# Pax was on The Score today...



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=414558&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12


thanks to shinky...and cochise, treis and dougthonus for the recaps.

i'll try and post the audible once The Score has it on their site.


EDIT: thanks to spongyfungy for this heads up - the links have finally been fixed at the Score and the pax interview from 9/6 is on the site. i'm posting them in the sticky thread! 

http://www.670thescore.com/audibles/


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...7bulls,1,2967812.story?coll=cs-home-headlines




> John Paxson isn't pursuing a sign-and-trade for Eddy Curry, the Bulls general manager said Wednesday in an interview on WSCR-AM 670.
> 
> "If we were to do it, we'd have to get something we really like in return, and I don't think that's very realistic," Paxson said.
> 
> ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

That's just wierd about Pax asking for the DNA test. I don't think it's legal. Look for the Players Association lawyers to file a grevience if it comes to that. Not a great way to get Curry pumped about Chicago either now or when he is a UFA after going the QO route.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

3 weeks and change until october.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> 3 weeks and change until october.


...and a multi-year deal is on the table for Eddy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> ...and a multi-year deal is on the table for Eddy.


Clearly not to his liking.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

So, what do you suggest? From your tone (not limited to this thread alone), it seems that you think that Paxson has not exhausted all options when it comes to Eddy, and that it's Pax's fault alone that our roster is still incomplete. Should we just bend over and give Eddy a contract similar to Tyson's? With time ticking away until training camp, as you have incessantly informed us, I think it's about damn time for Eddy to wake up and finally display some common sense. Is it Paxson's fault that Eddy still cannot realize what a fair contract for him is, given his situation?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

bbertha37 said:


> Pax's fault alone


DaBullz would never DARE to insinuate something like this. :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> So, what do you suggest? From your tone (not limited to this thread alone), it seems that you think that Paxson has not exhausted all options when it comes to Eddy, and that it's Pax's fault alone that our roster is still incomplete. Should we just bend over and give Eddy a contract similar to Tyson's? With time ticking away until training camp, as you have incessantly informed us, I think it's about damn time for Eddy to wake up and finally display some common sense. Is it Paxson's fault that Eddy still cannot realize what a fair contract for him is, given his situation?


Yep, I think the Bulls should give Curry a contract similar to what Chandler got. I do think if some of it were guaranteed if Curry played a full season, then the rest guaranteed after a 2nd full season, it'd put to rest the doubts about his heart condition.

As far as pointing out that there's 3 weeks until Curry must be signed or he goes with the QO goes, I hope everyone else found that to be useful information.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

Seriously though, what options does Eddy have at this point? Without insurance, a long term deal is simply out of the question right now. It's September, and it's seems pretty clear that no attractive Sign-and-Trade offers for Eddy have come to fruition. As far as I'm concerned, the ball is in Eddy's court right now. It's time for Eddy to either sign the deal on the table or take the QO. So, if you're going to constantly remind us how time is wasting away until training camp and how it's in the best interest of team chemistry and continuity to have our roster shored up as soon as possible, let us please look at the reality of this situation.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Seriously though, what options does Eddy have at this point? Without insurance, a long term deal is simply out of the question right now. It's September, and it's seems pretty clear that no attractive Sign-and-Trade offers for Eddy have come to fruition. As far as I'm concerned, the ball is in Eddy's court right now. It's time for Eddy to either sign the deal on the table or take the QO. So, if you're going to constantly remind us how time is wasting away until training camp and how it's in the best interest of team chemistry and continuity to have our roster shored up as soon as possible, let us please look at the reality of this situation.


In what way am I _not_ looking at the reality of the situation? Pax has his decisions to make, and Curry has his. If they're interests aren't aligned, Curry's going to go QO in my best judgement.

I'm not sure why Pax wants to limit the contract to 3 years, or why he won't give Curry a contract (with incentives, and weasel clauses) like he gave to Chandler. I can only guess at it, and my guess is he's not that interested in keeping him long-term.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Yep, I think the Bulls should give Curry a contract similar to what Chandler got. I do think if some of it were guaranteed if Curry played a full season, then the rest guaranteed after a 2nd full season, it'd put to rest the doubts about his heart condition.
> 
> As far as pointing out that there's 3 weeks until Curry must be signed or he goes with the QO goes, I hope everyone else found that to be useful information.


So, you think that should be the only stipulation on such a deal? Even if Eddy is able to make it through two seasons, what if he simply isn't the same player he was before this whole fiasco? What if he never over-exerts himself on the court out of fear of his condition? I think that's a pretty valid concern.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> So, you think that should be the only stipulation on such a deal? Even if Eddy is able to make it through two seasons, what if he simply isn't the same player he was before this whole fiasco? What if he never over-exerts himself on the court out of fear of his condition? I think that's a pretty valid concern.


Seems to me his heart condition wasn't sudden. He probably had it all along and played just fine.

What if Chandler is satisfied with his guaranteed amount and decides not to play balls-out all the time? Isn't that a valid concern, too?


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

I certainly won't deny that's a valid concern, but given Tyson's disposition and temperment, I think you can see why that's not such a huge concern for folks around here. Curry, on the other hand, did not necessarily, as you said, play "balls-out all the time" before his heart epsiode. So again, given what I've seen from Eddy on and off the court, I could certainly envision him taking it down a notch on the court if he believes over-exertion is what caused his episode in the first place.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> I certainly won't deny that's a valid concern, but given Tyson's disposition and temperment, I think you can see why that's not such a huge concern for folks around here. Curry, on the other hand, did not necessarily, as you said, play "balls-out all the time" before his heart epsiode. So again, given what I've seen from Eddy on and off the court, I could certainly envision him taking it down a notch on the court if he believes over-exertion is what caused his episode in the first place.


Then Pax is doing the right thing by goading him into signing the QO. Pax can see if he plays balls-out and then try to re-sign him as a UFA. It's a gamble, and it's a gamble with a #4 pick that we could lose for nothing. I hope it works out for the best.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

Well, if that is what indeed happens, I just hope that Eddy will have not taken this whole ordeal personally and will not immediately decide to jump ship next summer.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

after all of this, the DNA test demand, the contract, and obvious character/conditioning questioning by coach skiles do you think Curry wants to be in Chicago anymore? I think a sign and trade is the best option for both sides. Just no more power forwards. I don't think we need curry.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I think the QO is the best option for both sides. 

Some people bash Paxson because he is not ponying up more. I agree with his thinking. How can you roll the dice and guarantee big money on such a huge question mark? Say Curry showed no heart problems last season, signed for 10 mil a year, then had a problem at the beginning of this season instead? Everyone would have been moaning how we have 6 years of cap space locked up on a guy who may never play again. And if Curry's money was guaranteed no matter what, the guy may have packed it in quickly and taken the cash. If you are looking at the teams future, at least this problem surfaced before the Bulls committed loads of cap space to the guy. Unfortunate timing for Curry, but just because you feel bad for him doesn't mean you give away 10 million a year for charity. 

Curry isn't exaclty Lew Alcindor here. Despite some effective low post scoring, I don't really see the guy as a positive overall for the team when he is on the court. Defense and rebounding stink, looks lethargic most of the time, not a cerebral player at all. Add this to his heart issues and what do you expect? Why hasn't he recieved another offer? No one is willing to risk the cash for a guy who could drop dead and also wasn't that spectacular to begin with.

The QO is the best option. I can't feel too soory for a guy who is getting 5+ mil playing basketball. Wish I had that deal. And if he has a great year and proves himself, we still can offer him the most money. If he doesn't want to play for us we can do a sign and trade (which would allow him more money because he signed with us) or just let him go and increase the cap space to acquire some established talent.

I think through all of this people have to remember that Curry isn't that good anyway. He scores some points, but the rest of his game is a negative for the team. We just signed another guy for 10 mil a year. They don't plan on him sitting the pine.


----------



## Chi-City (Jul 13, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> In what way am I _not_ looking at the reality of the situation? Pax has his decisions to make, and Curry has his. If they're interests aren't aligned, Curry's going to go QO in my best judgement.
> 
> I'm not sure why Pax wants to limit the contract to 3 years, or why he won't give Curry a contract (with incentives, and weasel clauses) like he gave to Chandler. I can only guess at it, and my guess is he's not that interested in keeping him long-term.



Chandler isn't the one with the heart problems though. There's a big difference. Curry can't get insurance to cover himself. Its not just about money its about the kids life. Who's going to be held responsible if he dies. Do the Bulls want to be sued, I dont' think so. I mean just take the DNA and get it over with. Why wouldn't you want to know if you have a problem. It seems so idiotic. It makes it look like Eddy know he's has a problem, but just wants to get paid so he's hiding something. I mean do you want to end up like the guy from the San Fran 49ers recently. Played a pre season game, was able to walk off the field and into the locker room normaly and just collapse and die?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Its not in the Bulls best interests to have him go QO

Its in the Bulls best interests to keep him under BYC ( $6M starting ) and a team option after 1 year on say a 3 year deal

Best of all possible worlds for the Bulls 

Camp Curry , if they can't suggest plausible S and T scenarios to be investigated should undoubtedly return serve on the QO route and have the capacity to flip the Bulls the bird if it gets to that next summer

Bulls will be obligated to ink him for the QO and lose some leverage

*Bullsville.*.. I think the Bulls had until June 30 to rescind the QO that would have made him UFA..that may have changed because of the ruminations of the new CBA but from memory that is how it has been in summers past re RFA and UFA


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Its not in the Bulls best interests to have him go QO
> 
> Its in the Bulls best interests to keep him under BYC ( $6M starting ) and a team option after 1 year on say a 3 year deal
> 
> ...


No, they had to officially make the QO by June 30:

In order to make their free agent a restricted free agent, a team must submit a qualifying offer to the player by June 30.

Teams can rescind their qualifying offer to a restricted free agent, in which case the player becomes unrestricted. This happened with Toronto and Keon Clark in 2002.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#34

I don't know when the QO can be rescinded and which day it "becomes official by default".


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

bullsville said:


> No, they had to officially make the QO by June 30:
> 
> In order to make their free agent a restricted free agent, a team must submit a qualifying offer to the player by June 30.
> 
> ...


Cool.

Thanks


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Since that link isn't working yet - the other Chicago papers have their take on the interview:

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/082sd1.htm

http://www.suntimes.com/output/jackson/cst-spt-jax08.html

None of them mention the interesting Kirk tidbit - Kirk's a parrot head. :biggrin:


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Southtown Paul might want to check where Stro signed on..and it ain't the Mavs


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> That's just wierd about Pax asking for the DNA test. I don't think it's legal. Look for the Players Association lawyers to file a grevience if it comes to that. Not a great way to get Curry pumped about Chicago either now or when he is a UFA after going the QO route.


I think you're right.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> That's just wierd about Pax asking for the DNA test. I don't think it's legal. Look for the Players Association lawyers to file a grevience if it comes to that. Not a great way to get Curry pumped about Chicago either now or when he is a UFA after going the QO route.


Come on . . . are you telling me that dewy-eyed Pax has anything but Eddy's best interests in mind?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> I think you're right.


Both johnston 797 and yourself may very be right about the DNA test- but the way I understand it, Pax can rescind the Qualifying Offer at any time for no reason whatsoever. Also the way I see it, Eddy has every right to refuse to take the test just as Pax has every right not to offer Eddy a long-term deal of any significance (guaranteed for more than one season).

IMHO, if Eddy were under a guaranteed contract and the Bulls tried to breach the contract because Eddy refuses to take a DNA test, then the NBAPA would be all over it, and IMO they would win.

That's what is so confusing about this issue, the "contract" Eddy is under for next season is not guaranteed and by definition can be withdrawn by the Bulls at any time.

Someone should email McGraw, maybe he knows the details about the QO's retractibility? Or maybe ****?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Come on . . . are you telling me that dewy-eyed Pax has anything but Eddy's best interests in mind?


Quit being a hater, you damn well know for an absolute, 100% fact that Pax's one and only concern is Eddy's long-term health...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Both johnston 797 and yourself may very be right about the DNA test- but the way I understand it, Pax can rescind the Qualifying Offer at any time for no reason whatsoever. Also the way I see it, Eddy has every right to refuse to take the test just as Pax has every right not to offer Eddy a long-term deal of any significance (guaranteed for more than one season).
> 
> IMHO, if Eddy were under a guaranteed contract and the Bulls tried to breach the contract because Eddy refuses to take a DNA test, then the NBAPA would be all over it, and IMO they would win.
> 
> ...


Teams can withdraw the QO -- it happened with Keon Clark in 2002.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#34

Rescinding would be the right thing for Pax to do at this point, imo. Sucky from a basketball standpoint, and probably the ultimate example of where dithering gets you as a GM, but the right thing to do.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

What happens in the world ?

Your a busdriver 

You have a work contract .

Your employer has an option for a further year that they can withdraw

They want to try and extend you though

Before you come up for reneg... there seems to be some incidence of your failing eyesight which you need to perform your job to a high standard

They ask you to take tests to determine ( maybe a DNA ) to determine whether your blindness is temporary and a result of excessive masturbation or whether its a genetic problem

You say no 

They don't want to try and extend you without information and where they wear risk if they are not armed with all possible info and where if you die at the wheel..the estate of my family may sue the white devil slavemaster bus company for tortious negligence 

But they love having me around because I am such a good bloke and they give me a 1 year min offer to prove that my eyes are OK and it was really a result of wacking off too much in the toilets on my lunchbreak...

Or if I insist on the homerun payday and refuse to co-operate in providing info relevant determination to be made about doing my job properly .. they might say that they withdraw their option on me and flick me 

Sounds pretty reasonable to me 

Too much loony lefty liberalism BS in play here


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I think you have until October 1st to get a contract done or the QO kicks in and Pax can rescind the QO anytime up untl then


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Teams can withdraw the QO -- it happened with Keon Clark in 2002.
> 
> http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#34
> 
> Rescinding would be the right thing for Pax to do at this point, imo. Sucky from a basketball standpoint, and probably the ultimate example of where dithering gets you as a GM, but the right thing to do.


Thanks ScottMay, but my real question is what's the latest date a team can withdraw the QO?

Well actually 2 questions, I'm also curious as to what is the earliest date and latest date that a player can "sign" the offer sheet? (Or "officially accept it", however that works)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> What happens in the world ?
> 
> Your a busdriver
> 
> ...


You left out the part about at least two world-class doctors saying that your eyesight is absolutely fine, and that there is no reason whatsoever to take the DNA test.

And the part about how the bus company is willing to take the word of those very same doctors in terms of whether or not you'll be able to safely drive a bus, but brings up the DNA test when it's time to determine your compensation.

Other than that, spot on.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Teams can withdraw the QO -- it happened with Keon Clark in 2002.
> 
> http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#34
> 
> Rescinding would be the right thing for Pax to do at this point, imo. Sucky from a basketball standpoint, and probably the ultimate example of where dithering gets you as a GM, but the right thing to do.


Dithering how ?

Bulls doctors say one thing

Curry's doctor says another 

Pax asks for a DNA early in the piece

Kamp Kurry Kraps itself and won't provide 

It is determined early that he won't be insured 

Pax ain't an Insurance broker ... that is the responsibility of his agent to get it done and he can't

Pax is right to stick to his guns and refuse to effectively carry the risk of Curry's contract 

Why should he ?

And no.. it would not be the decent thing to do to withdraw the offer that would see Eddy without an offer and likely forced into early retirement for no money 

The decent thing to do would be to :

1. Sign and Trade him to the Knicks who would probably be about the only team prepared to take him where he can get paid.. and just get clearance back to preserve cap space

2. Sign him to the QO.. and let a year's worth of water pass under the bridge and then if he or anyone else want to throw a boatload of money at him next year if Insurance is back on the table..let them ..with the end result being that Eddy still gets paid

These two options would be the decent thing to do if the decent thing was the in fact the one and only thing that was driving everyone's bona fides


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

from the players association website 

http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-XI.php




> (i) A player who receives a Qualifying Offer must be given at least until the October 1 following its issuance to accept it, but in no event may a Qualifying Offer be accepted after the March 1 following its issuance. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a Qualifying Offer may be withdrawn by the Team at any time through the July 23 following its issuance. If the Qualifying Offer is not withdrawn on or before July 23, it may be withdrawn thereafter but only if the player agrees in writing to the withdrawal. If a Qualifying Offer is withdrawn, the player shall immediately become an Unrestricted Free Agent. If a Qualifying Offer is withdrawn on or after July 24, the Team also shall be deemed to have renounced the player in accordance with Article VII, Section 4(g).



So it seems to me that Currys camp already knows the that at the very least they have a guaranteed 5.4 million on the table which is why they balk at paxs offered of one year guaranteed because Pax is offering them something they already have .


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> You left out the part about at least two world-class doctors saying that your eyesight is absolutely fine, and that there is no reason whatsoever to take the DNA test.
> 
> And the part about how the bus company is willing to take the word of those very same doctors in terms of whether or not you'll be able to safely drive a bus, but brings up the DNA test when it's time to determine your compensation.
> 
> Other than that, spot on.


And you left out the part about conflicting opinions from the different speclialists..which would tend to cast doubt on the degree of capacity I have to drive the bus ..which is why further info may be required such as a DNA test ..particularly after it has become evident * after the fact* that there is no workplace health and safety insurance 

Other than that..spot on


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> from the players association website
> 
> http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-XI.php
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> That's just wierd about Pax asking for the DNA test. *I don't think it's legal. Look for the Players Association lawyers to file a grevience if it comes to that.* Not a great way to get Curry pumped about Chicago either now or when he is a UFA after going the QO route.


What is that based on? Same question to anyone who agrees. 

Bad business maybe (but I would disagree), but I don't see how it is "illegal". The CBA can't possibly compel a team to offer a contract unless they want to, for whatever reason.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Come on . . . are you telling me that dewy-eyed Pax has anything but Eddy's best interests in mind?


I think we're a little bit past that now, aren't we? Paxson is openly talking about this in the context of sharing the allocation of risk and the best interests of the team. Certainly Curry's health remains an issue, but even Paxson speaks of this situation in terms of a business deal at this point. 

Don't confuse the issues of the present, which are contractual, with the issues of the past, which related to shutting Curry down for testing (at the request of the doctors including Dr. Estes). 

Its an unfair potshot that mischaracterizes the current tone of things (big surprise). Dewy-eyed my ***. 99% of what Paxson talks about now is business, because now is the time for business. No one is pretending its not.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Speaking of getting past things, it seems rather hard to figure (except for negotiation purposes) that the Bulls have re-opened the DNA test issue in the first place.

They accepted multiple doctors' conclusions and agreed Curry could play.
They said they'd negotiate with him and put the Bull in Curry's court to go get insurance.

They had every chance to insist on a DNA test (whether they have a legal right to or not) and they didn't. Now, months later (when the market conditions give them more leverage), they're bringing it up again?

I don't see how that can be squared with anything but an attempt to leverage Curry's heart condition into generally more favorable contract terms (on issues that have nothing to do with his heart).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Speaking of getting past things, it seems rather hard to figure (except for negotiation purposes) that the Bulls have re-opened the DNA test issue in the first place.
> 
> They accepted multiple doctors' conclusions and agreed Curry could play.
> They said they'd negotiate with him and put the Bull in Curry's court to go get insurance.
> ...


There had been no real negotiations until recently and neither you nor I know whether in prior general conversations with Rose the team had been demanding a DNA test all along. 

At no time did the team say they were backing off of their preference for a DNA test. 

I don't consider the issue re-opened. It remains open, which is quite a bit different. 

Why should the Bulls "get past it"? Its not like the passage of time makes Maron's recommendation any less real.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> Speaking of getting past things, it seems rather hard to figure (except for negotiation purposes) that the Bulls have re-opened the DNA test issue in the first place.
> 
> They accepted multiple doctors' conclusions and agreed Curry could play.
> They said they'd negotiate with him and put the Bull in Curry's court to go get insurance.
> ...


I didn't realize the Bulls had ever "backed off" from wanting Eddy to take the DNA test? I remember the one doctor recommended it a few months back when they all made their diagnoses in approximately the same time frame.

But I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in the media recently, either.

I fail to see how a basically "meaningless" test that would prove absolutely nothing about how healthy Eddy is (will only show if it's in his genes) would effect Eddy's value either way, though.

Just theorizing, but maybe Pax is trying to get Eddy's name out there so some sign and trade offers will come in?

There are a lot of people who believe that a healthy Eddy has great trade value, and there are a lot of people who believe that Eddy is 100% healthy. 

If these two things are true, and Pax keeps showing an insistence on only giving Eddy one year guaranteed or the QO, certainly teams around the league will take notice and most will start inquiring about the possibility of a trade in which they can add a "top-5" center to their roster, right?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> There had been no real negotiations until recently and neither you nor I know whether in prior general conversations with Rose the team had been demanding a DNA test all along.
> 
> At no time did the team say they were backing off of their preference for a DNA test.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-curry03.html



> Though the Bulls haven't made an official announcement, operations chief John Paxson confirmed Saturday that center Eddy Curry -- sidelined since suffering an irregular heartbeat before a game March 30 -- has received medical clearance to begin working out again.
> 
> Curry, who became a restricted free agent on Friday, had traveled to Los Angeles to meet with renowned cardiologist David Cannom on Thursday.
> 
> ...


Paxson didn't say, "we don't agree with Dr. Cannom, we require that Curry gets a DNA test before we do anything". He explicitly said "*we're going to follow Dr. Cannom's guidelines"*, which said nothing about a DNA test. He didn't voice any objection whatsoever, but instead gave the distinct impression that he was accepting Cannom's findings and moving forward. There is absolutely nothing in there from Pax saying "that's not good enough" or "we don't agree" or "we need a DNA test" Nothing.

In short, Paxson said Eddy was good to go. Now he appears to be recanting that.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-curry03.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it doesn't say that as evidenced by your use of the term "impression". This is your "impression" of what is said, not actually what is said. Furthermore, I think your impression is a significant stretch.

It says that the team will follow Cannom's guidelines in allowing Eddy to "resume activity". It says nothing about Eddy's contract situation at all, nor the impact that Cannom's findings, Estes' findings, or Maron's recommendations have on contract negotiations. 

There has never been any statement, to my knowledge, by anyone from the organization stating that they had abandoned their preference for the DNA test.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No, it doesn't say that as evidenced by your use of the term "impression". This is your "impression" of what is said, not actually what is said. Furthermore, I think your impression is a significant stretch.
> 
> It says that the team will follow Cannom's guidelines in allowing Eddy to "resume activity". It says nothing about Eddy's contract situation at all, nor the impact that Cannom's findings, Estes' findings, or Maron's recommendations have on contract negotiations.
> 
> There has never been any statement, to my knowledge, by anyone from the organization stating that they had abandoned their preference for the DNA test.


:eek8:

That's totally disingenuous lawyerspeak. They can't allow that Curry is fit to "resume activity" at point A and then, at point B, insist on more tests. At least, not if they have his interest at all in mind. If they think the test is so meaningful (regardless of whether it is), it's simply unconscionable to say he's ok to workout without passing it.

What you're saying is that the Bulls were ok with him to start working out, but aren't ok with negotiating a contract with him due to not taking the test. But the test itself ostensibly is there to determine whether its safe for him to exert himself. That, of course, matters in contract negotiations, but it matters a whole hell of a lot more in giving him the ok to go out and exert himself in the first place.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Curry, who became a restricted free agent on Friday, had traveled to Los Angeles to meet with renowned cardiologist David Cannom on Thursday. 

''Dr. Cannom has cleared Eddy to resume activity,'' Paxson said. ''*The reality of it is as of [Friday], Eddy didn't need us or any team to clear him*. He's got a doctor that said he can go ahead and resume activity, and we're going to follow Dr. Cannom's guidelines.'' 

I'm not saying you are wrong, MikeDC, but as Pax noted Eddy didn't need anyone on the Bulls' side of it to approve his workouts, since Eddy was a free agent. Technically, the Bulls can't allow Eddy to "resume activity" when he is a free agent, they can't "allow" him to do anything as he is not currently under contract with the team.



MikeDC said:


> They can't allow that Curry is fit to "resume activity" at point A and then, at point B, insist on more tests.


Maybe Pax "went along" because he figured Eddy would get more interest from other teams? Pax certainly was intent on letting the market establish itself, if the market had produced an offer sheet for Eddy that had no mention of a DNA test, Pax would have had no choice but to play the hand the market dealt him.

Let's say that Pax did just drop the DNA demand and then brought it up when it was time to negotiate- it's hard to blame him, since there seemingly is no market for Eddy at this time. There is no other team even willing to offer a sign and trade so far, I don't have a problem with Pax "playing hardball", there is no sense in seeing him bid against himself at this time IMHO.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> That's totally disingenuous lawyerspeak.


I don't know about all that, but I do know that words matter. A lot. What you quoted does not say that the Bulls backed off of the DNA test issue, which is why you quoted the article.



> They can't allow that Curry is fit to "resume activity" at point A and then, at point B, insist on more tests. At least, not if they have his interest at all in mind. If they think the test is so meaningful (regardless of whether it is), it's simply unconscionable to say he's ok to workout without passing it.


Sure they can. Particularly when they really don't have any control over what Curry does in "resuming activity" once free agency started. Working your way back into shape under a regimented program prescribed by a doctor is HUGELY different than playing full speed NBA basketball against the world's greatest athletes. That you equate the two makes no sense to me at all.



> *What you're saying is that the Bulls were ok with him to start working out, but aren't ok with negotiating a contract with him due to not taking the test.* But the test itself ostensibly is there to determine whether its safe for him to exert himself. That, of course, matters in contract negotiations, but it matters a whole hell of a lot more in giving him the ok to go out and exert himself in the first place.


Yes, that is what I'm saying. And like I said, the Bulls don't have any control over his workouts anyway, so their "approval" is meaningless either way. Your entire argument is based on the false premise that the light workouts Curry is engaging with Grover, pursuant to Cannom's guidelines, equate with a contract to play NBA basketball. 

Plus, and this is getting lost I think, Paxson did not say that the Bulls would rescind the QO if Curry refuses the DNA test. That, again, is your "impression". The words matter.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yes, that is what I'm saying. And like I said, the Bulls don't have any control over his workouts anyway, so their "approval" is meaningless either way.


That doesn't make any sense. Whether or not it's a final restriction on Curry's behavior, the Bulls approval is still their explicit agreement with what's being done. They didn't have to green light him, but they did and no amount of weaseling around the wording of it is going to change that.



> Your entire argument is based on the false premise that the light workouts Curry is engaging with Grover, pursuant to Cannom's guidelines, equate with a contract to play NBA basketball.


First, you have no idea what sort of workouts were suggested by Cannom (light?) and what wasn't. More obviously, trying to seperate whether Curry is healthy enough to work out and play basketball and whether he could be given a contract is a false premise. Clearing him for the kind of physical activity required to get a contract is obviously what was being talked about from the getgo, or otherwise there's no point in getting a doctor to say he's cleared in the first place. 

If he's cleared to play, he's cleared to play. You seem to be saying you don't think he was cleared to play. If that's the case, then sure, it makes sense not to give him a contract, but that's not been suggested as far as I know. 

Even "working out light" is no excuse. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. If the Bulls truly believe Curry a DNA test will provide operable info to whether Curry has HCM or a predisposition to it, it is simply immoral to give approval for him to exert himself at any above normal level. Whether they have the final say or not, it is simply not right.

Suppose we're in a bar and you're drunk. You ask whether you should drive home. Whether you only live a couple blocks away or 20 miles, the correct answer is no. The fact that I don't have the final say and you can ignore my advice and stumble out to your car doesn't mean I shouldn't say you shouldn't drive.

And that's the basic point. If the Bulls were motivated by legitimate concern and true belief, they'd have said something back then. But they didn't. They gave their blessing when they had every opportunity to speak out.



> Plus, and this is getting lost I think, Paxson did not say that the Bulls would rescind the QO if Curry refuses the DNA test. That, again, is your "impression". The words matter.


I never said that, so it's not my impression at all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Maybe pax would rescind the QO.

If he absolutely beleives Curry shouldn't play another game, and if he wants no part of it if he should decide to keep playing.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I still think this is wierd. One possibiity not mentioned to date is that Pax could give Curry more guaranteed money if Curry produces a good DNA test result. 

p.s. Ron, per your question, the Sun-Times had an article which said that the Players Association and their Lawyers were among the people encouraging Curry *NOT* to take the DNA test. Since that article and Curry getting cleared, this interview is the first time that Pax has brought up the DNA test to my knowledge. I thought the whole issue was dead.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> p.s. Ron, per your question, the Sun-Times had an article which said that the Players Association and their Lawyers were among the people encouraging Curry *NOT* to take the DNA test. Since that article and Curry getting cleared, this interview is the first time that Pax has brought up the DNA test to my knowledge. I thought the whole issue was dead.


If I was the Players' Association I'd take the same position. They don't want to set a precedent of a player agreeing to the test and I can certainly understand why. Slipper slope and all that. But that does not mean there is anything unenforceable or illegal about the request itself. But perhaps there is a clause in the CBA that precludes the enforceability of the team's request. I don't know. But under the standard rules for freedom to contract, its absolutely enforceable as a condition precedent. 

As far as it being dead, I would agree that it seemed that way. But only because of silence, not because the team actually backed off. We have no idea what Paxson and Rose have been discussing these past months.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I never said that, so it's not my impression at all.


Sorry, I thought that making a contract contingent on a DNA test was the issue you were addressing. In order to do that, the Bulls would have to rescind the QO since its already there for Curry to take, test or no test. 

As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see anything wrong with the Bulls providing hollow approval for Eddy to "resume activity" while at the same time maintaining their request that he take the DNA test before a contract to play full scale NBA basketball is finalized. 

True, resuming activity precedes game action, but that does not make them equivalent. I think there is an enormous difference between the two, and thats not even considering the differences in the financial risks between the two. 

I think it shows that the Bulls will get on board with a doctor's approval for Eddy to resume activities that don't affect the long term outlook of the team, but they are more reluctant to take an action without the test that has a direct correlation to the long term outlook of the team (not to mention potential legal liability). I don't see how that can be viewed as anything other than sound logic.

You disagree, and thats cool. I certainly understand your logic, I just don't share it.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Dudes,

Curry not taking the dna test is just plain STUPID. I mean if it is negative he is free to play and could likely get insurance. If it is positive he had to retire but will still be Alive. If he does have genetic cardiomyopathy and he plays full time pro ball something really bad is going to happen and i mean i lot worse that missing a dunk? Bottom line what is more important than someones health?


david


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

giusd said:


> Dudes,
> 
> Curry not taking the dna test is just plain STUPID. I mean if it is negative he is free to play and could likely get insurance. If it is positive he had to retire but will still be Alive. If he does have genetic cardiomyopathy and he plays full time pro ball something really bad is going to happen and i mean i lot worse that missing a dunk? Bottom line what is more important than someones health?
> 
> ...



I understand your point here but the only thing the DNA test establishes is whether or not Curry has a genetic predisposition to heart disease. Even if he does, it may not show up until he is 60 or older or not at all if Curry closely watches his diet and excercise. It might be foolhardy for Eddy to then retire simply because at some point in time he MIGHT have heart disease. 

Addittionally, it might be a scary thing for Curry to look too far ahead in the sands of time.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

Ron, I mostly agree with you, but do we know what the doctors meant when they said "resume activity?" Does this mean resuming the activity of a normal human being or does it mean resuming the activity of the specific patient, that is, NBA offseason workouts. I would take it to mean Curry could resume a level of activity concordant with training for NBA game-shape.

The wording does matter when contractual obligations are being stated. I think we sometines read too much into words that were spoken in blurbs and such, but that's what message boards are for right?  If only we took more words with a grain of salt like those spoken by boxers who jave just had their brains scrambled for several roundsh


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Cyanobacteria said:


> Ron, I mostly agree with you, but do we know what the doctors meant when they said "resume activity?" Does this mean resuming the activity of a normal human being or does it mean resuming the activity of the specific patient, that is, NBA offseason workouts. I would take it to mean Curry could resume a level of activity concordant with training for NBA game-shape.
> 
> The wording does matter when contractual obligations are being stated. I think we sometines read too much into words that were spoken in blurbs and such, but that's what message boards are for right?  If only we took more words with a grain of salt like those spoken by boxers who jave just had their brains scrambled for several roundsh


If I remember correctly, and I may not and I do not have a link, Cannom's plan was a regimented program intended to ramp up Eddy. To my recollection it was limited. Further, we do know from recent reports that Eddy's training is light. No contact. No scrimmaging, etc. There may even be some restrictions on the type of running permitted. I don't know if that is part of Cannom's routine or Grover's. But its certainly a lot different than what a lot of other NBA players do during the offseason. 

Regardless, "resuming activity" after a 6 week layoff would require a graduated return. The resuming part would necessarily be far less physically stressful than playing NBA basketball.

As for the word thing, maybe I'm just anal (make that definitely). And by no means am I perfect in selecting the appropriate word (although if someone points it out I'm quick to retract and/or clarify). But I do think its important to carefully select words and its certainly fair game to analyze those words on a message board. As you say, thats part of the whole point.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Bottom line is you don't put out loads of guaranteed money to a guy who could drop dead on the court. No other team did, and no other team will. Even if the guy goes through next season with no problems, this will still hang over his head and affect what kind of money he will get. Who exactly is Paxson bidding against. Nobody! Pax is absolutely correct in how he is handling this. 

Oh and by the way. Curry isn't that good. Were not talking about Wilt Chamberlain here. If you ask me, just because you are 7 feet tall and can score a bit doesn't mean you should get 10 million a year. What a healthy Curry gives us on the court is no way worth 10 million a year of cap space we could use to sign other players who will give us more in the win column. He has struggled for energy and motivation in the past. I could see him scared about his heart and not putting in the usual 60% effort he normally gives.

I feel a bit sorry for the kid, but he can still get multi-millions to play ball. please give me that gig.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't see anything wrong with the Bulls ...maintaining their request that he take the DNA test before a contract to play full scale NBA basketball is finalized.


Per John Paxson, Curry has a contract to play basketball. It's the QO. Some have suggested that if Curry takes the QO, that Paxson will demand he still take the DNA test before suiting up. Not sure if you feel that way. Either way, I would think that would be considered illegal by the union.

Now, if Pax says he would give more guarenteed money for good DNA test results, that's more of a slippery slope IMHO.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

IMO, those entire conversations regardless DNA test should be over. 

Scenario #1. Let’s assume that Eddy is hiding his test results and they are not good to present them to Pax. 

Scenario #2. If Eddy never went thru the test, it makes sense to have one done confidentially, and use them accordingly, if they are good. 

The point here is , that any refusal to cooperate with Pax’s request, makes
everybody believes that Eddy 100% has a genetic predisposition to heart disease. 

I see the QO, as single possible good option, that makes sense for Bulls and Curry as well.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Per John Paxson, Curry has a contract to play basketball. It's the QO. Some have suggested that if Curry takes the QO, that Paxson will demand he still take the DNA test before suiting up. Not sure if you feel that way. Either way, I would think that would be considered illegal by the union.
> 
> Now, if Pax says he would give more guarenteed money for good DNA test results, that's more of a slippery slope IMHO.


Agreed, the QO is already out there, DNA test or not. Once Curry agrees to the QO, he's getting his money, DNA test or not.

BUT, if Pax can see that Eddy is not going to take the DNA test, he can rescind the QO and let Eddy be unrestricted. Outside of ATL and NO and CHA, Eddy isn't going to get more than the MLE if Pax rescinds the QO- and I think ATL is already out of the question after Eddy cut short his visit there.

The next 3 weeks are going to be very interesting as far as Eddy is concerned.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I would like to add that its too late for Pax to rescind the QO unless Curry agrees to it in writing.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I would like to add that its too late for Pax to rescind the QO unless Curry agrees to it in writing.


Do you have a link for this? Sorry, too lazy to look up the **** FAQ right now.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Do you have a link for this? Sorry, too lazy to look up the **** FAQ right now.


http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-XI.php

under section 5 



> (i) A player who receives a Qualifying Offer must be given at least until the October 1 following its issuance to accept it, but in no event may a Qualifying Offer be accepted after the March 1 following its issuance. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a Qualifying Offer may be withdrawn by the Team at any time through the July 23 following its issuance. *If the Qualifying Offer is not withdrawn on or before July 23, it may be withdrawn thereafter but only if the player agrees in writing to the withdrawal.* If a Qualifying Offer is withdrawn, the player shall immediately become an Unrestricted Free Agent. If a Qualifying Offer is withdrawn on or after July 24, the Team also shall be deemed to have renounced the player in accordance with Article VII, Section 4(g).


also read this on the same page 



> A player who knows that he has a physical disability that would render him physically unable to perform the playing services required under a Player Contract the following Season may not validly accept a Qualifying Offer received under this Section 4 or Section 5 below, unless the ROFR Team consents after disclosure of such physical disability. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence, a player who knows that he has a physical disability that would render him physically unable to perform the playing services required under a Player Contract the following Season remains subject to the ROFR Team’s Right of First Refusal.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Thanks, TRUTHHURTS, I didn't know that the player had to agree for the QO to be rescinded.

That greatly increases the possibility of a sign and trade IMHO, simply because Pax now has one less option at his disposal than I thought. It's either sign and trade or QO or extension, which isn't looking very likely at this time (although that could certainly change).

Withdrawing the QO was a tiny option anyway IMHO, but I can see it happening for a sign-and-trade.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Bulls96 said:


> IMO, those entire conversations regardless DNA test should be over.
> 
> Scenario #1. Let’s assume that Eddy is hiding his test results and they are not good to present them to Pax.
> 
> ...


If Curry has had a DNA test and is hiding it because the results are not good, he is not too bright. Unless he can somehow sign a contract then say he can't play and still get paid. 

If he is trying to hide a test result so he can play he is a moron. It's better to work as a towel boy and live then play ball and die. I have to believe his name is big enough to get some 6 figure per year gig endorsing, or doing some sort of lackey commentary job (Like Wennington). I am sure he would be able to make a damn good living and still not have to actually do real work. Maybe not 10 mil a year, but if he didn't have basketball he wouldn't of been making loads. 

He could walk away from ball, still make good money, and not have to work too hard. Most of us would like that opportunity. Tough break for the kid, but at least they find a problem early before he ends up like Reggie Lewis. He can live a good life and still make good money.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Per John Paxson, Curry has a contract to play basketball. It's the QO. Some have suggested that if Curry takes the QO, that Paxson will demand he still take the DNA test before suiting up. Not sure if you feel that way. Either way, I would think that would be considered illegal by the union.
> 
> Now, if Pax says he would give more guarenteed money for good DNA test results, that's more of a slippery slope IMHO.


Especially since, as we beat to death in the other thread, it's highly questionable whether the DNA result will say anything useful.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> Tough break for [Curry], but at least they find a problem early before he ends up like Reggie Lewis.


An somewhat unlikely series of events would have to transpire for Eddy to "end up like Reggie Lewis."

1. Eddy would have to develop a serious long-time cocaine habit that severely scarred and damaged his heart.

2. Eddy would have to defy his doctors' orders and resume light workouts without being under medical supervision.

Aside from that, yeah, the parallels are eerily similar.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> An somewhat unlikely series of events would have to transpire for Eddy to "end up like Reggie Lewis."
> 
> 1. Eddy would have to develop a serious long-time cocaine habit that severely scarred and damaged his heart.
> 
> ...


So if he has a serious condition it is not possible he could drop dead on the court, even if he isn't doing cocaine?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

bump for the links to the score audible page. they finally fixed it and have the pax interview up. you know, the one that's being discussed in this thread, or was being discussed...anyway, here it is. or you can check out the sticky thread at the top of the page.

http://www.670thescore.com/audibles/


----------

