the line. But why doesn't anybody talk about the Jalen Rose for Brad Miller/Ron Artest deal anymore? It's because it has no affect on the Bulls at all, and I do consider it baiting because as opposed to posting a thread about the playoffs or last night's Knick game, this post is an attempt to lure people back into a discussion we've had before. I took the bait as did many others. I guess I'm an addict. But again, I see no discussion of Curry's skills or Chandler's skills simply a hypothetical question with no real analytical perspective at all.
> 
> I'm not saying ban him at all. Because banning is a harsh action and he hasn't really done anything wrong but bait people into his one argument (okay two counting I hate Pax/Skiles) and generally annoy several of us. Not grounds for a ban, IMO, but I think its fair to expect many of us to express our opinions in a negative manner because of these types of posts.


You can look back at the Brand trade and say that we effectively got PJ Brown for him. People have made that observation, and it's a fair thing to do.

There's 2 degrees of separation between Rose, Miller, Artest and this team. There's one degree between the 3Cs and this team. We were sold on the 3Cs being the future of the team and we "lived and died" with their ups and downs. We have four years of some sort of emotional investment in those guys. You can look at this team and say, "what if we still had those guys?" You might try with Rose, Brand, Miller, Artest, but it's hard to figure out what the draft positions would have been all along and the side effects that would have had on the roster.

In other words, we COULD still have Curry, Crawford and Chandler along with Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Nocioni, and Wallace. We can say that with certainty. Our GM has talked publicly about the need for a defensive big and a post scorer and we had them (and 47 wins, too).

We can't say that we'd have any of the latest version of "the core" if we kept Rose, Brand, Miller, and Artest.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Be nice.


Like you?



> And no, I pretty clearly elaborated on that. I don't believe I've ever said the Bulls wouldn't spend at all, just that they wouldn't spend in advance.
> 
> I've pointed that out a few times, so I don't think you're being "honest" in representing my opinion. You're fudging it to try and make a point.


I didn't fudge anything. I just asked you for a simple answer and didn't get one until much prodding ensued. 



> Further, I don't think you're being "honest" in representing your own opinion when you say:
> 
> Could you explain that big difference? I mean, you can't even say you don't think he's a "piece of trash" without saying he's "largely inconsequential" and "don't trust his committment".


Yes, I can explain the difference. "Trash" means doesn't provide anything of value to the point of being significantly detrimental.

"Inconsequential" means his benefits are negated by his shortcomings. I assumed this was a word that was easy to understand. 



> I'm sorry... I guess my characterization of your view was wrong. You think he's garbage, not trash? :lol:


No. I think he's inconsequential as a player. 



> I don't think it's at all an understatement to say I could pick through the archives here and find pretty strong evidence to support my opinion you think Curry is trash or pretty close to it?


I don't know what you can find. I'd guarantee you'd find plenty of criticism from me. And if he was still on the team, you'd likely be able to find it that much easier.

But you'd also find that, for example, I in fact advocated re-signing Curry in the middle of DNA gate, but only at a reasonable contract which, if I recall correctly, ScottMay and I discussed as $18 million over 3 years. Roughly a short term MLE deal. If Scott reads this, I suspect he'd confirm that. 

My opinions on Curry are more nuanced than you recall.



> The record would show a whole lot of disparaging remarks (some like - paraphrasing - "I'm glad he's gone and I wouldn't want him under any circumstances") and precious few positive ones


Indeed you are paraphrasing, and by doing so, omitting an important part. I'll type it again so there is no confusion: I'm glad he's gone and I wouldn't want him on the Bulls *on his contract* under any circumstances.

And that is because I wouldn't want the contract of a player I view as inconsequential to impact the flexibility or spending habits of this team.



> (and yeah, i noticed the one you pointed out today... which was convenient, of course, in the context of this line of discussion, but to me seemed forced and very inconsistent with the weight of your other opinion on him).


That opinion was not at all inconsistent with my belief that he is inconsequential. I do not think adding Eddy Curry to a team makes it fail. That goes too far. And that is what Lou was arguing. 

Its also a flawed premise since we know that, indeed, Curry did play and contribute on a winning team, which is what I pointed out. I'm capable of holding a relatively low opinion of a player while at the same time defending him when someone gets carried away. 

That might be difficult for you to appreciate given how quickly you appear to want to pigeon hole people.



> Which is why I think pulling out the honesty card every time you simply disagree with someone is a bit much.


I only pull out the honesty card when people are engaging in dishonest discussion. It has nothing to do with whether or not I share their opinion.

You happen to be a common recipient of this comment because I often find that you aren't engaging in intellectually honest discussion. But there are many, many posters on this board that I disagree with on a daily basis that I've never directed that comment towards. Because though I disagree with them, they will interact with intellectual sincerity and, therefore, the comment isn't warranted.

You are simply senstive to it, because I apply it to you and consider you a hypocrite on a variety of levels. And you are aware of this. So you respond by suggesting that I call everyone I disagree with a liar, when I most certainly don't. It isn't even a remotely accurate characterization of the general manner in which I disagree with, and discuss things with, the vast majority of posters on this site. 



> It's a message board and the point is to debate and have fun, but we all have complex opinions that aren't fully stated. It'd be a much friendlier, more enjoyable place if we made the effort to meet each other halfway *instead of going down the road of calling everyone liars when they disagree with us.*


See what I mean? 

And your repetitive and self-righteous opinion of what would constitute a fun message board means nothing to me. 

I have not asked that K4E be banned or suspended or anything else for the content of this thread. I simply got irritated when I attempted to engage the discussion in such a way as to, in my opinion, make it more realistic and sensible, but was met with the traditional move the ball, don't answer his questions, take shots at him for being a lawyer, responses. Yours included. Which I've grown accustomed to, but still don't care for.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

So I'm a little late joining the fray and it's possible I missed a page or two of this thread but I think a lot of this is surprisingly straightforward. First of all, in a vaccum, it's blatantly obvious that the Bulls would be better this season than PJ/Tyrus/Sweets. 

It's extremely difficult to convince me that if the Bulls had two homegrown, face of the franchise type players in Curry and Chandler that they would've made and that Wallace would've accepted overtures to make him a third frontcourt rotation player. I'm not aware of any example of this type of signing taking place in the NBA.

Might we have had some cap space to sign another contributor who would've helped us instead? Yes but this gets into one of the countless different unanswerable questions that makes this question meaningless in practice. If we'd signed another player for Big Ben money we would've had to trade someone eventually because we would've become too close to the salary cap. How would that have worked out? No one knows. Who will we draft this season and how good will the be? No one knows yet obviously this has a major bearing on the Curry deal. These endless permutations go on and on so that eventually it's hard to say what we're even debating anymore. You can only simplify a complicated situation so much.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> The reason it matters is obvious.
> 
> The Bulls need a big man post scorer. Just ask Paxson.
> 
> ...


Maybe we beat the odds, get Oden, and win a half dozen championships. Maybe we get Hawes around 8 or 10 and he becomes a 15 PPG post scorer. Maybe Tyrus averages 15 PPG and we win a couple championships without a traditional back to the basket scorer or Tyrus becomes that player. It's all very hard to say at this point. Curry provides post scoring and very little else. If five years from now the Bulls haven't gone anywhere and it appears that a lack of post scoring is the problem there's a solid argument that keeping Curry would've made a real difference. Right now there's no indication that Curry would get us a title this season or that a lack of a post scorer will be the difference between major success in a couple season so I don't find the Eddy arguments terribly compelling right now. 

Some people might be overly hard on Eddy but I think it's pretty clear that he's a rather one dimensional player, that he had a poor game last night, and that he needlessly ran his mouth after the game. I have nothing against Eddy and would love to have him on the team if all else were equal. I'm going to do more than hope we can get it done in the playoffs. I believe we can get it done because this team has earned that respect with their success regardless of whether they fall short of or exceed expecations in the playoffs. I'm not going to start wondering what went wrong unless they do fail in the playoffs and at that point I'm still not going to be completely convinced that Eddy was the missing ingredient; there's a lot of nuance there.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

2004-05 scoring details
http://www.82games.com/0405CHI3.HTM
67% jumpers
27% close
4% dunks
2% tips

2006-07 scoring details
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607CHI3.HTM
67% jumpers
27% close
4% dunks
2% tips

I'm a bit miffed, I was expecting some kind of discrepancy between now and then.
how do they arrive at these numbers btw?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



RoRo said:


> 2004-05 scoring details
> http://www.82games.com/0405CHI3.HTM
> 67% jumpers
> 27% close
> ...


Dallas
72% jumpers
24% close
3% dunk
1% tip

Detroit
66% jumpers
26% close
5% dunk
3% tip

Houston
67% jumpers
29% close
2% dunk
2% tips

Phoenix
67% jumpers
25% close
6% dunk
1% tips

San Antonio
67% jumpers
29% close
2% dunk
1% tips

We're nothing but a jump shooting team and obviously have no shot at advancing in the playoffs without a legitmate post presence.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Rhyder said:


> Dallas
> 72% jumpers
> 24% close
> 3% dunk
> ...


+1


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Rhyder said:


> Dallas
> 72% jumpers
> 24% close
> 3% dunk
> ...


Anybody notice that the Suns dunk percentage is fairly high. A little Steve Nash set-up potion perhaps.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



MikeDC said:


> Actually it's very different. Despite being a contrarian, a guy like K4E rarely has a negative word to say about anyone. He's a good guy who treats other people well and is a big time Bulls fan.
> 
> On the other hand, Matrix (who was tolerated and protected far too long) was rightly banned for continually attacking other posters, several racist rants, and some other creepy, sort of stalkerish behavior.
> 
> Unless K4E starts down that path, I guess I'll just get it out of the way and state the obvious. He's in no danger at all of being banned whatsoever.


K4E sent me a series of insulting, baiting, and offensive PM's and has goaded me into personal off-topic banter both on the boards and off. Did I deserve it? Maybe. Did I reply to defend myself? Of course. I just discovered them in my BB.net inbox, funny stuff actually. K4E was mad because I thought Sosa was done after he was traded from the Cubs in '05... so we traded some barbs back and forth. No lasting harm done, I think.

Everyone whose passionate about the Bulls will in turn become passionate about defending their own views and opinions. And yes, things get personal with all parties involved. But IMO K4E while clearly a fan, has been given a longer leash than most. Fine by me, but it gets tiring seeing the SSDD on the boards all the time. JMHO, edit this as you will.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



T.Shock said:


> Anybody notice that the Suns dunk percentage is fairly high. A little Steve Nash set-up potion perhaps.


Well, that I could guess, but Detroit's numbers were a little surprising to me.

Their offense clicks when its on, I guess.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

All I know is that it's up to you guys Tom to make this place attractive to new posters. If you'd rather have bbb.net be a little private club, than so be it. There's no law that it has to be for everyone.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> All I know is that it's up to you guys Tom to make this place attractive to new posters. If you'd rather have bbb.net be a little private club, than so be it. There's no law that it has to be for everyone.


I'm not following you there --

Of course we want to make the place attractive to new posters.

We seem to be having an internal disagreement about how to go about that, what/who the actual problems are and who the "victims" are, if any.


I did share your PM of the other day with the others, Slim, FWIW.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I did share your PM of the other day with the others, Slim, FWIW.


I'm not sure that's a good thing, eh whatever.

Hey for the third time K4E, will you answer my question in this thread? Pretty please?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> In other words, we COULD still have Curry, Crawford and Chandler along with Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Nocioni, and Wallace. We can say that with certainty. *Our GM has talked publicly about the need for a defensive big and a post scorer and we had them (and 47 wins, too).*


I think the problem with the statement I bolded is that we had a defensive big AND a post scorer, but they were two different players. Frankly, I think Pax is looking for a defensive big WHO IS a post scorer.

Neither a defensive big nor a post scorer are rare commodities in the NBA. Those who are both, however, are all-stars. I think that both Curry and Chandler were suck labor intensive players that eventually the coach/gm decided that it might be better to cut bait and go in a different direction. I'm still convinced it was the right decision in both cases.

If either player develops into an all-star game changing player, then they will have done well for themselves. As I see it, if both guys were injured all year, I don't see their team's record suffering at all.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BhY1fxQXa3A"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BhY1fxQXa3A" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

> One common trait of all great big men is that they were great rebounders relative to their era. When I look at a big, I look at the ability to rebound.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-070412

This is a quote from Greg Anthony on ESPN.

I guess that rules out EC.

Chandler maybe some hope but as I said I don't see any point in having Chandler AND Ben Wallace, they are redundant.

One thing I was thinking about was what is the delta for swapping Curry/Chandler for Sweets/PJ/Tyrus?

Do we get 5 more wins, 10 more wins? Do we score 30 more ppg? Do we go one level higher in the playoffs because of them?

If you take the total ppg for S/P/T which is around 10 subtract that and add Curry/Chandler which is around 30 ppg. Do we start averaging 110 ppg as a team?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Wynn said:


> I think the problem with the statement I bolded is that we had a defensive big AND a post scorer, but they were two different players. Frankly, I think Pax is looking for a defensive big WHO IS a post scorer.
> 
> Neither a defensive big nor a post scorer are rare commodities in the NBA. Those who are both, however, are all-stars. I think that both Curry and Chandler were suck labor intensive players that eventually the coach/gm decided that it might be better to cut bait and go in a different direction. I'm still convinced it was the right decision in both cases.
> 
> If either player develops into an all-star game changing player, then they will have done well for themselves. As I see it, if both guys were injured all year, I don't see their team's record suffering at all.


My view is that there are times in the game when you want post scoring and there are times when you get sick of watching Ben Wallace get posted up by some 7' guy who scores at will. Chandler and Curry fit those needs, and I do think they are real needs for this club.

I agree that a great two-way player is near impossible to get, which is why teams platoon and a platoon for us makes sense.

I do disagree that New Orleans would be the same record without Chandler. For much of the season, they were fighting for the 8th seed (they're still 1 game out for that) while missing Peja (all but 13 games), West (for 30 games), Paul (for 18 games), Brown (for 24 games), and Bobby Jackson (for 26 games). The Hornets are on the bubble in spite of playing guys like Pargo and Linton Johnson more minutes than they deserve.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> I do disagree that New Orleans would be the same record without Chandler. For much of the season, they were fighting for the 8th seed (they're still 1 game out for that) while missing Peja (all but 13 games), West (for 30 games), Paul (for 18 games), Brown (for 24 games), and Bobby Jackson (for 26 games). The Hornets are on the bubble in spite of playing guys like Pargo and Linton Johnson more minutes than they deserve.


Well, Chandler went down at the end of the Milwaukee game, since then there were 4 games w/o Chandler and they lost 1 to Phoenix. With the other guys out you mentioned they lost many more than they won.

So it does seem that the reality is the Hornets CAN live w/o Chandler. I defintely think he has had an impace there, but it seems West who is back is having a greater impact an actual w/l record and Chris Paul is really the guy that has turned that team around. When he went down they were lost.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Orange Julius Irving said:


> Well, Chandler went down at the end of the Milwaukee game, since then there were 4 games w/o Chandler and they lost 1 to Phoenix. With the other guys out you mentioned they lost many more than they won.
> 
> So it does seem that the reality is the Hornets CAN live w/o Chandler. I defintely think he has had an impace there, but it seems West who is back is having a greater impact an actual w/l record and Chris Paul is really the guy that has turned that team around. When he went down they were lost.


Paul is awesome. Losing a player of his talent is sure to put a hurt on any team. The Hornets lost 6 of their first 7 when he went down, then went 7-4 the rest of the time he was out. West came back for the last 7 games of that stretch and New Orleans was 4-3.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> Do you think the Bulls would be the consensus favorites to win the championship this year of they still had Curry and Chandler as oppossed to Tyrus and Wallace?


I doubt there would be any consensus on who would win the NBA Title this season, regardless of scenario.

I really don't know how to predict "consensus." I was stunned when every ESPN analyst picked the Saints over the Bears in the playoffs. I guess that it was the "consensus" opinion, but it was dead wrong, and I would not have predicted it (or cared).


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

This is easy, YES! I would rather have Curry and Chandler and Wallace instead of Sweets/PJ and Tyrus. IIRC I believe Tyson started coming off the bench last year to bring energy and that worked out well. I think coming off the bench and being Big Ben's backup for a year or two would really benifet Tyson immensly. He could watch the great defender Ben is and learn how to play smarter and gain respect from the referees. Curry would obviously start and be the low post scorer we haven't had since HIM. He was averaging about 16 ppg in his last season with the Bulls and if we kept him I would say he would be puting up around 20-22 ppg with us but fewer rebounds because Wallace/Chandler would rack up the rebs.

Think about this,

Hinrich
Gordon
Deng/Nocioni
Curry/Tyrus?
Wallace/Chandler

Who knows maybe we would have still drafted Tyrus in plans for him to become a SF making Deng more expendable or maybe we draft Brandon Roy making Gordon more expendable which would be the more logical thing IMO. Its hard for me to say that because I love TT  .

Your talking about a Title contender probably a number 1 seed in the East with this. How do you handle Curry in the post with Wallace doing the dirty work getting putbacks and offensive rebounds. Also with Curry just think of the big inside out game with Gordon and Hinrich, not to mention the big lanes opening up for Luol to drive right through because of the spacing Curry provides. 

Typing this makes me almost wince at what could/should have been, o well, I'll get over it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

On TNT at halftime of the Nets/Cavs game, Kenny Smith picked Chander as his choice for DPOY.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> On TNT at halftime of the Nets/Cavs game, Kenny Smith picked Chander as his choice for DPOY.


Omg are you serious? Dang that sucks. I mean im glad for Tyson but man...

I still think Big Ben will win it. People don't see the intangibles he brings that you don't see on the stat sheet and thats the first thing I noticed when he came here. He is the best defender in the paint there is in the game today PERIOD!! He is quick enough to get a steal and strong enough to defend some of the better big men in the game. I don't think Chandler, as much as I like him, has shown these characteristics in his game yet at the level Big Ben plays at.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Still don't understand how people have Ben Wallace together with the 2C's, he wouldn't of received a double digit salary, let alone what was offered. Then there is the issue of him joining the team when we already have the two youngsters.



> Who knows maybe we would have still drafted Tyrus in plans for him to become a SF making Deng more expendable or maybe we draft Brandon Roy making Gordon more expendable which would be the more logical thing IMO. Its hard for me to say that because I love TT .


Without the Curry trade we wouldn't have the draft pick, meaning no Roy, Aldridge, or Thomas.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



T-Time said:


> Omg are you serious? Dang that sucks. I mean im glad for Tyson but man...
> 
> I still think Big Ben will win it. People don't see the intangibles he brings that you don't see on the stat sheet and thats the first thing I noticed when he came here. He is the best defender in the paint there is in the game today PERIOD!! He is quick enough to get a steal and strong enough to defend some of the better big men in the game. I don't think Chandler, as much as I like him, has shown these characteristics in his game yet at the level Big Ben plays at.


Smith talked a lot about the combination of rebounds and blocked shots.

FWIW, Reggie Miller chose Camby and Barkley chose the whole Spurs team. Right before the break, they asked Charles who's going to be the MVP, the Western Conference?

Funny stuff.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

I think Kenny Smith knows what he is talking about but I'll have to disagree with him on this. Sure I would have enjoyed Tyson playing here this year IF.. he would play at the same level he does in NOK. 

I just think a change of scenery was great for him. He didn't have the pressure of Chicago and that contract to live out in Chitown and moved to NOK who are a young and up and coming team that he can thrive off of, especially with a PG in Chris Paul.

My point is, Wallace brings more of a complete defensive game than Tyson does. He stays out of foul trouble and like I said before, he can stick with a bigger man using his quickness and strength, something of which Chandler doesn't have... More on the strength for him.. I wouldn't be mad if he won it, I just think Wallace deserves it more.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



kukoc4ever said:


> I doubt there would be any consensus on who would win the NBA Title this season, regardless of scenario.


Well you're asking us to consider (imagine) a 2006-2007 season with Curry and Chandler aren't you? (your thread topic)


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



T.Shock said:


> Anybody notice that the Suns dunk percentage is fairly high. A little Steve Nash set-up potion perhaps.


I actually think it is a result of how fast they get down the court and set up their offense. The transition game is the most likely way to set up a high percentage of dunk opportunities. And yes, I think Nash is a driving force in that equation.

I was actually surprised that the Bulls were leading a few of the elite teams in dunk % as well. It's probably an indication of how good our ball movement is when the offense is on.

Tyrus and Deng are really the only two playing above the rim with any regularity.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

remlover said:


> Holy Gazookas, can't believe there is a 10 page thread to this question. How many times are we going to go over the same topic time and time again?
> 
> K4E: The horse is dead, stop beating it!


That's your call, and you're free to ignore this thread entirely if you wish to. 

k4e's opinion doesn't register with everyone, but he's still entitled to it. Ignore him if he bothers you that much, but otherwise (if you choose to reply to his threads) stay on topic...


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Rhyder said:


> We're nothing but a jump shooting team and obviously have no shot at advancing in the playoffs without a legitmate post presence.


I meant this as sarcasm, and realize after re-reading that it came out more harsh than I intended it. Apologies...


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Rhyder said:


> I meant this as sarcasm, and realize after re-reading that it came out more harsh than I intended it. Apologies...


no need imo. this was one of the few times i could read sarcasm on the first try. 
putting the bulls inside/outside numbers with all those contending teams (who have similar distribution) was good enough


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



RoRo said:


> no need imo. this was one of the few times i could read sarcasm on the first try.
> putting the bulls inside/outside numbers with all those contending teams (who have similar distribution) was good enough


I felt I was attacking your post as well as the idealogy of a lot of fans of the team on this board a little more aggressively than I actually meant it.

No harm intended.

I do agree that post scoring is our largest weakness. I also think we would benefit from having another bench shooter even if we believe that we rely too much on the outside shot. I miss having a player like Piatkowski or Pargo on the bench, even if their contributions were limited.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

remlover said:


> Holy Gazookas, can't believe there is a 10 page thread to this question. How many times are we going to go over the same topic time and time again?
> 
> K4E: The horse is dead, stop beating it!


As frustrated as I sometimes get with the Curry/Chandler thing coming up over and over, I've come to realize it is not, in fact, a dead horse. This thread has been nasty at times, but it is 150+ posts deep in just a day or so. It is easily the most active thread we've had in weeks.

There are plenty of other topics on the first page and all the rest are slowly slipping down, with a handful of responses, if that.

Like it or not, a lot of people still choose to participate in the Curry/Chandler back and forth, and while it seems safe to say not much new comes out of it, it seems to be what people want to talk about, given the chance.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> That's your call, and you're free to ignore this thread entirely if you wish to.
> 
> k4e's opinion doesn't register with everyone, but he's still entitled to it. Ignore him if he bothers you that much, but otherwise (if you choose to reply to his threads) stay on topic...



What opinion does he have? Look at his first three posts on this thread and tell me where his "opinion" is. Most people when they start a poll like this offer their opinion about the matter in the initial post. The "point" comes into play with this thread because you see posters offering their honest opinions and K4E cherry picks them in a sarcastic and condescending manner of "you're not following the rules of what I want this thread to be".

And that's pretty much all the thread is. Read it again.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> It is easily the most active thread we've had in weeks.



and a sad commentary on the state of this forum, imo.

:|


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> What opinion does he have?


Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the functionality of this website.

Look up at the poll that you voted on.

Click the hyperlink that represents the number of yes or no votes.

You'll see the string "kukoc4ever" next to the "Yes" option.

This indicates that my opinion is "Yes."

Why say no when it feels so good to say yes?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> What opinion does he have? Look at his first three posts on this thread and tell me where his "opinion" is. Most people when they start a poll like this offer their opinion about the matter in the initial post. The "point" comes into play with this thread because you see posters offering their honest opinions and K4E cherry picks them in a sarcastic and condescending manner of "you're not following the rules of what I want this thread to be".
> 
> And that's pretty much all the thread is. Read it again.


I read through this thread. Aside from a lot of really good posts, particularly about inside/outside/dunk %'s by teams, I saw that K4E answered your question, yet you persist in re-asking it. Why is that?

I'll be specific.

Would the bulls be better *this season* with Curry/Chandler or ... ? His *opinion* is YES. he's already stated that having Curry/Chandler does not guarantee a championship. In fact, that's a reasonable position and a fair answer. Would we be better off with Pargo and Griffin as our backcourt? For the same reason, we can have higher confidence with Curry/Chandler. That's how I read it.

While I'm at it, what's the point of your signature? Surely it promotes good will.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the functionality of this website.
> 
> Look up at the poll that you voted on.
> 
> ...


That's obvious. I understand that it gives you more malleability the less you actually say.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> While I'm at it, what's the point of your signature? Surely it promotes good will.


What is the point of yours? To me it looks like another poster's opinion about basketball that you wanted to share with the rest of us. :whoknows:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> What is the point of yours? To me it looks like another poster's opinion about basketball that you wanted to share with the rest of us. :whoknows:


If you truly think my signature offends other posters, feel free to say so. I'd actually be quite happy to change it. The point is to be humorous at nobody's expense.

EDIT: in fact, I did change it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

Danke
:cheers:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I edited mine too. 

I feel like eating some pizza.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I just want to put it on record that my response to King Joseus was deleted in this thread. The post was not mean spirited by any means. I will admit it was a smart butt response (included a cartoon picture of a horse being beaten), however it should not have been deleted in my opinion without the mod contacting me.

I agree with Miz that it is a sad commentary for this forum that this thread is one of the more active ones. To constantly see the same type of posts/threads about Jamal, Curry, Chandler and the what ifs get really old quick. They are constantly recycled and my guess will continued to be recycled in the coming years.

EDIT: I did get a message and i have been "WARNED" for baiting, i will obviously dispute this.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

so if i were to capsulize this thread, had all the participants answered succinctly "yes" or "no", this thread might have been, what, a page or 2 at most? :rofl2:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> As frustrated as I sometimes get with the Curry/Chandler thing coming up over and over, I've come to realize it is not, in fact, a dead horse. This thread has been nasty at times, but it is 150+ posts deep in just a day or so. It is easily the most active thread we've had in weeks.
> 
> There are plenty of other topics on the first page and all the rest are slowly slipping down, with a handful of responses, if that.
> 
> *Like it or not, a lot of people still choose to participate in the Curry/Chandler back and forth, and while it seems safe to say not much new comes out of it, it seems to be what people want to talk about, given the chance.*


Well, there is a lot of truth to that. 

However, it seems to me that a substantial portion of this thread, probably a majority of it, was spent not on answering the question raised but on: 

(a) complaints by multiple posters regarding the existence of the thread;

(b) questions regarding the point of the thread;

(c) debate over the accuracy of the manner in which the poll was composed;

(d) and just general ill will between the posters.

While it has undeniably been an active thread, the activity, for the most part, has absolutely nothing to do with basketball and even less to do with Curry and Chandler specifically. 

I disagree that posters want to discuss this topic. I think most of us would much rather focus on this season, this coming offseason, the playoffs and playoff positioning. Indeed, for almost a month now that has been pretty much all we have been talking about until a specific poster - this is not an insult, it is simply an accurate statement - that typically likes to engage this topic of discussion returned after a long absence and started this thread. 

And by and large the resulting discussion that has stretched this thread to 11 pages now really had very little to do with the topic of origin.

For the most part, I don't think board participants enjoy discussing this issue. I think they feel compelled to respond to it when a extremely small minority raises it again and again and again. I think there is a difference there. 

I think what we want to talk about it is what is happening right now in what is the most exciting and successful time in Bulls' basketball in almost 9 years. 

Other threads might not be as long as this one, but they are pretty much on point from post to post to post, because its a real discussion. This thread is the polar opposite. And the reason is because it inflames people, not because people are genuinely looking to discuss it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron --

Part of the problem we are having right now is complaints from staff about "armchair moderators."

I always appreciate your input when you see a problem, but that is probably best left to a PM -- especially given the general ugliness of the past couple of days.

As to whether people want to talk about it or not, nobody is forcing anyone to click on this thread or to post a response. There are lots of other threads out there, but everyone is gravitating here.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ron --
> 
> Part of the problem we are having right now is complaints from staff about "armchair moderators."
> 
> ...


Okay. That wasn't my intent. I was just throwing my 2 cents into what I thought was an active discussion. 

Not a problem. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, there is a lot of truth to that.
> 
> However, it seems to me that a substantial portion of this thread, probably a majority of it, was spent not on answering the question raised but on:
> 
> ...


Ron Cey puts it much better than me I have to admit.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

Can't you guys find something more interesting to talk about? Is this forum about talking about why you don't want a bunch of people to post anymore, or is it about the Bulls?

Go start your own 150+ post threads if you think you have something actually interesting to say.

My $.02


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> Can't you guys find something more interesting to talk about?





TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> It is easily the most active thread we've had in weeks.


:none: 

Back to basketball.

So kukoc4ever, you think that even though the Bulls would be better (assuming no Ben Wallace on Bulls) with Curry and Chandler this season, the Bulls wouldn't be considered as favorites to win the championship. Let's lower that a bit. How about consensus favorites in the east over Pistons and Heat?

^I hope there's no "tone" in this. And I really would enjoy a response that isn't so condescending and snotty. I DO want to talk about the subject at hand, and I DO want to hear and understand your opinions. No games, no bs, let's really try to keep this about basketball. Pretend like we're chummy.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

To answer the original question, yes.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> To answer the original question, yes.


Now that you answered the question, can you answer me an off-topic question of "how much better?"


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> Now that you answered the question, can you answer me an off-topic question of "how much better?"


The Vegas style sportsbooks use odds to place a certainty on this kind of thing. No team is ever a sure thing, though you might find that one is favored more than the others. 

Bulls are currently 30:1 to win the championship. They were 30:1 to start the season (as were the Grizzlies, btw, who are now off the board).

Dallas are the favorites at 9:5, with Phoenix and San Antonio close at 2:1.

How much better is the question...

10:1 or 8:1.

IMO


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> The Vegas style sportsbooks use odds to place a certainty on this kind of thing. No team is ever a sure thing, though you might find that one is favored more than the others.
> 
> Bulls are currently 30:1 to win the championship. They were 30:1 to start the season (as were the Grizzlies, btw, who are now off the board).
> 
> ...


You say they would have more than twice a better chance?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> You say they would have more than twice a better chance?


Sure.

My reasoning is that we wouldn't have any glaring holes, a similar record, playing strong going into the playoffs. But lack of victories in any playoff series, and strength of opponents (gotta go through Detroit and Miami at some point), and the strength of the Western Conference teams (three top favored teams are there) lends doubt.

FWIW

The heat are 10:1 right now and Detroit and Houston are 8:1. I'm saying we'd be a LOT closer to Detroit.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> Sure.
> 
> My reasoning is that we wouldn't have any glaring holes, a similar record, playing strong going into the playoffs. But lack of victories in any playoff series, and strength of opponents (gotta go through Detroit and Miami at some point), and the strength of the Western Conference teams (three top favored teams are there) lends doubt.
> 
> ...


And you said the Bulls are currently at 30:1 now right?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> And you said the Bulls are currently at 30:1 now right?


<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="bottom"><td height="40">Future Book Odds</td> <td align="right"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr color="#e0ae3f" size="1"></td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="table_title" align="left" valign="bottom"><td bgcolor="#e7a206"> ODDS TO WIN THE 2006-2007 NBA FINALS</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="sportPicksBorder" style="border-bottom: 0px none;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="table_title" valign="bottom"><td class="sportPicksBorderL" bgcolor="#d7bb7a"> Team</td><td class="sportPicksBorderL" align="center" bgcolor="#d7bb7a">Open</td><td class="sportPicksBorderR" align="center" bgcolor="#d7bb7a">Current</td></tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Atlanta Hawks</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 100/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> XXXX</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Boston Celtics</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 40/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> XXXX</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Charlotte Bobcats</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 75/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> XXXX</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Memphis Grizzlies</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 30/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> XXXX</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Milwaukee Bucks</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 40/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> XXXX</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Minnesota Timberwolves</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 50/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> XXXX</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Portland Trail Blazers</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 300/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> XXXX</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Sacramento Kings</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 25/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> XXXX</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Seattle SuperSonics</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 60/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> XXXX</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Dallas Mavericks</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 4/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 9/5</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Phoenix Suns</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 6/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 2/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> San Antonio Spurs</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 9/2</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 2/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Detroit Pistons</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 5/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 8/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Houston Rockets</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 20/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 8/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Miami Heat</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 9/2</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 10/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Cleveland Cavaliers</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 12/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 15/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Denver Nuggets</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 20/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 18/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Utah Jazz</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 50/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 20/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Chicago Bulls</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 30/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 30/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Toronto Raptors</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 150/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 30/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Golden State Warriors</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 75/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 40/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Los Angeles Lakers</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 30/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 40/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> New Jersey Nets</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 15/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 40/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Los Angeles Clippers</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 20/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 60/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Orlando Magic</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 40/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 75/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Washington Wizards</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 35/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 150/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> Indiana Pacers</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 25/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 250/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> New York Knicks</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 150/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 1000/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> New Orleans Hornets</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 60/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fffbf7"> 2000/1</td> </tr> <tr class="table_title" align="center" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="left" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> Philadelphia 76ers</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderL2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 35/1</td> <td class="sportPicksBorderR2" align="center" bgcolor="#fdf6e5"> 2000/1</td> </tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table> 
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr align="left" valign="bottom"><td class="table_title">Event Date: 01/08/08</td></tr><tr align="left" valign="bottom"><td class="table_title">Updated: Tue, Apr 10 10:30 a.m. EDT</td></tr><tr align="left" valign="bottom"><td class="table_title">All bets are action regardless of team relocation(s), name change(s), or division/conference realignment(s).</td></tr><tr align="left" valign="bottom"><td class="table_title">All bets are actoin as long as a champion is declared, regardless of season length or playoff format.</td></tr><tr align="left" valign="bottom"><td class="table_title">New Orleans Hornets are expected to play home games in New Orleans and Oklahoma City.</td></tr></tbody></table>


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

I'd point out the oddsmakers aren't "homers" for any team, their objective is to not lose money on the bets 

I'd also point out they seem to think our chances are the same as Toronto's. 

For the record, I didn't answer the poll yet, but my answer is yes, and I think the oddsmakers are pretty spot on.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> I'd point out the oddsmakers aren't "homers" for any team, their objective is to not lose money on the bets
> 
> I'd also point out they seem to think our chances are the same as Toronto's.
> 
> For the record, I didn't answer the poll yet, but my answer is yes, and I think the oddsmakers are pretty spot on.


You think we have the same chance as Toronto? None of those guys have any playoff experience whatsover (Mo. Pete maybe? Rasho?).


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Now that you answered the question, can you answer me an off-topic question of "how much better?"


In a vacuum, Tyson/Eddy is much, much better than PJ/Sweets/Tyrus. Probably the difference between 5-6 wins throughout the course of a regular season.

However I think the comparison is pretty flawed, and that the real question is a bit more involved, since it requires evaluating a variety of theoretical outcomes that may or may not have happened as a result of us keeping Curry and Chandler. But I'll take my best shot. 

If we had Curry/Chandler, I think there's about a 10% chance that we would have Wallace as well.

And probably a 30-40% chance that we woul have had some additional, lower tier frontcourt player that was acquired in addition to Chandler/Curry.

For the sake of this season, I don't think we would have traded any of the core to accomodate the salaries of Eddy or Tyson. (I'm not saying that wouldn't happen, but probably not until this offseason or later). But for the sake of this discussion let's say that there was a 20% chance that we would have traded off someone valuable to make way for Curry or Chandler. (And then you can get into the question of which player would be traded off, and assign probabilities to that, but I don't have the time to go there).

So, I think the best way to look at the question is to compare the 60% chance of having just Eddy and Tyson as our frontcourt principles, the 10% chance of having Tyson/Eddy/Wallace frontcourt principles, and the 30% chance of of having Tyson/Eddy/someone fairly mediocre as the frontcourt principles. And to be more thorough, we'd have to cross reference those 3 scenarios with the 20% chance that keeping those guys would mean getting rid of someone else.

So, our comparison looks like this: (for this season, of course)

60% chance: Tyson/Eddy/rest of team
12%: Tyson/Eddy/ rest of team minus one player
30%: Tyson/Eddy/someone mediocre/rest of team
7%: Tyson/Eddy/someone mediocre/ rest of team minus one player
10%: Tyson/Eddy/Wallace/rest of team
2%: Tyson/Eddy/Wallace/rest of team minus one player

And to compare those different scenarios to the Wallace/Thomas/PJ/Sweets frontcourt with our present team.

Looking at the above scenarios, I see one that is clearly favorable to what we have. It's the 10% likelihood that we have Tyson/Eddy/Wallace and the rest of the additional team.

I think the 60% likelihood of having Tyson/Eddy with the rest of team would be pretty comparable to where we are at right now, +/- 2 or 3 wins. 

The rest I think are worse than where we are at right now. 

So, it's a question of which you would prefer: The 10% chance that we'd be much better, the 60% chance that we'd be about the same as we are right now, or the 30% chance that we'd be worse, and would you rather play those odds against what we have now.

Concerning strictly THIS season, I'd go with the 10% chance at greatness. 

However, if you want to attach future performance to the different scenarios, I like the team we have. Since we have Thabo (a player who we may not have been able to attain if we hadn't gotten rid of Curry and Chandler), and a reasonably good chance at finding a capable big man through the draft, which should be an ample, if not perfect replacement for Curry and Chandler, particularly when you add it to the guys we added due to the absence of T&E, which compliments the players we should be able to add quite well.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> You think we have the same chance as Toronto? None of those guys have any playoff experience whatsover (Mo. Pete maybe? Rasho?).


30:1 aren't particularly good odds to win it, are they? 

The odds say we have a similar (identical) chance to win it, but not much of a chance.

I am not an oddsmaker, so I am just using my own sense of things.

I should also point out that the lines move (are moved) to try to get people to bet evenly on both sides so the casino doesn't have to make some major payout at a loss. When people are putting their money on the line, it does say more to me than a poll like this (though with 1M responses, it'd be quite interesting).

If they have to set the lines at $30 for every $1 you bet to entice people to take the bet, it does say something about the bulls' actual chances. 

I do think this is a quite reasonable way to look at answering your question.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> 30:1 aren't particularly good odds to win it, are they?
> 
> The odds say we have a similar (identical) chance to win it, but not much of a chance.
> 
> ...


Cool, I'm glad to see this thread is going somewhere.

+1


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> I'd point out the oddsmakers aren't "homers" for any team, their objective is to not lose money on the bets
> 
> I'd also point out they seem to think our chances are the same as Toronto's.
> 
> For the record, I didn't answer the poll yet, but my answer is yes, and I think the oddsmakers are pretty spot on.


Agree that oddsmakers don't give a rat's tail about who wins, and as such, are far more objective than us poor starry-eyed optimist fans. For those Bulls fans who are bummed about the 30-1 odds and the idea that the Bulls' chances are the same as the Raptors, try this site:

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/basketball-futures.jsp

The Bulls are 18-1 on this one to win it all and the Raptors are 38-1. However, if you're bummed about the idea that the Pistons have a 3X better chance than the Bulls or that the Bulls aren't even considered the second most likely EC team to win the championship, alas, this site won't help you. The Pistons are 5-1 and the Heat are 7-1 to win it all. The Bulls are ahead of the Cavs on this one though.

I'm not much of a betting man, but I think 18-1 is reasonable. The Bulls simply aren't an elite team at this point.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> Cool, I'm glad to see this thread is going somewhere.
> 
> +1


If you had to set the odds, what would they be?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*

Here's another one:

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=nba/odds/futures.htm

2007 PRO BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP
TEAM LINE
DALLAS	3-2 
PHOENIX	4-1 
SAN ANTONIO	9-2 
DETROIT	7-1 
MIAMI	12-1 
CHICAGO	18-1 
HOUSTON	18-1 
CLEVELAND	22-1 
UTAH	33-1 
TORONTO	35-1 
DENVER	50-1 
LOS ANGELES L	60-1 
NEW JERSEY	85-1 
WASHINGTON	100-1 
LOS ANGELES C	150-1 
ORLANDO	150-1 
GOLDEN STATE	175-1 
INDIANA	250-1 
NEW ORLEANS	250-1


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



transplant said:


> Agree that oddsmakers don't give a rat's tail about who wins, and as such, are far more objective than us poor starry-eyed optimist fans. For those Bulls fans who are bummed about the 30-1 odds and the idea that the Bulls' chances are the same as the Raptors, try this site:
> 
> http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/basketball-futures.jsp
> 
> ...


The lines I gave are from vegasinsider.com

This site:
http://www.sportsinteraction.com/sportsbook/index.cfm?section=events&eventTypeID=22

Has the bulls at 21:1 and Toronto at 17:1

http://www.donbest.com/website/html/futures/bk.shtml
DonBest.com (well known Vegas site):
Bulls 30/1, Toronto 30/1
Those odds are from the Mirage sportsbook (Mirage is one of the strip casinos)


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> If you had to set the odds, what would they be?


I'm not a better, so I'm not sure how to crumble that cookie.

But in reference to Transplants post above, I think that Miami being raked ahead of the Bulls is fair if you base, and the Cavs being ranked behind is fair too since they're weaker since the All-star break. 

But these odds don't always tell the whole story though. A big X-factor is Dwyane Wade, without him I don't put the Heat ahead of the Bulls.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



transplant said:


> Here's another one:
> 
> http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=nba/odds/futures.htm
> 
> ...


Wow, that's an interesting matchup; Bulls and Houston.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> Wow, that's an interesting matchup; Bulls and Houston.


Again, I'm not a better, but I don't read this as remotely saying that the Bulls and Houston are equal teams. The fact that Houston has to find a way out of the West hurts them big time. I'm sure if both teams managed to make it to the finals, Houston would be heavily favored...but I sure would love to see it.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



Electric Slim said:


> Wow, that's an interesting matchup; Bulls and Houston.


A rational expectations bettor would not bet on any of the western conference teams at the odds that are being quoted. One of the eastern conference teams is bound to make the finals, and that team will have a decent (say, 1:3) chance of winning it all. So a bet on any, or all, of the eastern conference leaders is a rational expectations winner.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

First, I'd like to apologize for saying I'm not a "better." The correct spelling is "bettor," and I'm still not one of them.

This being said, I know enough to advise that IF any of you are bettors and want to put a few nickels on the Bulls winning it all this season, run, do not walk, to the site Dabullz originally cited. From what I can tell, 30-1 is as good as it gets.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



transplant said:


> First, I'd like to apologize for saying I'm not a "better." The correct spelling is "bettor," and I'm still not one of them.
> 
> This being said, I know enough to advise that IF any of you are bettors and want to put a few nickels on the Bulls winning it all this season, run, do not walk, to the site Dabullz originally cited. From what I can tell, 30-1 is as good as it gets.


You're a better if not a bettor.

I did some calling around. Each casino is able to set its own odds, though the vegas ones see the vast majority of the betting dollars. Bodog and those other sites have a captive audience - people who would bet online rather than traveling to someplace it's legit, so they can make worse offers. 

The Vegas casinos do use a single source for their odds, though some make a slight slant in the odds to attract the bettors they know personally would bet one way or the other.

FWIW


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



transplant said:


> Again, I'm not a better, but I don't read this as remotely saying that the Bulls and Houston are equal teams. The fact that Houston has to find a way out of the West hurts them big time. I'm sure if both teams managed to make it to the finals, Houston would be heavily favored...but I sure would love to see it.


I think this is correct.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Would the Bulls be better this season with Curry/Chandler instead of Sweets/PJ/Ty*



DaBullz said:


> You're a better if not a bettor.
> 
> I did some calling around. Each casino is able to set its own odds, though the vegas ones see the vast majority of the betting dollars. Bodog and those other sites have a captive audience - people who would bet online rather than traveling to someplace it's legit, so they can make worse offers.
> 
> ...


Yeah, this makes sense. However, not all the odds on the "web only" sites are worse. For instance, if you want to bet the Cavs, it looks like you're better off at the web-only sites.

The main thing I was interested in were the relationships, not the actual odds. To use your example, it makes no logical sense to me that the Raptors should have the same odds as the Bulls since neither is an elite team, both are very good at home (not so good on the road) and if the season ended today, the Bulls would have the home court advantage for 2 series and the Raptors would face the Pistons in the second round.


----------

