# Re-evaluation: Sweetney's value in THE TRADE



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ok so all year long there has been a minority opinion that Sweetney cancels AD out in the Curry trade, so that it ends up being:

Curry v. 1st round pick 2006, pick swap, second rounder

But when you factor in the fact that Antonio Davis could have been useful FOR US, for probably another two seasons, because we didn't ask him to do much except be the gel for this team (Curry and Chandler brought the talent and athleticism up front), I don't know that Sweetney cancels Davis out at all.

*MICHAEL SWEETNEY CAN'T EVEN GET ON THE FLOOR BEFORE LUKE FRICKIN SCHENSHER WHO IS ON A TEN DAY CONTRACT!!* 

When you sit there and read that and think about the reality of it, it kind of hits you. We traded two starters off a 47 win team, one of whom was a 22 year old who almost made the all star team last year for a first round pick, a pick swap and a couple second rounders. The trade equation really looks like this:

Curry + Davis + number of wasted seasons we will have where we could have been winning NOW but instead are waiting on that NY pick to replace Curry and Davis and make us as good as we were last year 

v. 

Michael Sweetney (can't even get on the court in front of a 10 day guy) + Tim Thomas (ghost) *+ First round pick + pick swap + 2 second rounders*

*Would anyone agree that Sweetney's value in the trade was immensely overestimated both after the trade and all season long?*


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I had higher hopes for Sweets, but I should of expected better from myself.

The trade is quite lop-sided at this point in time, but I'm starting to believe that if the Knicks roster stays the same for next year (ignoring the draft picks), I can see us being a part of the Oden sweepstakes.

OT: Christ it's fun following the soap opera that is the Knicks. Marbury cracks me up.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Stat to think about. EC averages 0.9 rebounds a game more than Chris Paul. If the bulls get a top 4 pick for EC than in the long run the bulls will have done better than the knicks on this trade. Last night EC was BENCHED he had two FGs and 6 fing TO. AD is a great guy but last season was his last and he sits on the bench for the 4th worst team in the NBA. The fact is most of EC success last year was to skiles push EC in a contract year and setting up entire game plans to help EC. Brown doesnt do this and EC 2006 season is a wash.

David


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

I think out of everyone on this board, Pip's the only guy I can actually relate to. He's the only one who believes that getting rid of Curry and AD was the *wrong* thing to do. I think he's right. Why? Because we have to depend on other teams to fail so that we can be better. You know why it'll never work? Because the best teams don't have to depend on other team's failures in order to become better. THEY BECOME BETTER BY THEMSELVES.

The Bulls, on the other hand, will have to wait so long for something that could have been done this year, and that's advance in the playoffs with Curry and AD and become a contender. But no, now we have to wait and see if New York gets worse so we can get some rooks to come in and be the magical saviors for this bad team of "right-way" players. To tell you the truth, by now, I'd rather see New York prosper with Brown coaching them next year and the rest of this year, just to show you that this team sucks and we will never be better off if Pax has to rely on other teams to make us better. I wish someone could tell me the last time doing this worked out for a team. PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

Did Detroit wait for other teams to fail so they could become better? Did San Antonio do that too? Did Dallas? Did Phoenix? No, they were smart enough to just keep the guys they had and gel that team together and make them winners. Now we have to start all over again. I, for one, don't want to do that, because it's going to take more than two seasons in order to become contenders and really become threats. Plus, last night showed you how we are incapable of winning important games that matter a lot. We cracked under the pressure, and I can only imagine how we could be in the playoff atmosphere.

You wanna know why Gordon didn't impress last year in the playoffs? Because he can't be the leader of this team. If we pressure him to be the leader, he'll just start bricking up shots and commiting turnovers. But if we had AD as our leader and if we had Curry to feed the ball into the post most of the game, it would take away focus from Ben, and then he could excel with others being the primary threats. But no, now that guys like Chandler and Gordon are supposed to be our primary threats, we get killed night in and night out. And it's going to be like this until we get actual talent in this team that WANT to lead, and have a passion for winning. If you put guys like we have on the court in playoff games, they'll disappear like they did last night. Trust me! Last year should have been an indicator of things to come. You could see it all happening. Without Curry in there to get us easy point, we lost our threat, and then our weaknesses became easy to exploit. And without AD there to anchor us into the gameplan, these guys just end up doing everything wrong and not being able to comepete at a high level.

I don't know where to continue, because there are so many things wrong with this team, and believing that next year will be our shinning moment is just a stupid fantasy. Next year will be just as bad unless Pax gets some actual veteran talent in here to really stop them from screwing up badly like last night. They need guys that have been there and know what to do, and guys that can play together and win as a team. So as far as this season is concerned, it's already a wash after last night, and I may as well stop believing that we'll make the playoffs, because it's just another stupid fantasy that people have.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giusd said:


> Stat to think about. EC averages 0.9 rebounds a game more than Chris Paul. If the bulls get a top 4 pick for EC than in the long run the bulls will have done better than the knicks on this trade. Last night EC was BENCHED he had two FGs and 6 fing TO. AD is a great guy but last season was his last and he sits on the bench for the 4th worst team in the NBA. The fact is most of EC success last year was to skiles push EC in a contract year and setting up entire game plans to help EC. Brown doesnt do this and EC 2006 season is a wash.
> 
> David


I never expected that he would do well in New York. I don't really care what he does there. He can be worse of and SO can we. It is possible. I look at last year what he did with our guys. You can nitpick about rebounds. Ok. Tyson can't score! But with Eddy on the team Tyson's lack of scoring wasn't such a problem now was it. I predicted Thomas' and Sweetney's utter lack of impact, and now I'm going to tell you now that people are expecting too much from a top 4 pick. EC's 2006 season being a wash is probably more due to Marbury than anything else. He is ruining that whole team and Rose can't be helping. If you replaced Marbury and Rose with Hinrich and Noce Curry would be thriving right now. 

Also AGAIN, I'll ask the question:

*Say the #4 pick does become better than Curry in the long run... say 2 years into his career. WHAT ABOUT all the time where we could have been good NOW, that will have been wasted waiting on us to catch up to where we were LAST YEAR. 

You can say "in the long run," but what about the 2-3 years we could have been winning 50 games but won't be. Each season wasted to me represents extreme value ONCE you've proven that you can win 47 games with a team as young as last years team.*


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

PW.

I disagree with you and so does Chris Duhon. Here's a quote from him 



> However, regardless of whether we make the playoffs or not, I think we are going to make some moves in the offseason. There has been talk of getting a big man, maybe one key player. You don't know what the organization is going to do. To tell you the truth, we really like our team. When we play hard and consistent the whole game and are clicking on the defensive end, we can compete with pretty much anybody. We've shown that by beating San Antonio and playing Detroit tough. We have a lot of young guys that have to start maturing and understanding the game more. We might be able to use some bigger, more back-to-the-basket players. Or maybe someone from the guard position, where we can have a guy who we can isolate on a side and let go to work if the shot clock goes down.


http://www.nba.com/blog/blog42.html

The Bulls have cap room, 2 1st round picks and a team identity. Everyone knows the Bulls will address bigmen in either free agency, the draft or both. This team plays tough defense and are very good a pick and rolls and pick and pops, they get the most out of skill of the players. Leading the team in fg% against and bench scoring shows the team is putting in the effort. Once the Bulls get a couple of back to the basket players, they offense will become more versatile.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

PowerWoofer said:


> I think out of everyone on this board, Pip's the only guy I can actually relate to. He's the only one who believes that getting rid of Curry and AD was the *wrong* thing to do. I think he's right. Why? Because we have to depend on other teams to fail so that we can be better. You know why it'll never work? Because the best teams don't have to depend on other team's failures in order to become better. THEY BECOME BETTER BY THEMSELVES.
> 
> The Bulls, on the other hand, will have to wait so long for something that could have been done this year, and that's advance in the playoffs with Curry and AD and become a contender. But no, now we have to wait and see if New York gets worse so we can get some rooks to come in and be the magical saviors for this bad team of "right-way" players. To tell you the truth, by now, I'd rather see New York prosper with Brown coaching them next year and the rest of this year, just to show you that this team sucks and we will never be better off if Pax has to rely on other teams to make us better. I wish someone could tell me the last time doing this worked out for a team. PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
> 
> ...



I know that you don't think the future looks bright, but I think you are weighting this year a little too heavy. I think most people in favor of the trade is more of a fan of our assets coming into next season and trying to build a future contender.

Sweetney is obviously not worth the loss of both Curry and Davis this season. However look at the two situations from this upcoming offseason from the Bulls perspective. Which situation do you think looks better at getting our core to be championship contenders?

*Scenerio 1*
Curry
Bulls pick
~$8mil in cap room

*Scenerio 2*
NY pick
Bulls pick
Sweetney
~$15mil in cap room

Looking at it that way, we get:
Sweetney
likely a top 5 pick (which was a surprise, obviously)
~$7mil in cap room

Looking back, losing Curry and a year of AD for Sweets, a top 5 pick, and more cap room seems like a good return for what we gave up from a future perspective. This trade obviously comes at the expense of a few wins this season too, but I don't think any of us really would have expected to become contenders with our team last year + Songaila + our own pick in the upcoming draft heading into next year.

While disappointed with our results this season, I think our future looks very bright. A lot of heads hang when they see the FA class, but I view all our FA money as another way to build assets in a hurry. All of these assets should result in a consolidation trade within the next two seasons, unless we see some dramatic internal improvement or hit it big in the draft.

I like our future.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> *Say the #4 pick does become better than Curry in the long run... say 2 years into his career. WHAT ABOUT all the time where we could have been good NOW, that will have been wasted waiting on us to catch up to where we were LAST YEAR.
> 
> You can say "in the long run," but what about the 2-3 years we could have been winning 50 games but won't be. Each season wasted to me represents extreme value ONCE you've proven that you can win 47 games with a team as young as last years team.*


I am still waiting on Curry to understand the game. Not every rookie needs 3 years to learn how to play. Paxson's history is drafting players that have gone to good programs and already understand the game of basketball and how to prepare for the game. Not every rookie needs 3 years to learn how to tie his shorts and get his ankles taped prior to practice


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> *Say the #4 pick does become better than Curry in the long run... say 2 years into his career. WHAT ABOUT all the time where we could have been good NOW, that will have been wasted waiting on us to catch up to where we were LAST YEAR.
> 
> You can say "in the long run," but what about the 2-3 years we could have been winning 50 games but won't be. Each season wasted to me represents extreme value ONCE you've proven that you can win 47 games with a team as young as last years team.*


Would you rather:

A) Win 50 games three seasons in a row with very little chance of looking like a contender at the end of three seasons.

-OR-

B) Would you rather take one step back the first year, probably acquire two more assets (top 5 draft pick and either a better FA signing, or just an additional FA signing), be about back to where you were with the possibility of looking like a contender at the end of the run.

It would be one thing if we reverted back to a 20-25 win team, but we still have a shot at making the playoffs while picking up assets. Yes, I agree we took a step back this year. However, I see taking three steps forward a lot more likely a scenerio now.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

L.O.B said:


> PW.
> 
> I disagree with you and so does Chris Duhon. Here's a quote from him
> 
> ...


Two picks in a crappy draft and cap room in a terrible free agent class. I'm so sick of hearing about this like it's some great plan when we were ALREADY winning last year. We won 47 games with the third youngest team in the league and we're sitting here a year later talking about cap space and draft picks!??!


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I know that you don't think the future looks bright, but I think you are weighting this year a little too heavy. I think most people in favor of the trade is more of a fan of our assets coming into next season and trying to build a future contender.
> 
> Sweetney is obviously not worth the loss of both Curry and Davis this season. However look at the two situations from this upcoming offseason from the Bulls perspective. Which situation do you think looks better at getting our core to be championship contenders?
> 
> ...


No it doesn't seem like a good return because it isn't. We won 47 games last year after starting 0-9. Why does this year have little weight? It's a year where even half of Paxson's fans readily admit we'd have probably won 50 games (Which I'd say makes us a contender NOW!). What about the likely THREE years we'll probably wait to win 47 or more games? In today's reality 3 years you can't afford to waste.

And talk about 7 million in cap difference all you want. First.. we could have unloaded salary to a team under the cap to get anyone we're gonna be getting now. Second, WITH EDDY, we wouldn't NEED A CENTER!! And a center costs more than 8 million, so you figure it out. 

Why do people just continue to presuppose that success under this plan is a definite. How many top 5 picks even pan out into reliable starters? 60%? Maybe??


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

L.O.B said:


> I am still waiting on Curry to understand the game. Not every rookie needs 3 years to learn how to play. Paxson's history is drafting players that have gone to good programs and already understand the game of basketball and how to prepare for the game. Not every rookie needs 3 years to learn how to tie his shorts and get his ankles taped prior to practice


Well we won games whether you like the way he plays or not. First of all... in the three years counts THIS SEASON, since we could have had Curry this year. Secondly, Curry almost made the ALL STAR team last year. He missed it by two coaches votes (so apparently NBA coaches who voted for him over 14-15 other centers in the conference have nothing on you right :biggrin: ). I mean, why would an NBA coach vote for him, he doesn't meet your standard of jib. So yes, I think that anyone we draft playing at a near ALL STAR level within their first two seasons is actually generous on my part.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

I'm completely on Pip's side here. The future looks too shaky right now, and who says we couldn't be contenders in the east. THERE ARE ONLY TWO GOOD TEAMS IN THE EAST, AND THEY ARE BOTH OLDER THAN OUR TEAM!!!!!

What do you guys don't see? We could have been a young contender, and in about two years, we could have been facing Detroit in the Conference Finals after Miami would break up. Don't you guys think about how good we could have been with the post presence we had last year? Doesn't everyone say you need post players in the playoffs in order to win????

Guess what, last year we has Chandler and AD, but they aren't great on offense in the post. CURRY WAS!!! But now he's gone, and with a weak frontcourt we have no chance whatsoever of making any noise any time soon in the playoffs. Face it, we could have been three, four times better with Curry and we'll be with a rookie big that won't be as offensively skilled as Curry is.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> *Say the #4 pick does become better than Curry in the long run... say 2 years into his career. WHAT ABOUT all the time where we could have been good NOW, that will have been wasted waiting on us to catch up to where we were LAST YEAR.
> 
> You can say "in the long run," but what about the 2-3 years we could have been winning 50 games but won't be. Each season wasted to me represents extreme value ONCE you've proven that you can win 47 games with a team as young as last years team.*


It all depends on how far you think the Bulls would've gone with Curry. If we kept him, I agree its possible we could've won 50 games for the next couple of years. How far would they ultimately go? Would they have overtaken Detroit or Miami? Would Chandler and Curry have managed to turn into a legit pair of starting bigs who could manage to stay on the floor 35 minutes a game and thus eliminate the need for the crutch of a third starting big like AD? How would we be able to find continued improvement? You clearly think little of the potential of the players we have now.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Two picks in a crappy draft and cap room in a terrible free agent class. I'm so sick of hearing about this like it's some great plan when we were ALREADY winning last year. We won 47 games with the third youngest team in the league and we're sitting here a year later talking about cap space and draft picks!??!


Maybe last year making the playoffs made us believe that we were further along than we actually were? 

I still think we have a shot at this years playoffs but if we don't make it I am not going to demand mass changes. What this team is doing makes sense to me. The Bulls have built a foundation where the players practice and play hard all the time or they sit on the bench or at home. The Bulls execute the pick and pop better than 90% of the teams in the league. The offense actually has some fluidity despite the lack of a post game. 

I don't believe the draft is crappy. It is missing that clear #1 player but there are good basketball players. I trust Paxson's player evaluations, he hasn't missed on any of his draft picks so far. Having 2 top 15 picks in the upcoming draft is going to fill some team needs.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> Would you rather:
> 
> A) Win 50 games three seasons in a row with very little chance of looking like a contender at the end of three seasons.


WHO SAYS THIS?! You!?! We were on a 47-26 stretch last year! Even the ABC guys were saying that NOBODY wanted us in the playoffs before Deng and Curry went down. And that was with the third youngest roster in the league. So who the F says this?! YOU! I believe we easily could have been a contender. I believe I had basis for my opinion in that statement. We went toe-to-toe with Washington without two of our best 3 or 4 players depending on your opinion.



> -OR-
> 
> B) Would you rather take one step back the first year, probably acquire two more assets (top 5 draft pick and either a better FA signing, or just an additional FA signing), be about back to where you were with the possibility of looking like a contender at the end of the run.
> 
> It would be one thing if we reverted back to a 20-25 win team, but we still have a shot at making the playoffs while picking up assets. Yes, I agree we took a step back this year. However, I see taking three steps forward a lot more likely a scenerio now.


But that's the thing. We were already more than possibly a contender LAST year. With Curry and Deng we WERE a contender. Maybe a borderline one, but I believe it far less speculative of me to think we would have been a legit contender this year, next year and the year after than for you to hold the belief that we will be with assets who are still greatly uncertain. 

You have no basis for that. How many draft picks and signees don't work out at all? How many more only work out marginally. It just befuddles me that Pax fandom talks with such certainty about this. Like anyone who gets a top 5 pick and signs a max free agent just elevates to the next level. Do we need to do some research on top 5 picks and how often they work out??


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Babble-On said:


> It all depends on how far you think the Bulls would've gone with Curry. If we kept him, I agree its possible we could've won 50 games for the next couple of years. How far would they ultimately go? Would they have overtaken Detroit or Miami? Would Chandler and Curry have managed to turn into a legit pair of starting bigs who could manage to stay on the floor 35 minutes a game and thus eliminate the need for the crutch of a third starting big like AD? How would we be able to find continued improvement? You clearly think little of the potential of the players we have now.


Hey, look at last night. Who played great last night for us? Noc? Anyone else have an impact? No! I bet with Curry in that line-up, he would have dominated that Milwaukee team, and don't even think about all the times we get posterized by other teams. If we would have had good bigs like Curry and AD, nobody would come in the lane like they do against Malik, Big O and Chandler. Why? Because they're not afraid of them like they would be of AD and Curry!!! God, do you guys not see that we aren't going to be a great team with jumpshooters and undersized bigs? And don't tell me that a rookie center (actually, no one has the center size like Curry did) to stay in the game and tire the other team's center out. It's not possible. Do you think Aldridge could do that? Bargagni? I doubt it highly. Why do you guys think we'll be a 50+ win team if we have no size or muscle in the middle? THAT'S WHAT THE BEST TEAMS HAVE. SIZE AND MUSCLE IN THE MIDDLE!! Look at Detroit, look at Miami. They have guys that intimidate the other teams. We have a bunch of girls playing for us. They suck, and there's no way in hell Pax can replace what Curry and AD gave us last year. NO WAY!!


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Babble-On said:


> It all depends on how far you think the Bulls would've gone with Curry. If we kept him, I agree its possible we could've won 50 games for the next couple of years. How far would they ultimately go? Would they have overtaken Detroit or Miami? Would Chandler and Curry have managed to turn into a legit pair of starting bigs who could manage to stay on the floor 35 minutes a game and thus eliminate the need for the crutch of a third starting big like AD? How would we be able to find continued improvement? You clearly think little of the potential of the players we have now.


I think its far more reasonable for me to think that we would have won 55 and 60 games with Curry and Davis this year, next year and even the year after (and by then we probably could have found a replacement for Davis very easily actually) than for people to just think we're going to become contenders with capspace and picks. 

Believe it or not, we would have picked up "assets" along the way had we kept Curry too, especially if you are talking about 3 seasons. And *Davis' value even for 2 more years after this year is extremely underrated by this board IMO*.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

PowerWoofer said:


> Hey, look at last night. Who played great last night for us? Noc? Anyone else have an impact? No! I bet with Curry in that line-up, he would have dominated that Milwaukee team, and don't even think about all the times we get posterized by other teams. If we would have had good bigs like Curry and AD, nobody would come in the lane like they do against Malik, Big O and Chandler. Why? Because they're not afraid of them like they would be of AD and Curry!!! God, do you guys not see that we aren't going to be a great team with jumpshooters and undersized bigs? And don't tell me that a rookie center (actually, no one has the center size like Curry did) to stay in the game and tire the other team's center out. It's not possible. Do you think Aldridge could do that? Bargagni? I doubt it highly. Why do you guys think we'll be a 50+ win team if we have no size or muscle in the middle? THAT'S WHAT THE BEST TEAMS HAVE. SIZE AND MUSCLE IN THE MIDDLE!! Look at Detroit, look at Miami. They have guys that intimidate the other teams. We have a bunch of girls playing for us. They suck, and there's no way in hell Pax can replace what Curry and AD gave us last year. NO WAY!!


Don't get carried away lol. *Curry wasn't a dominator*. He just helped us get out to leads and play at OUR pace (halfcourt slow-it-down) early in games. He and Davis being here also allowed us to bring a FRESH Chandler and Gordon in later in games. And then we could change the tempo, play from the LEAD and run the opposition off the floor. Curry in and of himself wasn't that consequential. And when we had him Deng, Hinrich and whoever else was just as likely to dominate as he was. 

*So everyone take note. This is NOT what I am saying. That "oh Curry just would have dominated." He made it possible for other guys to dominate though. He spaced the floor and allowed our team to conserve energy for big runs later in games. Also, playing from the lead is always easier. Teams (like uhhh this years Bulls) have to use all their juice catching up while you take it easy, and then when they catch up, you use all that conserved energy and pounce on them again. It's what we did last year and what teams have been doing to us this year.*


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:



> I think its far more reasonable for me to think that we would have won 55 and 60 games with Curry and Davis this year, next year and even the year after (and by then we probably could have found a replacement for Davis very easily actually) than for people to just think we're going to become contenders with capspace and picks.
> 
> Believe it or not, we would have picked up "assets" along the way had we kept Curry too, especially if you are talking about 3 seasons. And *Davis' value even for 2 more years after this year is extremely underrated by this board IMO*.


55-60 games? Word?

Last year we only averaged a point more than our opponents. And without a bunch of games where we were bailed out by clutch plays we'd have been in the lotto. Miami owned us, we couldn't beat NJ, struggled against Milwaukee and a number of mediocre teams. How would Curry and Davis' presence overcome:

1. Chandler not showing up.
2. lack of execution late in games, which includes dumb turnovers, bad play calls, bad shots, missed free throws
3. That nasty habit we had where we'd blow big first half leads.(curry didn't do much scoring in the second halves of games)
4. The inconsistency of the guards.

I think this year's team is a .500 caliber team that has fallen short of that because of Chandler's not having shown up. I think Curry and Davis could've made a 5-7 game difference. And I don't don't see Davis playing 2-3 years down the road, plus if he is, reaquiring him would be pretty easy. I also don't see how the team could've continued to build assets, so I'd like see you explain that. I'm probably not gonna speak on this again, because really, it a waste of time, seeing as how just like everyone else, I haven't brought anything new to this debate
since the trade went down. I'm still interested in your response though.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Rhyder said:


> While disappointed with our results this season, I think our future looks very bright. A lot of heads hang when they see the FA class, but I view all our FA money as another way to build assets in a hurry. All of these assets should result in a consolidation trade within the next two seasons, unless we see some dramatic internal improvement or hit it big in the draft.
> 
> I like our future.


I agree with your whole post...

Rebuilding is a process regardless.

And to those saying other teams never had to wait for other teams to fail so they could do better.

um, we had the 3rd best record in the east last year...not cuz we were THAT good..but cuz cleveland fell the HELL off in the 2nd half of the season...milwaukee took a BIG step back...and indiana had a ton of injuries...other wise, we would of been 7th, 8th seed tops...we took advantage of ALOT of teams downfalls in the east..period


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Babble-On said:


> 55-60 games? Word?
> 
> Last year we only averaged a point more than our opponents. And without a bunch of games where we were bailed out by clutch plays we'd have been in the lotto. Miami owned us, we couldn't beat NJ, struggled against Milwaukee and a number of mediocre teams. How would Curry and Davis' presence overcome:
> 
> ...


Ok, I think you're wrong, how about that? I'm glad you think that this team would have been a .500 team. Just do me a favor. Dont' be one of those hypocrites that will turn right around and pretend to know that we'll be a contender next year or the year after like "crap won't happen" to those teams too.

But the answers are easy:

1. We didn't need as much from Chandler last year. We had several high profile wins where we got nothing from him at all. He got to come off the bench and basically use his juice later in games against bench players or players who were more tired. Besides, I think if Davis helped one thing, we'd all agree that it was getting in the faces of guys who tried to not show up. 

2. Last year we seemed to excel late in games. Maybe even though Curry allegedly has never scored a second half point in his life... his first quarter scoring allowed some guys to come off the bench (Gordon and Chandler) and other guys to use all of their energy in 3 quarters instead of 4. Did Kirk and Luol have to run around at all in the first quarter of games last year? Nope. Most of the time we just threw it down to Curry and stood around for a quarter and then we'd change personal and kick it into a new gear. I saw it literally shock teams many many times last year. 

3. We had low post scoring as a safety valve last year. Curry didn't contribute last year? I seem to remember Curry making a layup to ice a game v. the Knicks. I remmeber him leading a second half BLOWOUT of the Pistons in Detroit where we absolutely made them look like women. The whole second half was a dunkfest and the world champs couldn't do a single thing to stop us and instead were left standing their with their thumbs you know where. And this year they laugh in our faces and we do jack crap about it. LAst year with Eddy in the lineup.. two games IN DETROIT, 2-0. Figure it out.

4. Easy, Gordon didn't have to do as much last year. He's a great player off the bench. As a starter he's rather ordinary. Ben was great when other teams got used to guarding us in the half court and then he came off the bench fresh.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

The ROY said:


> I agree with your whole post...
> 
> Rebuilding is a process regardless.
> 
> ...


Woulda coulda shoulda. But we DID. I seem to remember us beating teams like that last year. Funny we beat Detroit last year twice in the D and now we couldn't buy a win against them.

Its funny how last years team "wasnt that good" and "who knows, they might not have won that many games again" but there is utter certainty as to the championship success this team will have in the future.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> No it doesn't seem like a good return because it isn't. We won 47 games last year after starting 0-9. Why does this year have little weight? It's a year where even half of Paxson's fans readily admit we'd have probably won 50 games (Which I'd say makes us a contender NOW!). What about the likely THREE years we'll probably wait to win 47 or more games? In today's reality 3 years you can't afford to waste.


Our winning % last season was better without Eddy than with.

Please note that I'm just generating discussion here. Curry was my second favorite player on the Bulls last season, and I was sad to see him traded as well. I try and always post objectively. Point being, I'm not trying to turn this into an Eddy war.



> And talk about 7 million in cap difference all you want. First.. we could have unloaded salary to a team under the cap to get anyone we're gonna be getting now. Second, WITH EDDY, we wouldn't NEED A CENTER!! And a center costs more than 8 million, so you figure it out.
> 
> Why do people just continue to presuppose that success under this plan is a definite. How many top 5 picks even pan out into reliable starters? 60%? Maybe??


Despite having the third best record in the East, I thought we were merely an average team last season. How many come victories did we have last year from down 10+ in the fourth quarter? How many 1 or 2 point wins?

While I appreciated every win we got, how could we honestly expect this year's team to be better. We need Gordon going off for his 10 point fourth quarter heroics (off the bench, mind you) time and time again to reach 47 wins in a Conference that was severely depleted (IND/DET brawl and NJ injuries). Had we kept the same team as last year, I was expecting 43 wins coming into this season. After the Curry trade, I was expecting 41 wins.

Just like last year where I thought we were worse than our record indicated, the opposite is true this season. I think our team is better than our record indicates.

We were winning games last year playing terribly inefficient basketball. This season, we're losing games playing much more efficient basketball. I'd rather the guys learn how to win playing efficiently than not efficiently. To me, that's a step in the right direction. This is also why I don't think the Bulls are out of the playoff hunt despite losing to Milwaukee last night as seems to be the popular opinion on the board following the conclusion of last night's game (the season is a wash, etc). 

Basically, last season I think we were a lot like the Milwaukee Bucks of this season than anything resembling Detroit or Miami. We lost four games in a row in the playoffs to the Wizards. 47 wins in a year where 3 top teams lose starters for a significant period of time and also with Cleveland looking about ready to make the jump--just not having quite done so yet--does not equal close to being a contender in my eyes.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

PowerWoofer said:


> I think out of everyone on this board, Pip's the only guy I can actually relate to.


I have no trouble believing that.


FWIW.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Guys, we already have a thread that pretty well documents everyone's positions on the Eddy Curry trade.

If there is something new to bring to that discussion, how about posting it on that thread?

If there is nothing to do but repeat the same argument(s) for the umpteenth time, how about we give it a rest?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> WHO SAYS THIS?! You!?! We were on a 47-26 stretch last year! Even the ABC guys were saying that NOBODY wanted us in the playoffs before Deng and Curry went down. And that was with the third youngest roster in the league. So who the F says this?! YOU! I believe we easily could have been a contender. I believe I had basis for my opinion in that statement. We went toe-to-toe with Washington without two of our best 3 or 4 players depending on your opinion.


See my above post for explanation of why I feel we weren't on the verge of becoming a contender.



> But that's the thing. We were already more than possibly a contender LAST year. With Curry and Deng we WERE a contender. Maybe a borderline one, but I believe it far less speculative of me to think we would have been a legit contender this year, next year and the year after than for you to hold the belief that we will be with assets who are still greatly uncertain.


Had we had Curry and Deng and beat Washington in the first series, you honestly think we could even hold a candle to Miami and Detroit in the next two rounds. Do you think we could have beat any of Phoenix, Dallas, or San Antonio in a finals game. The Suns bowed out early because they were without playoff experience too. We could hardly match the intensity against a team like Washington, and I don't think Deng over Noc or Curry would have brought that extra intensity.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> 3. We had low post scoring as a safety valve last year. Curry didn't contribute last year? I seem to remember Curry making a layup to ice a game v. the Knicks. I remmeber him leading a second half BLOWOUT of the Pistons in Detroit where we absolutely made them look like women. The whole second half was a dunkfest and the world champs couldn't do a single thing to stop us and instead were left standing their with their thumbs you know where. And this year they laugh in our faces and we do jack crap about it. LAst year with Eddy in the lineup.. two games IN DETROIT, 2-0. Figure it out.


Its easy to isolate a couple of games to distort the overall picture. I could isolate a few games from November and say Sweetney alone more than makes up for Curry. Curry didn't play that great a factor in the second halves of most games. Thats a fact. 

Also, since you wanna play up the two wins over Detroit, let me point out the fact that in one of those wins Eddy scored but 12 points, while Chandler had 13,11, and 2. i also disagree with the charcteriztion of an 11 point win as a blowout.

Also, about Gordon being great off the bench: that simply wasn't true this year. He was terrible until he was put in the starting lineup.


----------



## MuresansThimble (Nov 16, 2005)

Curry was not worth the money it would have taken to keep him here. Give me a nucleus of Gordon/Hinrich/Deng/Chandler and one star player, and I like that team for a decade.

I'm aware getting that star is easier said than done. But this core learning to play together, taking its bumps.... i see this all as worth it. Detroit went thru the same process, and then at their peak maturation point (AS A TEAM)... they add Sheed and it all clicks. 

paying Curry simply would have meant losing another part of that core later on. Most of that core is still cheap right now, so it's worth waiting and not inching towards cap hell.

Just as long as the player replacing Curry has SOME fire, and can pass out of the post, I'm fine with that. Why is our offense actually better this year without Curry? Because everyone is now on the same page as far as passing the ball around. No, we can't get to the hoop and dunk it with the same ease from before. But you can't pay everyone, and the current core of the team -- even Tyson -- have WAY more fire than Curry ever did. They want it, he didnt. 

Guys with Curry's approach to the game are NEVER the leading scorer of a championship team. they can lead a team in points, but not to playoff wins.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

while i'm as disappointed as the next "fan", i can't look at this season as a lost season, particularly because so many of the remainder components are attempting to cover-up the glaring hole in the middle left when 2/3rd of the starting frontcourt left. i won't rehash the particulars as to the why's and "how could he's", but i submit eddy is and probably always will be an underachiever. what made him useful to this bull team was that his strength was this team's biggest weakness.
water being under the bridge though, that's my last statement on eddy...... 

HOWEVER, for the "doom and gloom", "we'll never replace his output", blah, blah, blah group; i submit this.....

the current management in its short tenure has changed the culture of this franchise enough for me to trust its judgment (for now) and wait to see what bigs will replace eddy and AD. as well, i'm full aware of all the AD detractors who ragged on his age, contract, limited skills, etc. but now laud his ability to be a "leader" on this team; fans are funny that way.......

and for those who believe this is a "crappy" draft, i ask what is that opinion based on? the fact that "draft experts" don't hype somebody above and beyond everybody else? or could it be sportcenter hasn't run a story of how great a particular player(s) is (save morrison and reddick). my take on that is, until some of these guys get into pre-draft camps, none of the opinions is worth squat. there's NO WAY anybody's going to know definitively. players rise up EVERY year as surprises AND busts. i'll take my chances (as well) with pax's decisions at this point, cause he's looking at far more film than the posters on this board who "guarantee" this is a "crappy" draft; cause posters/fans haven't got a clue.

lastly, i don't know IF retaining curry/AD would have meant a continued rise in the standings. as previously written, many EC teams improved. the bull caught many teams off guard last season which probably wouldn't have happened this season. curry, had he been paid, very likely *wouldn't* have come in shape (again), injuries, etc which the team was relatively free from last year may not have been the case this year. in some ways, .500 WITH curry and AD may have been what this team would have done this year; and with that most would be calling for pax and skiles' heads for a) overpaying curry and chandler, and b) skiles' mishandling of the team.

but hey, we've got that this year so..........


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

You know what, the thing that I hate the most is that we replaced guys that were effective doing what they were asked to do for guys that were either a) shipped off to Phoenix or b) shoved to the end of the bench. So now we have the 04-05 Bulls, minus the post scoring. That means we're a jumpshooting team. Now please, tell me, when was the last time a jumpshooting team won the championship, or even had a chance in the playoffs. Something tells me there never was one. So we continuously rely on our guards and small forwards to provide the socring threat, and none of them are consistent, so all the opposing teams have to do is play a little defense on Gordon and Deng, and the rest of the team crumbles along with them. So what do we have to look forward to? This team is so boring to watch, that I'm actually glad I don't get to see all of our games, because all those tough loses would hurt twice as much as they did by just following the PBP on NBA.com. And next year if we are to rely on rookies and average FA acquisitions to do the job in the post for us, we're going to find ourselves on the losing end of a LOT of games.

Also, I'm sure you've come to realise *we're a worse team this year because our opponents have gotten better.* So how do we get better? Probably by getting draft picks and FA and cap space and stuff. But wait. *Aren't we drafting in possibly one of the worst crafts for big men in a long time? And aren't we trying to acquire Free Agents in one of the worse years for free agency?* And like someone else said before, who would want to come and play for a hard*** like Skiles anyway. Trust me, if Pax was smart, he'd find himself a new coach that welcomed new challenges instead of shoving guys on the bench and not playing them if he doesn't think they're good enough.

You know what, the great coaches find ways to get the bad players to play good. They use them the best way they can, and they make it work inside of the system. Right now, Skiles isn't close to doing that. He'd rather stick guys that don't play within the system onto the bench and let their market value decrease by not giving them playing time. So how are we to get better if our coach constantly stops the guys we have from improving on their abilities. If Skiles would have pushed Sweetney all the time to play harder and get in shape like he did with Curry, I bet we'd be a better team for that. But no, instead, Sweetney is on the bench and it doesn't seem like Skiles is willing to negotiate in order to get him more playing time. I mean, if you have guys that are good at something, use them! Don't let them squander their time by being on the bench. And I could go on about TT as well, but you guys have pretty much already decided that he was a bust. And that waiving him was the best thing to do. So I'm not going to discuss what he could have done for us.

All I'm saying is, our weaknesses are out there for everyone to see. And we have no way of covering up those weaknesses, because the coach and GM are not willing to negotiate for guys that could possibly help the team, but may be carrying a little bit of baggage (or some attitude). I know you guys think if we brought a TT guy into the system, it would poison it, but who's to say he couldn't have been productive for us, had he gotten a chance to play a certain role for us and actually play. You'll never know now, since Pax already made up his mind that he wasn't good enough for us. And now we're out here struggling to win games when we could already have been playoff-bound if guys like Sweetney and Thomas could have been put into our system and could have found roles on this team.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> See my above post for explanation of why I feel we weren't on the verge of becoming a contender.
> 
> 
> 
> Had we had Curry and Deng and beat Washington in the first series, you honestly think we could even hold a candle to Miami and Detroit in the next two rounds. Do you think we could have beat any of Phoenix, Dallas, or San Antonio in a finals game. The Suns bowed out early because they were without playoff experience too. We could hardly match the intensity against a team like Washington, and I don't think Deng over Noc or Curry would have brought that extra intensity.


Shaq was out the first two games of the second round, so I like our chances. And even if we only make it to the second round, what evidence do you have this THIS team would do anything? AT least that team made it to the first round and was competitive. 

So why are you trying to play it where you can take one team (last years team) and just say "do you think that they would have beaten so and so) almost defeating any chance they had with your own OPINION. And yet no one should question a team that has 29 wins at this point being contenders in the future. 

Seems like you're starting with a wish (I wish I could get last years team to just GO AWAY, or I wish we would become contenders) and working from there. 

How about this. Yes I very much liked our chances against Detroit. We beat them twice in Detroit with our full lineup. I think with Curry we would have beaten Washington handily and had VERY good chances against a Miami team that missed Shaq for two games and only had a very hobbled Shaq for the rest of the playoffs. And then even if we bow out to Detroit, I still think we take them 6 games. 

This years team is a 5 year "Cleveland Cavaliers of the mid 90s" mediocrity stench waiting to happen.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Babble-On said:


> Its easy to isolate a couple of games to distort the overall picture. I could isolate a few games from November and say Sweetney alone more than makes up for Curry. Curry didn't play that great a factor in the second halves of most games. Thats a fact.
> 
> Also, since you wanna play up the two wins over Detroit, let me point out the fact that in one of those wins Eddy scored but 12 points, while Chandler had 13,11, and 2. i also disagree with the charcteriztion of an 11 point win as a blowout.
> 
> Also, about Gordon being great off the bench: that simply wasn't true this year. He was terrible until he was put in the starting lineup.


You're also isolating one part of one point that I made without responding to the rest, which I find rather revealing. 

You can't isolate anything about Sweetney and make any points about him being better than Curry. He's not. Reality has born that out. I think it's time for a lot of people to let that ship sail already, no matter how much they WISH Sweetney was anything like Curry. The guy is a fatter Marcus Fizer. And he's nowhere close to as good as Fizer was pre-knee injury 2002-03. 

Ok we had a lot of wins where Deng scored 12ish, ditto for Deng, Hinrich, Chandler, Davis, Duhon and sometimes even Gordon. The strength was the team, not any one guy. Now we lack the balance for the strength to be the team. We need one guy to take over on a team that doesn't have a guy like that. 

He was terrible because he was pressed to do too much offensively. Without him as a starter this year we don't have Curry (traded) OR him in the lineup to start games and he comes off the bench looking to try to bring us back all in one game.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

PowerWoofer said:


> You know what, the thing that I hate the most is that we replaced guys that were effective doing what they were asked to do for guys that were either a) shipped off to Phoenix or b) shoved to the end of the bench. So now we have the 04-05 Bulls, minus the post scoring. That means we're a jumpshooting team. Now please, tell me, when was the last time a jumpshooting team won the championship, or even had a chance in the playoffs. Something tells me there never was one. So we continuously rely on our guards and small forwards to provide the socring threat, and none of them are consistent, so all the opposing teams have to do is play a little defense on Gordon and Deng, and the rest of the team crumbles along with them. So what do we have to look forward to? This team is so boring to watch, that I'm actually glad I don't get to see all of our games, because all those tough loses would hurt twice as much as they did by just following the PBP on NBA.com. And next year if we are to rely on rookies and average FA acquisitions to do the job in the post for us, we're going to find ourselves on the losing end of a LOT of games.


What's all this about championships? Even if we'd have kept Curry and Davis, do you honestly think that we could beat the Pistons (or the heat) in a seven game series? Seriously? You state much which is obvious - we're a jump shooting team and we have no real low-post prescence. That's the hand that Pax dealt this team this year. Seems to me, most folks aren't all that surprised by the teams performance this year. I can only recall two or three posters who seemed to think that we'd duplicate last years record or improve on it. The general feeling was fewer wins this year and lo and behold! that's what's happened. I'll disagree with you on what the team might be able to do next year. Those terrible draft pick and FA signings may well be enough to get this team over much of its' hump next year. There's been a dozen games this year that we've just pissed away for one reason or another. I believe a good FA big, a rookie big and a rookie 2-guard with some size will do wonders for this team.



> Also, I'm sure you've come to realise *we're a worse team this year because our opponents have gotten better.* So how do we get better? Probably by getting draft picks and FA and cap space and stuff. But wait. *Aren't we drafting in possibly one of the worst crafts for big men in a long time? And aren't we trying to acquire Free Agents in one of the worse years for free agency?* And like someone else said before, who would want to come and play for a hard*** like Skiles anyway. Trust me, if Pax was smart, he'd find himself a new coach that welcomed new challenges instead of shoving guys on the bench and not playing them if he doesn't think they're good enough.


There are some decent big men in this draft. Not world beaters, but some good players. Guys who could definatly help. As for the FA class, again, there's help there. I'd be happy with Gooden (and I don't even like him - but he'd sure help alot!). I think you're also assuming that must be the only way to go. You just never know. Teams have a way of wanting to restructure during off seasons. There may be a couple of players available via trade who aren't free agents. As for your Skiles comments, Harrington, Songaila and Allen all signed here in the offseason. Hell, Harrington practically begged to stay here citing it as the best experience he's had as a pro. I'd also like to know what FA's have shunned the Bulls in Skiles term here.




> You know what, the great coaches find ways to get the bad players to play good. They use them the best way they can, and they make it work inside of the system. Right now, Skiles isn't close to doing that. He'd rather stick guys that don't play within the system onto the bench and let their market value decrease by not giving them playing time. So how are we to get better if our coach constantly stops the guys we have from improving on their abilities. If Skiles would have pushed Sweetney all the time to play harder and get in shape like he did with Curry, I bet we'd be a better team for that. But no, instead, Sweetney is on the bench and it doesn't seem like Skiles is willing to negotiate in order to get him more playing time. I mean, if you have guys that are good at something, use them! Don't let them squander their time by being on the bench. And I could go on about TT as well, but you guys have pretty much already decided that he was a bust. And that waiving him was the best thing to do. So I'm not going to discuss what he could have done for us.


You kinda shoot yourself in the foot here on this one. Larry Brown anyone? I haven't used my mantra here in a while, so now is a good time to bring it out again... repeat after me... It's not the coach - it's the players. The rest of your Skiles rant in just uninformed conjecture. How do you know Skiles is stopping guys from improving on their abilities? A side query would be, isn't it incumbant on the players to WANT to improve on their abilities? Noce looks a lot better this year. So does Deng. Even Hinrich has improved. Gordon's defense is better than last year and he's done pretty well in his role as a starter. Does Skiles get credit for that? How do you know Skiles hasn't pushed Sweetney to get in shape and to play harder? Maybe he has and Sweets just isn't getting it done? Also, much of the Curry prodding was after three seasons of his showing up to training camp as a lard-*** and completely out of condition. It was done during his contract year off-season. Sweets hasn't had an off-season with us yet. Perhaps he might get prodded like Curry did this summer...



> All I'm saying is, our weaknesses are out there for everyone to see. And we have no way of covering up those weaknesses, because the coach and GM are not willing to negotiate for guys that could possibly help the team, but may be carrying a little bit of baggage (or some attitude). I know you guys think if we brought a TT guy into the system, it would poison it, but who's to say he couldn't have been productive for us, had he gotten a chance to play a certain role for us and actually play. You'll never know now, since Pax already made up his mind that he wasn't good enough for us. And now we're out here struggling to win games when we could already have been playoff-bound if guys like Sweetney and Thomas could have been put into our system and could have found roles on this team.


Sure, everybody and their brother knows this teams weaknesses. Sure, there's no way to cover up those weaknesses. The time for making those changes passed about a month or so ago. To state that the coach and GM are unwilling to get players to help us (baggage and all) is a little presumptous. Tim Thomas wouldn't have made much difference to our bottom line. Maybe he adds a scoring lift for us and we win a few games. Maybe he takes shots away from a hot Gordon, Hinrich or Duhon and we lose a game or two instead. All-in-all, I really don't think he was our answer. Sweetney HAS gotten a chance. Many of them. He just hasn't taken advantage of the opportunities. If you want to put that on the coach or Pax, go ahead. I put that on Sweetney. It's no secret to anybody here what he needs to do and if he's not doing it, what's the problem? You can only try to motivate someone so much; they've got to eventually make the choice to do something about it.

Presumably, I'm a charter member of the PaxSkiles Can Do No Wrong and I'm Incapable Of Any Independant Thought Club... Pax get's a mulligan this season. I, personally, expected playoffs this year and will be disappointed if we don't make it. I expected a dropoff in wins (to around .500 for the year - looks like we'll fall short of that). I do expect those holes that you, I, and everyone else knows about to be, if not completely filled, damn near all the way filled by the start of next season. I don't care how it's done and I don't care who they get to fill those holes. Draft, Free Agency, Trades - whatever it takes, but this is Pax's offseason to show that he can makeover a team into a consistant winner.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fl_flash again._




:clap:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Guys, we already have a thread that pretty well documents everyone's positions on the Eddy Curry trade.
> 
> If there is something new to bring to that discussion, how about posting it on that thread?
> 
> If there is nothing to do but repeat the same argument(s) for the umpteenth time, how about we give it a rest?


Do I have to say pretty please with sugar on top?


----------



## rundmc00 (Apr 19, 2005)

I am a Nets fan and I think the Curry trade was an incredible trade for the Bulls.

You could end up with Bargiani, Oden and cap space for Curry, whose career could end at any time.

Could go down as one of the most lopsided trades in NBA history.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> and for those who believe this is a "crappy" draft, i ask what is that opinion based on? the fact that "draft experts" don't hype somebody above and beyond everybody else? or could it be sportcenter hasn't run a story of how great a particular player(s) is (save morrison and reddick). my take on that is, until some of these guys get into pre-draft camps, none of the opinions is worth squat. there's NO WAY anybody's going to know definitively. players rise up EVERY year as surprises AND busts. i'll take my chances (as well) with pax's decisions at this point, cause he's looking at far more film than the posters on this board who "guarantee" this is a "crappy" draft; cause posters/fans haven't got a clue.


People always say it is a poor draft when there is no consensus #1 pick or a lack of quality big men. I remember when we had the #1 pick in 1999 a lot of people were saying that it was a poor draft class. Look at some of the players that have come out of that class now.

This draft class reminds me a lot more of 1999 than it does of 2000, which was definately the worst draft class in the past 15 years.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

rundmc00 said:


> You could end up with Bargiani, Oden and cap space


Even assuming the Knicks finish with the worst record in the league both this year and next, our chance of getting the number one pick in consecutive drafts is about 6 in 100. 



> Curry, whose career could end at any time.


You mean in the general, "we're all day-to-day" sense, right?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

PowerWoofer said:


> You know what, the thing that I hate the most is that we replaced guys that were effective doing what they were asked to do for guys that were either a) shipped off to Phoenix or b) shoved to the end of the bench. So now we have the 04-05 Bulls, minus the post scoring. That means we're a jumpshooting team. Now please, tell me, when was the last time a jumpshooting team won the championship, or even had a chance in the playoffs.


Detroit
Phoenix this season (with no Amare, it's basically Nash's passing getting all their inside points)
Sacramento of a few years ago
Milwaukee when it had the big 3 just fell short (Cassell, Allen, Robinson)


----------



## rundmc00 (Apr 19, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Even assuming the Knicks finish with the worst record in the league both this year and next, our chance of getting the number one pick in consecutive drafts is about 6 in 100.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean in the general, "we're all day-to-day" sense, right?


1) Even if you get 2 #3 picks...you're talking some pretty good players.

2) No...in the sense of there's alot more chance something happens to a guy with a heart condition to make him stop playing b-ball then you getting hit by a bus.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> So why are you trying to play it where you can take one team (last years team) and just say "do you think that they would have beaten so and so) almost defeating any chance they had with your own OPINION. And yet no one should question a team that has 29 wins at this point being contenders in the future.
> 
> Seems like you're starting with a wish (I wish I could get last years team to just GO AWAY, or I wish we would become contenders) and working from there.


I'm not stating my opinion as fact. You are coming out strong with your opinions, so I'm just throwing some questions out there so we can step back and think. I think last year's team is overrated and this year's team is underrated. There's a lot of people who will agree with me and a lot that won't... that's fine.

I am operating on the assumption that I want to build a contender. Last year's team looked more like Hoosiers than a Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, Pistons type dynasty. Almost everyone on this board says we need a star, or a go-to guy. I have always been a bit leery of this, because we would have to gut our team in order to acquire such player and be stuck in mediocrity (ala T'Wolves)

Now we are in a position to keep all of our assets (minus Curry) and add about four more in this upcoming offseason, one of them a top pick in the draft. With all of our current assets we can afford to wait out to see if we grow internally. If we don't succeed, we have more than enough to trade away to consolidate. I haven't been able to comfortably say that any other season. That's why I like our current position.

While vastly different emotionally, I think everyone on this board would admit that this year's team isn't as good as last years. Some people are just dealing with possibly missing the playoffs better than others. Me, because I think we are underrated and have a lot of assets coming. Others, because they feel like we are rebuilding again and have to strike it rich to get back to the level we were a year ago.

That's why we have a difference of opinion. I'm just trying to suggest angles you might not have considered. From your responses, it does sound like you considered most of what I asked before. Thus, we disagree.

Now I'll go pay Ron Cey off to give you a hug :angel: 

Sorry TB, but I try and stay out of the Curry thread. I always try and play nice :biggrin:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

rundmc00 said:


> 1) Even if you get 2 #3 picks...you're talking some pretty good players.


Possibly. Not always.



> 2) No...in the sense of there's alot more chance something happens to a guy with a heart condition to make him stop playing b-ball then you getting hit by a bus.


But Curry doesn't have a heart condition.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

BULLHITTER said:


> while i'm as disappointed as the next "fan", i can't look at this season as a lost season, particularly because so many of the remainder components are attempting to cover-up the glaring hole in the middle left when 2/3rd of the starting frontcourt left. i won't rehash the particulars as to the why's and "how could he's", but i submit eddy is and probably always will be an underachiever. what made him useful to this bull team was that his strength was this team's biggest weakness.
> water being under the bridge though, that's my last statement on eddy......
> 
> HOWEVER, for the "doom and gloom", "we'll never replace his output", blah, blah, blah group; i submit this.....
> ...



INCREDIBLE post by a rookie...i agree with 100% of it


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Rhyder said:


> I'm not stating my opinion as fact. You are coming out strong with your opinions, so I'm just throwing some questions out there so we can step back and think. I think last year's team is overrated and this year's team is underrated. There's a lot of people who will agree with me and a lot that won't... that's fine.
> 
> I am operating on the assumption that I want to build a contender. Last year's team looked more like Hoosiers than a Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, Pistons type dynasty. Almost everyone on this board says we need a star, or a go-to guy. I have always been a bit leery of this, because we would have to gut our team in order to acquire such player and be stuck in mediocrity (ala T'Wolves)
> 
> ...


once again, I agree with your whole post.....


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

just for the record, while i'm new to this board, i'm a 50+, ex-player (hs and college), coach, and b-ball junkie. i don't get into debates about salary strictly because i'm of the opinion that 1) careers are so short that players should get whatEVER they can; and 2) the money doesn't come out of my pocket, so i'm only interested if guys can play. 

i'm generally very confident about what i post, and if it's worth anything, i predicted the bulls would win 45+ games last year (hey, it was a wild homer guess, but i was right!). i'm still predicting the bull will make the playoffs but i'm backing off of 41-41; the inconsistency is troubling to me.


----------



## rundmc00 (Apr 19, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Possibly. Not always.
> 
> 
> 
> But Curry doesn't have a heart condition.


1) Curry is far from worth 2 top three picks. And if you pick two duds...blame it on your scouting team.

2) How do you know? Wasn't that the premise of the Bulls not signing him.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

rundmc00 said:


> 2) How do you know? Wasn't that the premise of the Bulls not signing him.



Nooooooooooooooo!!!!! Don't go there!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh! The pain! 

(ScottMay - can ya just direct him to the 6,237 different Curry threads we had this past summer of which you were a veritable limitless fountain of information?)


----------



## rundmc00 (Apr 19, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> Nooooooooooooooo!!!!! Don't go there!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh! The pain!
> 
> (ScottMay - can ya just direct him to the 6,237 different Curry threads we had this past summer of which you were a veritable limitless fountain of information?)


I'll assume you know alot more about his condition than I do. Then why didn't he take the DNA test?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Guys, we already have a thread that pretty well documents everyone's positions on the Eddy Curry trade.
> 
> If there is something new to bring to that discussion, how about posting it on that thread?
> 
> If there is nothing to do but repeat the same argument(s) for the umpteenth time, how about we give it a rest?





TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Do I have to say pretty please with sugar on top?


Ok, Ok, I'll say it: pretty please with sugar on top.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

rundmc00 said:


> I'll assume you know alot more about his condition than I do. Then why didn't he take the DNA test?


Ain't no way I'm touchin this one with a 50' pole. Paging Dr. May... Dr. ScottMay. Your prescence is requested in the Bulls forum - stat.

**fl_flash is see running, not walking, to the nearest bomb shelter to wait for the fallout to clear***


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

fl_flash said:


> What's all this about championships? Even if we'd have kept Curry and Davis, do you honestly think that we could beat the Pistons (or the heat) in a seven game series? Seriously? You state much which is obvious - we're a jump shooting team and we have no real low-post prescence. That's the hand that Pax dealt this team this year. Seems to me, most folks aren't all that surprised by the teams performance this year. I can only recall two or three posters who seemed to think that we'd duplicate last years record or improve on it. The general feeling was fewer wins this year and lo and behold! that's what's happened. I'll disagree with you on what the team might be able to do next year. Those terrible draft pick and FA signings may well be enough to get this team over much of its' hump next year. There's been a dozen games this year that we've just pissed away for one reason or another. I believe a good FA big, a rookie big and a rookie 2-guard with some size will do wonders for this team.


I didn't think we'd be able to beat either of those teams, but I'm just saying maybe in two years with last year's team, things could be different. If Pax could have given last year's team another two years to grow together, I bet we could have made a lot of noise in the playoffs.

And I'm one of those guys that's disappointed after all we accomplished last year and this year we suck, plain and simple. I thought if we had kept the core together (ALL of them), we would have had time to grow as a team and make it farther into the playoffs. But then Paxson goes and trades away our team balance, and now we're forced to rebuild. That's how I view the season as, and I don't think anything (even a guy like Shaq ending up in the draft, although highly unlikely) could make me feel any differently.




> There are some decent big men in this draft. Not world beaters, but some good players. Guys who could definatly help. As for the FA class, again, there's help there. I'd be happy with Gooden (and I don't even like him - but he'd sure help alot!). I think you're also assuming that must be the only way to go. You just never know. Teams have a way of wanting to restructure during off seasons. There may be a couple of players available via trade who aren't free agents. As for your Skiles comments, Harrington, Songaila and Allen all signed here in the offseason. Hell, Harrington practically begged to stay here citing it as the best experience he's had as a pro. I'd also like to know what FA's have shunned the Bulls in Skiles term here.


The thing is, if we try and trade for a good big man, the chances are we're giving away more than we're getting back. So then, we're rebuilding again. (Not what I want to do next year)

And most of the big men in this league, by and far, are average. I'd like to be able to trade for a lot of big men, but to tell you the truth, I don't want some random 9/5/1 guy signed to a long-term deal and us getting screwed in the long-term because of that deal. I want us to try and draft someone and maybe sign a FA big man to a short-term deal. And another, I really don't want to have to put all the pressure on the rookie big man to come in and get it done, since most of the FA bigs are not going to turn out to be game-changing acquisitions. Things are still so cloudy right now for me in terms of next year, I just feel like Pax may end up making a bad trade that sets us back instead of making us better.

(Oh, and another little thing: Just because you think something's gonna happen -- not you in particular, just anyone -- doesn't mean Pax is reading this right now and he's taking everyone's advice. I'm sure he has his own game plan about what to do this summer, and it may not be what the majority of us wants to see. I just hope he's making the best decisions, and doesn't make us worse off after all the trades and draft picks. I want us to succeed, not fail in the upcoming season.)




> You kinda shoot yourself in the foot here on this one. Larry Brown anyone? I haven't used my mantra here in a while, so now is a good time to bring it out again... repeat after me... It's not the coach - it's the players. The rest of your Skiles rant in just uninformed conjecture. How do you know Skiles is stopping guys from improving on their abilities? A side query would be, isn't it incumbant on the players to WANT to improve on their abilities? Noce looks a lot better this year. So does Deng. Even Hinrich has improved. Gordon's defense is better than last year and he's done pretty well in his role as a starter. Does Skiles get credit for that? How do you know Skiles hasn't pushed Sweetney to get in shape and to play harder? Maybe he has and Sweets just isn't getting it done? Also, much of the Curry prodding was after three seasons of his showing up to training camp as a lard-*** and completely out of condition. It was done during his contract year off-season. Sweets hasn't had an off-season with us yet. Perhaps he might get prodded like Curry did this summer...


Yeah, or maybe Skiles benching Sweets has really gotten into his head, and he believes that it's not worth trying anymore. And maybe it's the same thing with Gordon: he tries so hard to not make mistakes, that it gets in his head and he ends up making them anyway. You never can tell what's going on in the locker room, because no one can. I feel like Skiles may have rubbed some of the players the wrong way after all the stuff that's gone on, and they believe that trying hard isn't worth it after all the effort they put at the start of the season and some of them are still getting benched for considerable amounts of time during games. Like last night, the starters weren't getting it done, but what the hell would make a sane person think that Pargo, Pike, Othella, Schenscher and whoever else will get us back into the game. It DOESN'T work! And that's not the only game that Skiles has blown for us because of his stupid rotations. He just doesn't have any trust in his players in order to keep them in the game, even when they aren't getting it done.




> Sure, everybody and their brother knows this teams weaknesses. Sure, there's no way to cover up those weaknesses. The time for making those changes passed about a month or so ago. To state that the coach and GM are unwilling to get players to help us (baggage and all) is a little presumptous. Tim Thomas wouldn't have made much difference to our bottom line. Maybe he adds a scoring lift for us and we win a few games. Maybe he takes shots away from a hot Gordon, Hinrich or Duhon and we lose a game or two instead. All-in-all, I really don't think he was our answer. Sweetney HAS gotten a chance. Many of them. He just hasn't taken advantage of the opportunities. If you want to put that on the coach or Pax, go ahead. I put that on Sweetney. It's no secret to anybody here what he needs to do and if he's not doing it, what's the problem? You can only try to motivate someone so much; they've got to eventually make the choice to do something about it.


Who here thought four rookies and a bunch of scrubs could lead a team to 47 wins last season? Well, if I would have been around back then, I wouldn't have said yes, that's for sure. It's the same thing here: you will NEVER know what could have happened unless Pax and Skiles would have given it a shot and tried to either play guys like Thomas, or get someone else before the trading deadline. Failure to do so has not destroyed our team, but it has destroyed whatever is left of this season. I honestly can't take anymore of Skiles stupid rotations, and I hate that we have to rely on rookies next year to lift us out of the hole Pax put us in. Not to say we won't be better next year, I just think Pax really put too much into that trade, and he thought too highly of the "assets" he was getting back in return for a proven veteran and a big man who may not be the best, but got the job done anyway last year.



> Presumably, I'm a charter member of the PaxSkiles Can Do No Wrong and I'm Incapable Of Any Independant Thought Club... Pax get's a mulligan this season. I, personally, expected playoffs this year and will be disappointed if we don't make it. I expected a dropoff in wins (to around .500 for the year - looks like we'll fall short of that). I do expect those holes that you, I, and everyone else knows about to be, if not completely filled, damn near all the way filled by the start of next season. I don't care how it's done and I don't care who they get to fill those holes. Draft, Free Agency, Trades - whatever it takes, but this is Pax's offseason to show that he can makeover a team into a consistant winner.


You know what, I was expecting the same thing: playoffs, a fun team, success. But all that got pushed aside for future success in about three years. Instead, we could have been successful now AND in the future if Pax would have made some good trades in the next couple years. But no, he decided to recycle our team and try and start over with already a couple pieces added to the puzzle. Now we have to re-fill the holes that Pax left wide open, and it's hard having to see those holes exploited every game. And I know it's obvious what those holes are, and that's why we're losing. The other 29 teams know now what those holes are. Some have done a good job to exploit them, some others, not so good. But for the most part, those holes have kept us from getting to the next level this season, and Pax doesn't have any other choice but to fill up those holes this summer, or we'll fail again next season, just like we have so far this year.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ok, Ok, I'll say it: pretty please with sugar on top.


 :topic: 



:angel:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Do I have to say pretty please with sugar on top?


Man I really started the thread to find out if anyone still thinks Sweetney is worth anything. Now then someone opened up the can of a top 4 pick being worth more than you know who alone, and I think once someone says that, it's open for debate. 

The point is this. You have people who thought Sweetney was worth anything at all, and not just anything at all, but his value was thought by most to be that of AD. And not just thought, but insisted. And I just wanna know what people think about Sweetney's value now that Schensher has planted Mike on the bench.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> The point is this. You have people who thought Sweetney was worth anything at all, and not just anything at all, but his value was thought by most to be that of AD. And not just thought, but insisted. And I just wanna know what people think about Sweetney's value now that Schensher has planted Mike on the bench.


Sweetney has been a disappointment for sure in the time he's been here. I do think he has at least some of the skills you'd expect from a high lotto pick, and you still see flashes of "the P word" on occasion, but he hasn't matured into a real NBA player and he has been plagued with conditioning problems.

Like you-know-who, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he got here out of shape and he has the offseason to get ready and come into camp next season ready to play the Skiles way.

If he is sweating chicken grease in November, I will be ready to call him a bust. But I'm hoping for a little "right way" from him. 

We'll see, I guess.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I'm not stating my opinion as fact. You are coming out strong with your opinions, so I'm just throwing some questions out there so we can step back and think. I think last year's team is overrated and this year's team is underrated. There's a lot of people who will agree with me and a lot that won't... that's fine.


I've been working by the computer the last two days and drinking a lot of coffee, sorry lol. I'm calm now. Look I love the way we're all talking here. I don't think anyone is crossing the line and it's a heated discussion, BUT between people who legitimately believe in their opinion and are able to well reason their opinions.

But as far as what you said.. I believe last year's team was underrated and this year's team is overrated lol. I really do. I'm laughing because it just shows what that perspective can do to our thought patters if you start at the beginning and progress outward. 



> I am operating on the assumption that I want to build a contender. Last year's team looked more like Hoosiers than a Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, Pistons type dynasty. Almost everyone on this board says we need a star, or a go-to guy. I have always been a bit leery of this, because we would have to gut our team in order to acquire such player and be stuck in mediocrity (ala T'Wolves)


Not necessarily. I think Dwyane Wade is going to be a lot easier for Chicago to get than a lot of people think, but then I've thought other things that nobody thought and have watched them come to fruition too (like many on this very wise board, can we rename is Sage Central?). I just think if you look at everything involved there the conditions will be great for us to either sign him or pull a trade without giving too much. 



> Now we are in a position to keep all of our assets (minus Curry) and add about four more in this upcoming offseason, one of them a top pick in the draft. With all of our current assets we can afford to wait out to see if we grow internally. If we don't succeed, we have more than enough to trade away to consolidate. I haven't been able to comfortably say that any other season. That's why I like our current position.


I have no problem with liking our position. And this is why you may feel that I'm speaking to your opinions and I'm not. What I have a problem with is this. There was a minority of Paxson fans who said that Sweetney would give us "Curry's post scoring, BUT with better rebounding and fundamentals!" that "Paxson must see something in Thomas, he isn't JUST a throw in" and that "AD is coming back to the Bulls anyway." And we all know that was out there. So where is that now? I've seen Ron Cey admit he was wrong about how much we'd miss Curry. I've seen a lot of good posters step up here over and over. It's not like that *other place* where everyone's living in denial. Hell I've admitted when I've been wrong about things. I thought Crawford would eventually be decent for us and that Skiles would be a bad hire. I was immensely wrong on both counts. And that's just recent stuff.

What irks me is not when people like our position. It's when the line gets blurred from liking our position to assuming that success on this plan is our destiny (again, this is not you... I don't think). Now lets remember, last year, we already WERE a winning team. And we were young. So when I say what I'm about to say remember that. Ok, now... you can have a great plan with lots of assets and have it not work out. How many lotto picks were on the 2000 Blazers team that had SCOTTIE PIPPEN, and Rasheed Wallace? Hell even Steve Smith might also make the hall of fame with those two one day. And didn't they have like 9 former lottery selections, AND an owner willing to dole out fat cash. And they got one summer in the sun which included a trip the Western Conference finals. THey had tons of "assets." I'd venture to guess that more lottery selections fail to become more than decent starters than the amount that do not fail to do so, and that more than half of free agent signings fall short of expectations. We're not as close as people think.

So what bothers me is when people act like our position will just lead to success. So you can come back and say "Well nothing is ever promised." And to that I reply that last year WE ALREADY had something. 



> While vastly different emotionally, I think everyone on this board would admit that this year's team isn't as good as last years. Some people are just dealing with possibly missing the playoffs better than others. Me, because I think we are underrated and have a lot of assets coming. Others, because they feel like we are rebuilding again and have to strike it rich to get back to the level we were a year ago.
> 
> That's why we have a difference of opinion. I'm just trying to suggest angles you might not have considered. From your responses, it does sound like you considered most of what I asked before. Thus, we disagree.
> 
> ...


Yes you are rather reasonable. I don't get free hugs?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Sweetney has been a disappointment for sure in the time he's been here. I do think he has at least some of the skills you'd expect from a high lotto pick, and you still see flashes of "the P word" on occasion, but he hasn't matured into a real NBA player and he has been plagued with conditioning problems.
> 
> Like you-know-who, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he got here out of shape and he has the offseason to get ready and come into camp next season ready to play the Skiles way.
> 
> ...


See, this is an ideal response. I have no problem with the "he's been a disappointment but I'll give him till November" angle. Thanks T!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> See, this is an ideal response. I have no problem with the "he's been a disappointment but I'll give him till November" angle. Thanks T!


We can wait until 2010 and the guy is still going to suck. Sweetney's value is not just zero, it's negative. He's a zero as a player but a negative overall because 1) he's a waste of a roster spot and 2) he's a waste of $2.7M in cap space over the summer.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> We can wait until 2010 and the guy is still going to suck. Sweetney's value is not just zero, it's negative. He's a zero as a player but a negative overall because 1) he's a waste of a roster spot and 2) he's a waste of $2.7M in cap space over the summer.


Oh I agree lol. But at the same time, Tom's stance is at least AN answer that I was looking to get.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

Not to be a contrarian but...

I keep wondering if Sweet's NBA career is going to flash in front of his eyes this oddseason. He is entering his contract year with the labels fat, unmotivated, undiciplined,underacheiver,worthless and many other uncomplimentory monikers. The choice is simple, let your rookie contract be your last significant payday and simply fade away, or get pissed and do something about and show everybody that they judged you too soon.

My vote... you will see a totally different Sweetney next year. I still have no idea however if he is going to be decent enough that any team would commit multiple years to him contractually.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

BULLHITTER said:


> just for the record, while i'm new to this board, i'm a 50+, ex-player (hs and college), coach, and b-ball junkie. i don't get into debates about salary strictly because i'm of the opinion that 1) careers are so short that players should get whatEVER they can; and 2) the money doesn't come out of my pocket, so i'm only interested if guys can play.
> 
> i'm generally very confident about what i post, and if it's worth anything, i predicted the bulls would win 45+ games last year (hey, it was a wild homer guess, but i was right!). i'm still predicting the bull will make the playoffs but i'm backing off of 41-41; the inconsistency is troubling to me.


Where did you play and coach? My buddy coaches Thornwood and he just went downstate for the weekend championship. What defense did you run as coach?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Where did you play and coach? My buddy coaches Thornwood and he just went downstate for the weekend championship. What defense did you run as coach?


Never mind you. Where does your buddy post?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Never mind you. Where does your buddy post?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> We can wait until 2010 and the guy is still going to suck. Sweetney's value is not just zero, it's negative. He's a zero as a player but a negative overall because 1) he's a waste of a roster spot and 2) he's a waste of $2.7M in cap space over the summer.


How do you explain his solid first two months of the season? Did the league catch up with him? Was he just lucky?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> We can wait until 2010 and the guy is still going to suck. Sweetney's value is not just zero, it's negative. He's a zero as a player but a negative overall because 1) he's a waste of a roster spot and 2) he's a waste of $2.7M in cap space over the summer.


I think Paxson is going to try to unload him...

A) as part of a package.
B) for a second round pick.
C) for cash considerations.
D) if all else fails, in a buyout

Don't you think a team like Atlanta, starved for big men, would take a flyer on him for only a small cap hit of 2.7 million? 

I don't think he'll be a Bull next year, if the communication between Skiles and Paxson is strong. If Skiles isn't going to play him, we should move him.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> How do you explain his solid first two months of the season? Did the league catch up with him? Was he just lucky?


Let's not get carried away. He wasn't THAT good in the first two months of the season. He hasn't shot over 48.9% in any month, his best month is 6.8 RPG on 23.8 MPG, and he's never seen a double team in his life. I think because the trade made him "Pax's guy" people are wishing, but the wishes are going ot be for naught.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I think Paxson is going to try to unload him...
> 
> A) as part of a package.
> B) for a second round pick.
> ...


I think he has zero value. The guy is 6'8" and lacks even below average athleticism for the power forward position. Oh yeah, and he's fat. Like defensive tackle fat. In fact, Albert Haynesworth of the Titans makes Sweetney look morbidly obese.

But I'll settle for that:

Antonio Davis + Eddy Curry + However many wasted seasons we spend until we are as good as we were LAST YEAR 

For

First round pick, 3 second rounders, pick swap


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Let's not get carried away. He wasn't THAT good in the first two months of the season. He hasn't shot over 48.9% in any month, his best month is 6.8 RPG on 23.8 MPG, and he's never seen a double team in his life. I think because the trade made him "Pax's guy" people are wishing, but the wishes are going ot be for naught.


How do you read "solid" as "that good?" Don't you not consider 11+ pts, 48.8 % shooting and 6+ rebounds in 23 minutes solid? 

That's what he averaged in November and December and I imagine that Bulls fans expectations would have been met had he maintained those averages.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> How do you read "solid" as "that good?" Don't you not consider 11+ pts, 48.8 % shooting and 6+ rebounds in 23 minutes solid?
> 
> That's what he averaged in November and December and I imagine that Bulls fans expectations would have been met had he maintained those averages.


Well, he didn't, and now we'll never know if he could have. Chances are the guy is gonna get shipped out of town by summertime. The only way I want to see Sweetney in a Bulls uniform next season is if he gets his flubby butt in the training room and starts conditioning and eating right.

I just wonder if he has that self-drive to want to be better. He used to say he was exercising, but I haven't heard nothing from him in a while. Does he still care anymore? I'd like to know what he's been doing. The only person that will get Sweetney in shape is Sweetney, so let's hope if he's still around, he gets in shape this offseason.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Sweets is garbage...i don't even think better physical condition could improve his game...

get him outta her asap...

Only players I want in a bulls uni next year is 

Nocioni-Gordon-Deng-Hinrich

EVERYONE ELSE IS EXPENDABLE imo....


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

The ROY said:


> Sweets is garbage...i don't even think better physical condition could improve his game...
> 
> get him outta her asap...
> 
> ...


What about Chandler? I guess he's expendable? I'd still keep him for his length and somewhat good defense. Except for that, like you said, everyone else should be on the trading block this summer.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I'm not claiming that Sweetney is or will be a very good player. What I am claiming is that Sweetney has been a solid player at times. And I am wondering how people can be so certain that that solidness will never again be duplicated.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

PowerWoofer said:


> What about Chandler? I guess he's expendable? I'd still keep him for his length and somewhat good defense. Except for that, like you said, everyone else should be on the trading block this summer.


Chandler's NO OFFENSIVE havin a** is definintely expendable....


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> How do you read "solid" as "that good?" Don't you not consider 11+ pts, 48.8 % shooting and 6+ rebounds in 23 minutes solid?
> 
> That's what he averaged in November and December and I imagine that Bulls fans expectations would have been met had he maintained those averages.


No I don't. People get carried away with numbers. I look at numbers slightly, always concentrating more on the real effect a player has on the game.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> I'm not claiming that Sweetney is or will be a very good player. What I am claiming is that Sweetney has been a solid player at times. And I am wondering how people can be so certain that that solidness will never again be duplicated.


Where does solid end and begin? To me it seems like a catch-all for "I like this guy and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt."


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

1. Como estan, beaches. The rivers will run red with Mike Sweetney's blood.

2. I cannot for the LIFE of me believe that people are still hung up on Eddy Curry. He's dropped in scoring, blocked shots, free throw %... he's just not as effective as he was during his contract year. No matter WHAT you say or HOW you say it, a guy that has averaged over 15 ppg in only ONE season, is 7-foot tall and gets regularly out-rebounded by Luol Deng and Jason Kidd. Say what you want, but having a bad rebounder on the floor has lots of opportunity cost, and having a dominant offensive player, post or otherwise, that doesn't score 14 ppg does NOT make the rest of the team amazing, especially when the player has no sense of passing.

Curry should have stayed, but this talk of growing into a contender with him here... let's face it. Eddy Curry will NEVER be Shaquille O'Neal, or anything resembling it. He's too huge of a defensive liability to stay on the floor for long enough to make an impact, and drooling over the impact he had in his foul-limited minutes is silly.

3. Of COURSE the trade wasn't fair, unless we end up with a solid big man (whatever we keep saying, Aldridge will be a decent starter in this league). But who cares? In my opinion, we would have taken a step back anyway. What has Curry or Davis done in New York or Toronto?

*What I can't understand is why people groan and moan about this team that is one Eddy Curry away from a contender when it could be SO much worse. Curry is not the savior of the Knicks; to say he'd be the savior of the Bulls is basically saying that the Bulls are far better than the Knicks.* 

4. Mike Sweetney can't get minutes in front of Luke Schenscher, and it really is a huge mystery. In a win over the Lakers on November 20, he was getting 20 and 12 with 3 assists, 2 steals, and 3 blocks. As recently as February 16, he managed 10 points and 12 rebounds, along with 2 assists, a steal and 4 blocks in that important win against the Sixers. 

So why he's not being utilized now is beyond me. But his value in The Trade was minimal; it was obviously a not-so-great trade.

By the way, PowerWoofer and Pippenatorade, kukoc4ever is the poster boy for your platforms but he's been away from the boards for a little while. He's been the primary vocalizer of that opinion since the day we traded Curry, I believe.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> Mike Sweetney can't get minutes in front of Luke Schenscher, and it really is a huge mystery. In a win over the Lakers on November 20, he was getting 20 and 12 with 3 assists, 2 steals, and 3 blocks. As recently as February 16, he managed 10 points and 12 rebounds, along with 2 assists, a steal and 4 blocks in that important win against the Sixers.


I think Sweetney has lost his confidence. When he has played he has still managed the same shots he did in the past, he still has gotten to the line a percentage of the times he's gotten to the line, but he can't seem to convert on a layup or hit free throws to save his life. Now, people will say that is 'cause he's fat, but I don't buy it. He was also fat earlier this year, and last year, and in college, and he managed to shoot 70+ percent during those times. He was also fat early this year and during his time with the Knicks, and during that time he manged to convert around 50 percent or more of while getting same shots he currently can't make.

Hopefully he gets it together, not only for his sake, but also because hopefully with the addition of a starting quality big in the offseason, if he gets his game back to where it was, he could be a decent bench guy.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> 1. Como estan, beaches. The rivers will run red with Mike Sweetney's blood.
> 
> 2. I cannot for the LIFE of me believe that people are still hung up on Eddy Curry. He's dropped in scoring, blocked shots, free throw %... he's just not as effective as he was during his contract year. No matter WHAT you say or HOW you say it, a guy that has averaged over 15 ppg in only ONE season, is 7-foot tall and gets regularly out-rebounded by Luol Deng and Jason Kidd. Say what you want, but having a bad rebounder on the floor has lots of opportunity cost, and having a dominant offensive player, post or otherwise, that doesn't score 14 ppg does NOT make the rest of the team amazing, especially when the player has no sense of passing.
> 
> Curry should have stayed, but this talk of growing into a contender with him here... let's face it. Eddy Curry will NEVER be Shaquille O'Neal, or anything resembling it. He's too huge of a defensive liability to stay on the floor for long enough to make an impact, and drooling over the impact he had in his foul-limited minutes is silly.


LOL Eddy Curry needs to be Shaquille O'neal for us to be a contender? What? I thought we won 47 games after starting 0-9, with the third youngest team in the league, with Eddy Curry being... Eddy Curry. Why? Because we had such a great number of GOOD players. Shaq's teams never had more that 3 players that would be one of our best 6 players last year. Eddy was not THE reason, he was just A reason. It's no different than if we'd kept Eddy and traded Davis and Hinrich for White Chocolate (who we'd then release of course), Crisco Sweetney and a draft pick. Or Davis and Gordon, or Davis and Chandler. You get the point. 

And you can talk about all the reasons that it didn't work. "Eddy Curry can't pass, so double teams don't matter." And yet in all your theoretical exercising, whose way worked better? Yours? Or mine (last year)? Teams like ours don't work without at least a couple players who can fill it up on just about anyone on offense, EVEN if they aren't complete players. Oh but let me guess. Andrea Bargnani or Lamarcus Aldridge are gonna have us right back where we were last year right? 

What a joke. 

By the way, Kirk Hinrich will never even be Dennis Johnson. And Dennis Johnson is far from the PG equivalent of Shaquille O'neal. Ben Gordon will never be anything more than Danny Ainge with less fundamentals and more scoring pop. What top 50 all time SF will Luol Deng ever come close to? And Shaq is probably a top 25 player at that. Tyson Chandler? Kevin Garnett is far from a Shaquille O'neal and Tyson is farther from being Garnett than Curry is from being O'neal. Can Tyson break 6 PPG? Oh that's right, he's not "asked to score." 



> 3. Of COURSE the trade wasn't fair, unless we end up with a solid big man (whatever we keep saying, Aldridge will be a decent starter in this league). But who cares? In my opinion, we would have taken a step back anyway. What has Curry or Davis done in New York or Toronto?
> 
> *What I can't understand is why people groan and moan about this team that is one Eddy Curry away from a contender when it could be SO much worse. Curry is not the savior of the Knicks; to say he'd be the savior of the Bulls is basically saying that the Bulls are far better than the Knicks.*


What the hell does New York and Toronto have to freaking do with anything. What did they do HERE?! How about that question. How Eddy plays with Stephon Marbury and how Davis plays with Mo Pete is of no concern to me AT ALL. I know what they did here. They won 47 games. And it's so funny that you'll probably say "well we never would have contended with him here, and we probably would have been .500 this year even with Davis and Eddy" but then you'll turn right around and also say that you know that Aldridge "will" be a decent starter in this league. 

So right there what have you done? You've taken a FACT that I submit as evidence. Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis DID IN FACT win 47 games here, and I submit that as evidence that we'd have won 50+ this year, next year and the year after (when we WONT waiting on Aldridge). But then you really have no evidence at all of that strength that Aldridge WILL be a decent starter in this league. On one hand, Eddy and AD DID win 47 games. Aldridge on the other hand has never played in the NBA, and looks pretty Tyson-at-19ish right now. *So it sounds like evidence be damned, your opinion can both write off past FACTS and say "god its speculation that we'd win with Eddy and AD (even though we DID last year) and continue to improve, but I KNOW that if we draft this guy whose never played in the NBA, he will be a decent starter and we will be a contender."*





> 4. Mike Sweetney can't get minutes in front of Luke Schenscher, and it really is a huge mystery. In a win over the Lakers on November 20, he was getting 20 and 12 with 3 assists, 2 steals, and 3 blocks. As recently as February 16, he managed 10 points and 12 rebounds, along with 2 assists, a steal and 4 blocks in that important win against the Sixers.
> 
> So why he's not being utilized now is beyond me. But his value in The Trade was minimal; it was obviously a not-so-great trade.
> 
> By the way, PowerWoofer and Pippenatorade, kukoc4ever is the poster boy for your platforms but he's been away from the boards for a little while. He's been the primary vocalizer of that opinion since the day we traded Curry, I believe.


I'll take our "platforms" over "play the right way, build a contender from within by getting all your role players first and hoping someone wants to trade a star for 3 role players, and rely on capspace and picks. Oh my god I LOVE assets!" But that kinda doesn't do the platform justice, when most of the people who are standing on it said we'd win 45+ games this year and wouldn't miss Curry. 

Yes Woofer! That's right! Many of the people who say now that "oh we were gonna take a step back, we all knew that, but look at our ASSETS" were adimant that we wouldn't miss Curry at all. Want a bump on some threads that swore we'd win just as many games as last year? Want threads from 6 weeks ago that say we miss Davis and (only few said this) Griffin more than Curry.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Eddy's value in the trade??????????


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

when the trade was 1st made i had 2 feelings .

one its a trade that never should have happened but Pax killed himself by boxing himself into a corner , and 

the bulls really got alot more than i thought they would for eddy considering his health issues and much pubicized standoff.

sweetney to me is and was a good player , but he cant do much from the bench and skiles and him are a bad match .i think he'll prove that on another team.

Curry and him are not in the same realm as far as talent Curry will be in much better shape next season i most likely weigh more as i think he needs to and what i have seen in his all around game this year has been an improvement even though it hasn't at all translated into wins.

the pax plan on this was a weak one because of bad timing , the FA market is weak , and quite honestly its his own fault . Any FA market is primarily pushed by the rookie class 4 years prior ....and who on the 2002 draft is on the market and worth a darn?

i dont see much there , and to be honest i didn't see much 3 years ago when paxson decided this was a good idea and i said as much then. the 2006 draft is weak on true impact players and long on rotation players , there is no way to tell if a draft 3 years into the future is going to be any good because players come out late , some come out early , some emerge from nowhere and some fall of the map. its 2006 , there is really only the tourney left to prove anything in games for big time talents. i can tell the only franchise type (aldridge ) is a player i'd rather not take a chance on because i dont see a dominant ability , i just see a guy with alot of all around big man talent, but doesn't play all that smart, and is not a take charge personality. he is very content to let tucker and gibson be the guy., you want your star to be a guy who forces himself on the game, to always make an impact good or bad.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> Curry and him are not in the same realm as far as talent Curry will be in much better shape next season i most likely weigh more as i think he needs to and what i have seen in his all around game this year has been an improvement even though it hasn't at all translated into wins.


blah..

curry came got in TIP TOP shape for the bulls last season and guess what? he was still the same player he's always been..

we all know what curry is..a DECENT center with above average offensive skills and BELOW average everything else...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

The ROY said:


> blah..
> 
> curry came got in TIP TOP shape for the bulls last season and guess what? he was still the same player he's always been..
> 
> we all know what curry is..a DECENT center with above average offensive skills and BELOW average everything else...


tim grover didn't think curry was in the *tip top * shape , he had issues with the bulls fitness goals that put his weight over how good of shape he was in, and i'll take his word over yours , and even at 285 curry followed the same pattern that his seasons tend to follow , slow start and picks it up late in the season ...the month or so before curry had to sit out with his heart situation was his best ball all season . so i have strong doubts that less weight made curry any better , in fact it seems more like his natural evolution as a player from 21 to 22 more than anything.

and the fact remains. a decent center > sweetney right now which is basically an unused reserve , and its not close .


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

The ROY said:


> blah..
> 
> curry came got in TIP TOP shape for the bulls last season and guess what? he was still the same player he's always been..
> 
> we all know what curry is..a DECENT center with above average offensive skills and BELOW average everything else...


I thought Curry's defense last year was GREATLY improved over 2003-04. I also thought he was better at going up and dunking the ball, and better at making Skiles happy enough for him to get more crunch time PT than he ever got before last year. I admit his rebounding, assists and turnovers were unimproved, but everything you analyze about a player has to be in the context of what we are as a TEAM. We rebounded great as a team, passed well as a team and defended excellently as a team. That's how I believe you have to look at things. If this team had Curry and didn't have Noce I'd be screaming for players like Noce. I think people think I have this obsession with Curry and I don't. I'll always have an obsession with the Bulls getting whatever we need. When you can pick up complete impact players even as weak as Iguodala (who has talent and jib, even if he's not a "star") you do, of course. But most players bring a lot of one thing... offense or defense, talent or jib, etc. And whatever the Bulls need I'll be all for. If we have a team like now I'll take "above average" offensive players who are weak in other areas. Just like if this team was full of scorers and needed D and toughness I'd want us to rack up players like AD, Noce, Duhon etc. 

The one thing I will not accept is apathy. Curry wasn't like Crawford, Rose, and Robinson even though he gets grouped with them a lot. He could play within a winning concept, didn't have a divisive attitude and though he was flighty and immature, when Skiles asked him to stay after practice for a year, he did. And he obviously followed Scott's rules enough to start and get big minutes. Eddy cared. Did he care like Noce probably does? No. But he cared enough. Those other bums never did. Jalen Rose doesnt care for five minutes about anything but himself, his shots and his paycheck, because AD and Dale Davis aren't around to scare the dogpee out of him anymore.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Showtyme - it seemed everyone had stopped talking about Curry, for the time being at least, till you brought it up again 

Regarding Sweetney, I hope he can be unloaded this summer but I'm not counting on it either. He doesn't look like a guy I'd want, but who knows.

Regarding his first couple of months, I don't think he was very good at all outside of a handful of games. He slowed the rest of the team down and generally stank things up on defense.

Say what you want about Skiles, but I have no quarrel at all with how he evaluates guys as players. I think he's gotten needlessly personal in his dislike of two guys (ERob and Thomas), but if you actually look at what he does with the guys he decides he can work with, there's only very minor criticisms I have to make. And I think he evaluated Sweetney and decided he wasn't very good.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

What do you guys think about trading the NY pic for Zach Randolph? I think this really only something to look at if we can't get Ridge or Barg. Honestly I wouldn't do it because of Zach's contract, he would be cemented into the core. But it seems to me he could bring everything Eddy brought and more. Portland would get a top 4 pick, save 9 million next year, and get rid of a very questionable max contract. We would get all the scoring we lost with Curry, Zach doesn't finish like Curry, but makes up for it with good moves, less turnovers, better passing and rebounding.

Randolph/ Songo/ Allen
Deng/ Nocioni
Chandler/ Nene or Mohammed or Pryzbilla
Roy or Brewer or Carney/ Gordon
Hinrich/ Duhon


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Hustle said:


> What do you guys think about trading the NY pic for Zach Randolph? I think this really only something to look at if we can't get Ridge or Barg. Honestly I wouldn't do it because of Zach's contract, he would be cemented into the core. But it seems to me he could bring everything Eddy brought and more. Portland would get a top 4 pick, save 9 million next year, and get rid of a very questionable max contract. We would get all the scoring we lost with Curry, Zach doesn't finish like Curry, but makes up for it with good moves, less turnovers, better passing and rebounding.
> 
> Randolph/ Songo/ Allen
> Deng/ Nocioni
> ...


Zach doesn't bring what Curry does. The guys doing the game commented that he settled for a lot of jumpers for a player his age, and I have to agree. He does. He plays like a player much older than he actually is. Yeah he rebounds and passes better, but who doesn't. Like I said, that doesn't help much, because even with Curry we already were a very good rebounding and passing team. So we get overkill in areas where there wasn't much room for improvement. And Zach, much like all the other guys that have been talked about, except Nene (whose health gives me serious reservations) and Nazr, doesn't play with his back to the basket like Big E, and doesn't draw the attention he does. Scoring isn't so much important as HOW you score. So in Zach we add another big who is pretty good at finishing on a play that Al Harrington could finish on, but otherwise likes to show you that "he can hit you with his jumper if you play off of him." Great, another big man in today's crappy NBA who wants to "show you his guard skills." I like my guards to show me guard skills and my bigs to do what Eddy does, put their back on you and try to knock you into oblivion and dunk or throw up a baby hook. 

I do agree with the angle you are taking though in general. A high offense guy who maybe doesn't do the "little things" as much as our other guys is exactly what we need, cause this team is gonna do the little things regardless. Zach just isn't the guy. Nazr or Nene would make me happy enough in that regard IF Nene is healthy enough.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Showtyme - it seemed *everyone* had stopped talking about Curry, for the time being at least, till you brought it up again



you're kidding, right? that's just totally priceless! 

:laugh:



anyway, i think sweetney is not long for the bulls as many have already stated. but earlier in the season i do recall skiles at least having some positive things to say about sweetney (skill-wise not conditioning-wise). he does have a decent, not great, touch around the basket. and at least skiles *has the class* to understand that this may be a genetic thing sweets is dealing with. more than i can say about some people here. and don't give me that scapegoat argument, i'm tired of that. 

listen, i'm not going to defend sweetney, but i don't think he totally sucks like so many here are convinced of. 

and yes, tripledouble, the stats he posted earlier in the season were solid. it's just personal bias that gets in the way of people actually being able to acknowledge this. it's petty really.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Eddy's finishing skills, ability to run the break and, the amount of space he took up on defense are what we miss from him. Zach doesn't do any of those things as well as Curry but


Pippenatorade said:


> that doesn't help much, because even with Curry we already were a very good rebounding and passing team. So we get overkill in areas where there wasn't much room for improvement.


An overkill of rebounding from the center position? I don't think you can have an overkill of passing either, the more the better.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> you're kidding, right? that's just totally priceless!
> 
> :laugh:


He meant on this thread. After 3 attempts of asking, I had sort've steered the thread away from He Who Shall Not Be Named and back to Sweetney. 

Now would be a great time for the thread to get back on topic again.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> you're kidding, right? that's just totally priceless!
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> ...



We could always trade Sweetney and our pick either to move up in the draft if Pax is targeting two top guys or in a trade for a starting quality player. Boozer comes to mind if Utah wants to unload salary.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Whatever you think Sweetney could be, forget it. The guy can't get in shape, and if we have to play guys like this then we're going to go nowhere. We need bigs that are athletic and can actually finish at the rim. I know there isn't a great supply out there, but please, I'm sure half the bigs in the NBA right now could do twice of what Sweetney does. The guy is a hack, and I'm tired of seeing him being wasted on our bench. Either we get rid of him in a trade, or we just drop him. The dude is incapable of coming into a season in shape, so he doesn't deserve to be playing right now.

Sweetney = A waste of Money and our services!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> anyway, i think sweetney is not long for the bulls as many have already stated. but earlier in the season i do recall skiles at least having some positive things to say about sweetney (skill-wise not conditioning-wise). he does have a decent, not great, touch around the basket. and at least skiles *has the class* to understand that this may be a genetic thing sweets is dealing with. more than i can say about some people here. and don't give me that scapegoat argument, i'm tired of that.
> 
> listen, i'm not going to defend sweetney, but i don't think he totally sucks like so many here are convinced of.
> 
> and yes, tripledouble, the stats he posted earlier in the season were solid. it's just personal bias that gets in the way of people actually being able to acknowledge this. it's petty really.


miz, Sweetney's weight is directly related to his ability to perform his job at the highest level. In the absence of any evidence of his having some sort of psychological disorder or glandular glitch, I think comments about it are pretty fair game. 

When he was force-fed minutes, yes, Sweetney put up respectable "glory stats." Unfortunately, he slowed our offense down to a crawl, didn't provide us with any rebounding advantage, and generally got badly outperformed by whoever he covered. Skiles rode him longer than he probably should have, but ultimately he figured it out and sent "Sweets" to DNP land.

I know that the Bulls are a fabulous organization, but as I've said before, I doubt that their strength and conditioning and medical staff is *that* much better than anyone else's. I am pretty sure the Knicks weren't sending Sweetney home for the summer with a stack of gift certificates to Dunkin Donuts and Outback Steak House. It can be safely assumed that this is a puzzle they were actively trying to solve, and couldn't.

I believe the Bulls will try to send him on his way. If they can't, we'll be treated to a bunch of articles in September where Sweetney claims he's never been fitter, that he's on a new diet that doesn't allow him to put gravy on his open-faced meatloaf sandwiches, etc. Then as the season starts, it'll be instantly apparent that he either hasn't lost a lot of weight or if he has, it isn't making a difference in his game. Off to DNP land he goes.

It's hard for me to see how Sweetney provided any value to the Bulls at all. And if we can't find a taker for him, he may actually prevent us from getting a free agent we want.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> miz, Sweetney's weight is directly related to his ability to perform his job at the highest level. In the absence of any evidence of his having some sort of psychological disorder or glandular glitch, I think comments about it are pretty fair game.
> 
> When he was force-fed minutes, yes, Sweetney put up respectable "glory stats." Unfortunately, he slowed our offense down to a crawl, didn't provide us with any rebounding advantage, and generally got badly outperformed by whoever he covered. Skiles rode him longer than he probably should have, but ultimately he figured it out and sent "Sweets" to DNP land.
> 
> ...


I could see us cutting him. He just doesn't have any trade value left in him.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> you're kidding, right? that's just totally priceless!


Obviously not forever, but like Tom said, he at least had _this_thread going in the right direction.



> and yes, tripledouble, the stats he posted earlier in the season were solid. it's just personal bias that gets in the way of people actually being able to acknowledge this. it's petty really.


Not really. His stats were ok but it's hardly clear they were solid. 3.5 fouls per game and a couple of TOs in 22-23 mpg aren't very good. His rebounding numbers on average weren't all that great for a guy who spent all his time on the blocks. 

But worse were his non-statistical factors. He was slow and slowed down the offense. Defensively he was a complete sieve.

He had a few good games, yes. I not saying he didn't. But on the whole I don't think he was "solid". He was generally ok the first month and got progressively worse as teams took more advantage of him.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> you're kidding, right? that's just totally priceless!
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> ...


The whole Skiles/Sweetney thing is really interesting. Earlier in the season Skiles was borderline effusive in his praise of Sweets - I believe he said that Sweetney could be one of the better bigs in the league. Now he's basically our 12th man, but Skiles hasn't criticized him much at all...


----------

