# Curry: Do You Keep Him or Trade Him?



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Over his last 6 games, all on the road, Eddy Curry has put up these kinds of numbers:

*33.6mpg*
*56% FG Pct.*
*6rpg*
*20.8ppg*

He's a 21 year old third year player. If these were year to date averages he'd be playing in the all-star game this season.

His trade value might be at an all time high at this moment...high enough so that the combination of his salary and one of our bigger contracts might fetch a real honest to goodness closer or a combination of players who could satisfy more than just one of several glaring needs on the current Bulls roster.

But are we seeing the real deal this time? Or is this a slightly extended version of the Eddy Curry who left us drooling for more at the end of the 02/03 season?

Paxson has to try to figure out if what we're seeing now is what we can expect for years to come. If it is then you've got to hang on to him at all costs.

But what if the 04/05 season kicks off and we're once again subjected to another miseably soft start from Curry for the first three months or so of the season? What if what we're actually seeing is the beginning of a trend...play like crap from November through January as the team once again falls out of contention and then turn it on in February when all that's left is trying to determine where the Bulls will draft in the lottery once again.

Is this what it's like to be between the proverbial rock and a hard place? At the moment all signs point towards keeping a potential all-star calibur center. But one more lousy start next season and people will no doubt try to hang Paxson in effigy for not having traded him when he had real value. Because you can count on the fact that no matter what, if he starts slowly again next season, no matter how strong he finishes, this three year trend plus the fact that he's scheduled to become a RFA will hold down his trade value.

So, what do you do? Trade him now while he's at his market value peak? Or do you hang on to him and hope he doesn't turn back into a pumpkin over the summer?

C'mon now, all you arm chair General Managers, what's it to be? You've got less than two weeks to the 2/19 trade deadline. Is Eddy Curry a mutt or a monster? You make the call!


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*Curry*

The reason he is putting up good numbers recently is because he is finally gettin some minutes. 30 plus min that is. He could do this consistantly if skiles would play him major min and not keep changing up the lineup. Let him play through fould trouble. He has to learn somehow. Paul Silas did the same thing in CLevland. He stayed put with the same starting lineup and played through it. Now look at those guys. They were terrible early on but are now comming around and have won 6 of thier last ten. I just think its a matter of consistant playing time and guys know thier set roles and not worriying about being subbe out all the time. Not just for Eddie but for all the young guys. OUr starting lineup should be Curry,Chandler,Gill,Craw,and Kirk. Period. Davis and JYD come off the bench. I think we would be much more successfull like that.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Hell no...

There aren't too many Eddy Curry's that come around...

This kid has the goods, he really is the only one that stops himself by not being in shape.

The reason he is playing well is because now he's played his way into shape.

You're talking about a guy who I believe will keep this up and starting next year he will be the starting center on the East all-star team for the next 5-10 years.

I wouldn't trade Eddy Curry, ever.


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

No way we trade Curry! He just needs this summer with Skiles fitness program and has to stay away from cellphones. 
Don't leave him out there alone, but keep him involved at the Berto, when Curry's in shape he's a monster.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

of course we keep him, soon as shaq retires, hes the best center in the league, he has better post moves than yao ming by far. i predict in the next 2-3 years hes gonna average something like 27pts/8reb/1block and shooting over 55%fg, i really think what we have here is a dominant offense center for the next 10 years. this is why i wouldnt trade him for anything less than a pierce type of player. no semi-superstar like ray allen, rashard lewis, if we gonna trade the monster, we better package him and getting a superstar in return.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Keeps!!!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

We keep him. 

However, the way he comes into training camp each year is a concern. This is the second year in a row where he played himself into shape by February!! He starts playing after 45 plus games. Desire and heart has to come into question. 

We should see a major difference in him next fall.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Keep him!

I may sound like a broken record but I believe that he has a chance to be a dominant player. You win with dominant players. There is no way we could get a player back with as much potential to dominate, especially at C. Trading Curry would be an admission by Pax that the franchise would rather have guarenteed decenteness than a chance of greatness. 

I did not endure 5 years of crap BBall to watch an 6th seed make it to the second round every year.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Keep him.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Depends on the deal (as always).

It's hard for me to imagine Curry not always having conditioning problems.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Everything can change in the blink of an eye:

I wonder how much a players stock can fluctuate in a five game stretch. My take skyrockets and crashes...but, maybe this is why I am not a GM. I really have no idea what Curry's trade value is???


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

This is a good thread.

Many NBA fans want to trade people when they are playing like crap, and have no trade value. When a guy is playing well and has a high trade value, they want to keep him.

Clearly that is not the way to go, because it means you will never get anything good back in a trade, and you will end up stuck with guys who have one good season and then suck, losing all their value. The Bulls have been horrible at this, trading Brad Miller and Ron Artest when their value was low, and not trading Marcus Fizer when they should have, when his value was high.

You have to be realistic when you talk about Eddy Curry's work ethic. He hasn't shown any yet, and to hope he will now is wishful thinking. Ihave no idea why posters like truebluefan honestly expect this summer to be any different from the previous two summers.

I'd say, if you get your hands on Dwight Howard or Emeka Okafor in the draft, you gotta trade Curry while his value is high. You gotta. Playing three post players at once just doesn't work. See what happens when the Bulls try to play Marcus Fizer at SF, or the Magic with Drew Gooden. They end up destroying their young talents, which is dumb when you could probably get an extremely talented young swingman for Curry and play a lineup that actually makes sense.

If you don't get one of the top two picks, I'd say keep Curry and hope for the best. But this board is going to look awfully silly if it makes the same mistakes it did last summer.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

Of course you keep him!

First, yes, he did come to camp out of shape. What isn't widely known is just how serious the eye injury he had this summer was. I don't know all the details, just that he had to be immobile for some time. This, unfortunately, happened right after he took some time off anyway. Some other injuries, like a bone bruise, set him back a couple of times.

That's not an excuse, that's just what happened.

Conditioning for big men like that are always an issue. Ming has conditioning issues. Shaq has conditioning issues. The big knock on Zach Randolph is his conditioning. It took forever for Z to get into condition (if he is yet). Heck, Brand didn't get his body into great shape until his third or fourth season. Whenever you get a big guy around 300 pounds, conditioning will be an issue.

I really hope Eddy hits the program hard this summer, but even if he does, he's still several seasons away from being in top NBA form. His body is still maturing. He's still 3 or 4 years away. I don't like it, but it's the truth.

Second, Erick Dampier is right. It takes a while for centers to develop.

Third, look at the upside and downside. The upside of Eddy is best center in the NBA. We just saw Eddy go against the all star center of the west, and he's not that far behind. He's got the quickness and strength to use, which he really hasn't figured out how to yet. The upside is huge.

The downside? He may come in out of shape again. Maybe then he'll only average 15 points and 7 rebounds until he gets into shape in February. Hmmm, 15 and 7, that may be enough to get to the all star game. What would you replace that with? Stromile Swift's 9 points and 5 boards? Puhleeze!

Eddy will be an RFA next summer. The Bulls are in the driver's seat. The upside is huge, and the downside is pretty good. I just can't see any reason to trade.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> Of course you keep him!
> 
> First, yes, he did come to camp out of shape. What isn't widely known is just how serious the eye injury he had this summer was. I don't know all the details, just that he had to be immobile for some time. This, unfortunately, happened right after he took some time off anyway. Some other injuries, like a bone bruise, set him back a couple of times.
> ...


Good post.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> 
> Good post.


Why, thank you.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Depends on the deal (as always).
> 
> It's hard for me to imagine Curry not always having conditioning problems.


I agree with all of this. 

I will say that it's hard for me to imagine a GM giving up a Pierce-type player for Curry. And if we are not getting something like that, why make the trade?


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

The only way I see Chandler and/or Curry getting traded is if there an unbelievable deal that comes the Bulls way, or we are in a position to draft Okafor, in which case Paxson would have to at least consider keeping Okafor if he drafts him.

Keep Curry.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Zeos</b>!
> Of course you keep him!
> 
> First, yes, he did come to camp out of shape. What isn't widely known is just how serious the eye injury he had this summer was. I don't know all the details, just that he had to be immobile for some time. This, unfortunately, happened right after he took some time off anyway. Some other injuries, like a bone bruise, set him back a couple of times.
> ...


OK, but can we really wait another 3-4 years (as Krause suggested in his radio interview a few weeks back) and hope he gets it?

The way this team is presently constituted, I don't see how it gets even above .500 over that time without Eddy Curry in something close to all-star form. Will that be acceptable? Or is there a high probability that such a plan results in more desperation and a boneheaded trade of some sort in order to win more in the short-run? 

Just for argument's sake, let's say you trade him for a guy like Paul Pierce. I think with slight changes, you put Pierce on this team and we're at least .500 for the next three seasons, and better depending on how guys like Kirk, Chandler, Crawford, and our draft pick this summer come along.

They've still got way too much youth, and not enough guys that can help win. With a more solid team around Eddy, they could afford to bring him along, but without that his inconsistency will kill us. Similarly, they could trade him and perhaps get enough back to let their other young players develop into something special.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

He is not 4 years away, he is 2 years away. Eddy Curry is 21. I strongly believe that, with very very VERY few exceptions, if someone is not consistently playing at All-Star level at the age of 23, he never will. Age 23 is the cut-off.

I also think that NBA GM's recognize this. If a guy is 22 and hasn't done much with his athletic ability yet, like Darius Miles, GM's don't pretend that he has heaps of trade value. Instead they trade him for Jeff McInnis.

Curry has high trade value right now. If you wait until next year and he is still like this, people on this site may still be saying the same things about Curry's age, but in reality his trade value won't be so high anymore.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

if pax believes he can get Curry to play this way in November on, then keep him. If Pax believes Curry is only going to wake up the last week in january every year, trade him. Right now Curry has proven over his brief 3 year career that he can dominate sometime from Jan 20 on. The problem is that he is Pervis Ellison until this date as well. Thats the question Pax has to ask himself. Everyone wants to make this a shape issue. And that might have something to do with it. But I think its far more of a mental issue


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with all of this.
> ...


Beats me. I like the trade I suggested the other day of dangling Chandler in order to get Lewis. I think Chandler is going to top out a bit better than Lewis, but I think having Lewis now would enable the Bulls to let Curry, Crawford, and Hinrich grow into better players. Without another guy like that, however, I'm not sure they'll be able to.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Beats me. I like the trade I suggested the other day of dangling Chandler in order to get Lewis. I think Chandler is going to top out a bit better than Lewis, but I think having Lewis now would enable the Bulls to let Curry, Crawford, and Hinrich grow into better players. Without another guy like that, however, I'm not sure they'll be able to.


agreed

could a deal of
Erob
Crawford/Hinrich (have Ainge pick his guy)
Chandler

get you Paul Pierce? If yes, then do it and do it now. this game is won with stars. and we dont have one right now, though a Pierce and focuses Eddy Curry might be able to get it done


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Eddy really showed me a lot the last two games. Against Utah he played poorly in the 1st quarter and looked really gases but you could see he was really fighting to keep it going and in the 2nd half he played great.

Last night he started great but foul trouble (to bs offensive fouls) limited his play. In the 3rd quarter he was struggling again. But when he came back in after his rest he played great again in the 4th quarter and he really looked like he was playing hard and with confidence. The last two weeks eddy looks like a different player.

david


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> agreed
> 
> ...


If the c's were ever to entertain a trade like this, and that is a HUGE IF, you would have to take McCarty and Yogi Stewart/Jumaine Jones


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> agreed
> 
> ...


I really don't see the logic in trading both Hinrich and one of the two young bigs. Doesn't this transform our organization into Orlando?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I really don't see the logic in trading both Hinrich and one of the two young bigs. Doesn't this transform our organization into Orlando?


Not if they keep the other of Crawford/Hinrich and Curry.

Take on RLucas' and PatBateman's idea for a minute. The basic parameters are what RLucas said, but we sweeten the deal for them by giving up expiring contracts (Blount, Fizer) and taking back guys with years left (Stewart, Jones, McCarty, Mark Blount)

Say we trade:
Chandler, Crawford, ERob, Fizer, C. Blount
And Boston trades:
Pierce, Stewart, McCarty, Jones, M. Blount

(Given that here they're taking back Crawford ostensibly to play the point, I think they very well might end up also willing to send back Mike James- or maybe Banks if they've decided they don't like him).

That gives us:
1- Kirk, Brunson
2- Pierce, Gill
3- Pippen, McCarty, Jones, Jeffries
4- AD, JYD
5- Curry, M. Blount, Stewart

I dunno, but that looks better than Orlando. If you were to set Pierce and TMac about equal, we get a nod by having Kirk, Curry, and AD/JYD over Tyron Lue, Drew Gooden, and Juwan Howard.

If Curry turns into the beast everyone thinks he can, we have our own poor-man's version of the Kobe/Shaq combo .

In an ideal world, we draft an Okafur or Josh Howard and then sign Brent Barry as an FA and we're in pretty nice shape.

--------------

If I was Boston, this trade would clear a bunch of long-term contracts off the books, and if you couple that with the cap room they're going to get by terminating Vin Baker's contract, they're suddenly in very good cap shape. I don't know how much they could offer, someone without looking, but they'd have a lot to offer.

On the court, they'd at least have a distinctive style... Crawford, Davis, Welsch, Chandler, and LaFrentz would give then a super up-tempo team. With Chandler as the garbage man, the rest of the lot could bomb away from three point land. ERob off the bench to run with the rest of them.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Not if they keep the other of Crawford/Hinrich and Curry.
> ...


depends on if they want Hinrich or Craw. Too me, allow Ainge to make that decision. Pierce is worth it

Mike, if I ever buy an NBA team, (i wish), please email me to remind me that I said I would make you GM. You have the best trade ideas on this board


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

mikedc is cool, i dont know him personally but from his posts he seems to be really calm, down to earth type of person. and most importantly he makes good posts


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the thing with the orl. comparison is that the magic aren't just T-mac and a dream

they have gooden, and howard and some things surrounding them (lue giricek)

there really isn't alot seperating the supporting cast between the 2 chi. would be slightly better but orl. has T-mac who is slightly better than pierce...it may not be worth it just after all these years of sucking just to make a trade to be mediocre .


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> the thing with the orl. comparison is that the magic aren't just T-mac and a dream
> 
> they have gooden, and howard and some things surrounding them (lue giricek)
> ...


u know comparing NBA talents is not like math, you dont subtract/add and the answer willalways be the same, team chemistry is very important. look at the teams like the spurs, their talent level is not that high after duncan, but yet they play so well together, then u look at the mavs, they have the highest talent levels if you add all their players talents up, but do u really think they are the favor to win the championship? of course not.
you just cant add talents+talents in the NBA.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> the thing with the orl. comparison is that the magic aren't just T-mac and a dream
> 
> they have gooden, and howard and some things surrounding them (lue giricek)
> ...


I'm no sure I understand your logic here. Are you really saying that you expect

Gooden, Howard, Giricek and Tyron Lue are better now than Curry, Hinrich, AD, and JYD?

I don't see much evidence of that. If they're better it's a VERY marginal difference.

Or better in a year or two? If you think that, you much want to dump Curry and Hinrich if you think they aren't going to be any better than Good and Lue.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm no sure I understand your logic here. Are you really saying that you expect
> ...


actually i said with the trade proposed the bulls would be comparable to the magic ...their supporting players would only be slightly better than the magic's

but T-mac is slightly better than the pierce so its a wash to me in getting pierce at the expense of it

if the bulls would have to wait for their team to be better than mediocre with t-mac it might as well wait and keep its core , and try for something special with the group we currently have


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> depends on if they want Hinrich or Craw. Too me, allow Ainge to make that decision. Pierce is worth it
> ...


Thanks for the props (and to Sith), but there's no way I'd allow Ainge to make that choice.

* Kirk is a rookie and nearly as good as Jamal. Give him a couple years in the league and he'll be better.

* Kirk has quite a bit better basketball IQ. I'm not too impressed with Jamal's. Feel free to disagree, but I want Kirk running the team. I'm not comfortable with Jamal as the full time PG. I think we've had enough time to see that's not Jamal's best situation to succeed.

* Kirk is a better defender, even factoring that if he went, Jamal would shift back to the 1.

* Kirk is on a rookie contract. We get him for cheap for at least 3 more seasons, whereas if we kept Jamal, we have to pay him a significantly larger contract that in turn affects our other decisions.

All that being said, I like Jamal a lot, and barring a trade like this I'd like to keep him. Honestly I'd prefer something like the Rashard Lewis deal I suggested (where we just gave up Tyson) than a deal where we give up both Tyson and Jamal but get a somewhat better player in Pierce (especially if we could get both Flip and Lewis both in exchange for taking back a guy like Booth). Of course, that's probably not realistic.

------------

Back on the main topic, I'm also not sure I'd give up much more in the way of pieces of the puzzle than Curry because I don't see how the pieces fit otherwise.

If, for example, we traded Crawford and Curry both for Pierce, I don't see how we'd be in a much better long-run position. Pierce is a 1st option, but I don't see Chandler or Hinrich as second options. However, if we were able to acquire Pierce for essentially just Curry, I think for long stretches we could play a Kirk-Jamal-Pierce lineup and score in bunches, which might overcome our lack of good scoring options up front.

Those are the kinds of things we need to think about. Just getting a number one option but then not having the right pieces to go around him (and no means to acquire them) will not be successful. We need to be patient and find the right fits. Even if the trade "looks good", it needs to fit in to a coherent plan for what this team is gonna look like.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> 
> 
> u know comparing NBA talents is not like math, you dont subtract/add and the answer willalways be the same, team chemistry is very important. look at the teams like the spurs, their talent level is not that high after duncan, but yet they play so well together, then u look at the mavs, they have the highest talent levels if you add all their players talents up, but do u really think they are the favor to win the championship? of course not.
> you just cant add talents+talents in the NBA.


comparing talent level is exactly like math ....but you are right in the fact that talent doesn't always equate results the best proof of this is comparing the magic last year and this year/

j.howard and ty lue are a better duo than darrell armstrong and pay garrity (if only slightly)

but not when count the wins between teams they aren't because of chemistry


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

A lot of nice points on this thread!

*A* Trading Curry as a piece to bring in an established franchise player (ie: Pierce, TMac, Kobe, etc.) would be a good move.

*B* Trading Curry just because he has not yet reached the ceiling we set for him would be a bad move.

Given the unlikely chance of *A* ever happening, we should hang on to Curry. Even if he's not an all-star, he's more than worth his contract be NBA standards.

I think a more valid question is not "keep or dump Curry", but rather "How much should our team rely on Curry as we look to dig out of this hole we are in". I say very little. Plot as though Curry is coming off the bench for the rest of his contract. Find and put into place pieces that can give us the opportunity to win when they are on the floor. Then whatever Eddy contributes is a plus. Later, when we need to decide how much money Eddy is worth to re-sign, evaluate his performance in that capacity and move forward with Facts (performance history) rather than Fiction (performance expectations). I think Pax has shown us how he feels about this situation in bringing in AD and JYD. Skiles has also let us know his feelings in setting his rotations. Take the weight of the franchise off of Eddy's shoulders and I think we may just find out how good the kid really can be.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

- It may just be me, but it strikes me as funny that any of us would think that we have some inside info on how good Curry is (e.g., his trade value may never be higher...). C'mon, guys who make their living at this have access to all the tape they want.

- Despite Eddy's improved stats, there are still lots of questions about him as a player and those questions will remain at least until about this time next year.

- In the Houston game, I actually saw Eddy fundamentally box out an opponent...brought a tear to my eye. Sure, he got himself too deep and didn't jump, but Cato got called for coming over Eddy's back. Baby steps, but forward motion, nonetheless.

- Right now, Curry's a risky proposition. He still could be either a star or a bust. The jury remains out. His market value reflects this risk...you're not going to get a superstar for him, but he could possibly develop into a superstar. If the Bulls are ever going to make it back to the top, they're going to need a couple superstars. I don't trade Eddy.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

A basketball game is played for 48 minutes, not 24. A superstar plays on both ends of the court, not one. If Curry were a project taken low in the first round, his growth curve could move at a slower pace. But people are tiring of alternating scenes of Good Eddy and Bad Eddy, Inspired Eddy and Snoozing Eddy, Lean Eddy and Burger King Eddy. Why it took him three years just to get into game shape is an indictment of Bill Cartwright and Tim Floyd, but mostly of Curry. *It shows he doesn't have the mental discipline to make it big.*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay08.html

Interesting take on this very subject from the SunTimes' Jay Mariotti.

Well, I started this thread by asking posters the question of whether or not to keep Curry. So I suppose its only fair that I profer my opinion on the subject as well.

I think we're all in agreement that Curry has played his best ball of the season during this roadtrip. He's bearing a strong resemblance to the player we watched rack up points in the post during the final quarter of last season. 21 points and 5.4 boards over the last 6 games is a significant improvement over his season numbers of 13.4 points and 5.9 rebounds...oh wait, his rebound figure didn't get any better afterall.

And what kind of record did the Bulls bring home from this roadtrip that provided a stage for Eddy's resurgence? Oh, that's right, the Bulls were 1-6.

In other words, although Curry put up some nice offensive numbers for a change, it really didn't have much of an overall impact on the Bulls ability to win games, did it. Lets keep something in mind. During the 7 game roadtrip, despite playing significant minutes, Curry racked up a total of *three blocked shots*. His 5.4rpg exceeded his good buddy Jamal Crawford's rebound average for the trip by a mere 1.3 boards. That's right, Ol' Noodle Arms was able to locate more than four rebounds per game. Take away Curry's 12 rebound performance against Utah and Crawford actually outperformed Curry on the boards.

While I think its nice that he finally rediscovered his offensive game, all this extra conditioning hasn't helped him improve his "hustle stats" (blocked shots and boards) one damn bit. That tells me he's still lazy and like most young players he thinks that all that matters is how many points you can score. Sorry to disappoint you Eddy, but while points are indeed important, guys playing your position need to provide interior defense and rebounding for the team to succeed in the win/loss column.

I guess you may be able to conclude from my remarks that I'm of the opinion that Paxson should trade Curry once he gets the right kind of offer. The Bulls have too many holes to fill. They seriously lack multi-demensional players, the kind of guys who can have an impact at both ends of the court. If trading Curry can net the Bulls a couple of guys who understand that basketball is a full court game then all I can say to Eddy is









Eddy very well may be the missing piece for a team that is fairly loaded at the other four positions. Are the Bulls fairly loaded at the guard and forward slots? Hardly, thanks in large to Mr. Legacy Builder, Jerry Krause. Does anyone realistically expect John Paxson to magically pull a couple of studs out of his arse to lock down the two swing positions without going the trade route? Are we really supposed to wait for more draft choices to mature and hope that Paxson catches lightning in a bottle with the MLE?

Based on the public statements of people who should know, the Bulls as they are presently constituted have one bone fide cornerstone, one full court stud to hang their hat on...Kirk Hinrich. Chandler may come close if he can ever stay healthy long enough to expand his all around game. But after those two guys, the rest of the team is comprised of _spare parts._ That's right, the Bulls are loaded with players who might fill a specific niche for a certain team. Lets be kind and call them "specialists." But beyond Hinrich and perhaps Chandler, the Bulls are hurting for well rounded players at every other position.

Young teams like Denver and Memphis have proven that you can win in this league, and win quickly without a dominent post presence if you're rock solid at every other position. Not great, mind you, just rock solid. The Bulls need to find a way to become "rock solid" at as many positions as possible before they can start to look for their own missing piece. Trading Curry to a team that has an overabundance of talent at the positions where we're lacking can turn things around quickly just as it did this season for the Nuggets and Grizzlies and just like it did a few seasons ago for the Pistons and Nets, among others. Look at Indiana as an example. They traded away an all-star calibur center. But because they're solid, if not spectacular at every other position, they currently sport the very best record in the entire league, and that includes a .667 winning percentage (12-6) against the high-powered West.

Yes, Eddy should be traded. And if he goes to a team that's looking for one more piece, he may go on to have a quality NBA career and maybe even make a few all-star teams along the way. But we can't be concerned with that, or fear that kind of scenario down the road. We've got a lot of construction work to do right here at home. And after 6 years of misery, the brick by brick approach just doesn't work anymore.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*"Most teams want to low-end us right now," Paxson said. "Given our situation, that's to be expected, but if we're not able to get somebody of close to equal value in return, then we're not interested. It doesn't make sense to give anybody away."* 

No, it doesn't. And that's what makes this like a trick question. 

So who do we GET for "Burger King" Eddy? Or do we hope that the nine weeks that Skiles has spent with Eddy is a portend of things to come (ie: what we might expect next season earlier than say mid-January). That's right kids, Skiles has been the coach only NINE WEEKS. He has done a pretty good job so far on the conditioning thing with Eddy, so imagine what a summer with him will do. And yet, CBlizzy you hit the nail on the head with the full court comment and Mariotti is saying what we all think and that is Eddy is not mentally tough enough to become the star we have envisioned. Are we living in fantasy-land? Can Skiles change Eddy's FUNDAMENTAL nature? Can anyone? Can Eddy learn to play full court basketball? But most importantly,WHO DO WE GET IN RETURN? Wish I knew and could contribute a viable idea - but I just don't think we should trade him yet.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I still say we keep him. The above quote provided buy misenkay reinforces my opinion. Teams are trying to low-end us and I do not blame them for trying. They see the shape we are in. No one will give us anything right now. This summer? A little different. But I say we do not trade Curry this summer unless okafor is within reach. 

Nice thoughts all the way around.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Mariotti article:

*Curry showed some fire with his rebuttal, saying: ''I'm to the point where it doesn't even matter what they say. I have a couple of comments I could say about people, but I keep them to myself. It doesn't make what somebody says right just because they've achieved a lot in the NBA. I'm happy for Scottie achieving so much, but he didn't start out like he was. There was a growing period for him. That's what he has to understand.''*

_Is Eddy tuning everyone out with this statement? Or just Pippen? If it is a statement meant for everyone then indeed, we might have a problem with his play in the future._


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

chance of curry developing into a dominant center = good
chance of curry developing into at least a very good center =very good
chance of curry developing into a bust = pretty low

as u can see, hes a keeper. its not just about potentials.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> I still say we keep him. The above quote provided buy misenkay reinforces my opinion. Teams are trying to low-end us and I do not blame them for trying. They see the shape we are in. No one will give us anything right now. This summer? A little different. But I say we do not trade Curry this summer unless okafor is within reach.
> 
> Nice thoughts all the way around.


Here's what Jeff Van Gundy has to say about EC
(from the Tribune):

If Eddy Curry looked like a different player on the seven-game trip that concluded with Friday night's last-second loss in Houston, that's because he and coach Scott Skiles believe he is.

But don't take their word for it. Listen to Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy, who joined Utah coach Jerry Sloan in saying Curry has a new look.

"He looks to be in terrific shape, much more active," Van Gundy said. "He always has been a great low-post presence with great hands and a big wide body. They've done a good job with him."


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,1730690.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> A basketball game is played for 48 minutes, not 24. A superstar plays on both ends of the court, not one. If Curry were a project taken low in the first round, his growth curve could move at a slower pace. But people are tiring of alternating scenes of Good Eddy and Bad Eddy, Inspired Eddy and Snoozing Eddy, Lean Eddy and Burger King Eddy. Why it took him three years just to get into game shape is an indictment of Bill Cartwright and Tim Floyd, but mostly of Curry. *It shows he doesn't have the mental discipline to make it big.*
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay08.html
> ...


eddy and rebounding as far as that goes the bulls have played eddy and avg of 38 min. in the last 4 games and he has avg. a whopping 7 boards and you know what the bulls had the edge in rebounding evey single game ...that tells me people may make too much of eddy's rebounding stats ,the bulls have plenty of rebounders and overabundance if you ask me(the less JYD plays and more time for fizer and robinson should be the way to go IMO)

the bulls just played 7 road games in a row ...i'm guessing the next 10 at the same level of play will provide an over .500 record possibly much better especially considering 9 of these 10 will take place in the UC...see in 2 3 weeks time you feel the same


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> eddy and rebounding as far as that goes the bulls have played eddy and avg of 38 min. in the last 4 games and he has avg. a whopping 7 boards and you know what the bulls had the edge in rebounding evey single game ...that tells me people may make too much of eddy's rebounding stats ,the bulls have plenty of rebounders and overabundance if you ask me(the less JYD plays and more time for fizer and robinson should be the way to go IMO)
> ...


Dang, Happy, 

I can't believe that we are on the same page again. This didn't happen last year.

Great post.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The best we are going to do is pick up 2 decent talents for Curry. We are not going to get a Pierce. I don't know if we get get much more than one well rounded guy like Kirk. 

Curry has more than held his own as a starting C in the last stretch when he is finally in shape. So if we trade him, what happens to our post game? Who is our center?

Lastly, I really don't see Curry's trade value going down in the next 12 months. Unless something drastic happens (i.e. like the chance to draft Okafor), why not give it another year.

I am a fan of Paxson, but he went out and got Gil and Pippen whom have both broken down and traded away Rose and the only swing player that has been added is an undrafted rookie. Is there any wonder why we are not winning ball games?


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

no question whatsoever in my mind, keep Curry. i have the upmost respect for jerry west and if he sees something in EC then you gotta think that eddy just could pan out. he is finally in shape and thats why he is dominating. if he can work his *** off this offseason he will be a force to be wreakened with.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> If trading Curry can net the Bulls a couple of guys who understand that basketball is a full court game then all I can say to Eddy is


CB, 

Come'on. This isn't really going out on a limb here. Are you talking about guys like Paul Pierce or Kevin Ollie? 

Why don't you lay out a couple of packages for which you would trade Curry?

Thanks,
J797


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

This one is easy...no doubt we keep him.

Like I said before, Skiles won't let Curry come into training camp out of shape. He will keep his eye on Curry during the off-season, and I expect Curry to come into training camp in shape and better than ever.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Not if they keep the other of Crawford/Hinrich and Curry.
> ...


OK, I did a bit of checking and if this deal were carried out and coupled with the termination of Vin Baker's contract, the Celtics would have some *$16M-$17M in cap room* this summer. This would be, among other things, enough to offer Kobe Bryant a maximum deal, or enough to re-sign Crawford and make an above MLE offer to someone like Q Richardson, who Danny Ainge is rumored to really like.


----------



## Robert23 (Dec 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, I did a bit of checking and if this deal were carried out and coupled with the termination of Vin Baker's contract, the Celtics would have some *$16M-$17M in cap room* this summer. This would be, among other things, enough to offer Kobe Bryant a maximum deal, or enough to re-sign Crawford and make an above MLE offer to someone like Q Richardson, who Danny Ainge is rumored to really like.


If all this were to happen and then Kobe were to sign with the Celtics. That would pretty interesting. You'd have the big rivalry back. With Lakers(Shaq) vs Celtics(Kobe). It be the biggest story in sports. And if they could both make it to the finals we would be able to find out once and for all if who can carry their team to a championship alone Shaq or Kobe.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Bump


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, here's a hypothetical add-on to the trade I suggested above.

In addition to the guys I mentioned before, the Bull could send Pippen (retires and come off the books), Jeffries, and Brunson to the Celtics, and they send Raef LaFrentz to us. *This clears another $9M off the books, giving the Celts a total of $25-26M!*. This means they can go after Kobe and still have another $10-12M to spend on probably two other of the better FAs in this class (Crawford, Q, Swift, Okur, Arroyo, Mihm, etc).

Not to mention Boston has Davis, Welsch, Chandler, Banks, Perkins, and Brandon Hunter as talented young players under contract.

-------------------------

For the Bulls, LaFrentz, if he comes back healthy, provides a top notch, if overpaid complement to Curry. He's a guy who can shoot out to the three point line and create a lot of space.

The Bulls:
1- Kirk, FA
2- Pierce, Gill
3- McCarty, Jones
4- LaFrentz, JYD, Stewart
5- Curry, AD, M. Blount

In the off-season, we offer up our draft pick for the best 3 we can get (say Rashard Lewis or Al Harrington?), and fill in our backup guard spots with our exceptions. If Curry develops, our future of Pierce, Curry, Hinrich and Lewis looks very bright.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Not if they keep the other of Crawford/Hinrich and Curry.
> ...


I like this trade alot. Nice job!

I feel it's really balanced, and gives us a goto-guy while letting Boston start over. It really depends on what lottery pick we get though. If we got the first or second pick, and thus Okafor, it would be awesome. If we didnt, our frontcourt would be really bad defensively. I really think that we need a tough rebounder/shotblocker to complement Curry. Okafor would be perfect, but it's not a sure thing that we get him. And AD is deteriorating noticeably, unfortunately. 

Therefore, I would rather keep Chandler, and throw in our 2004 pick instead. If we did this trade we would start winning more (hopefully) and it would reduce our chances for a good pick. 

I actually feel McCarty is a fairly good sf, not super, but at least solid. I wouldn't mind him playing some minutes.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

I think if the Bulls want to start talking about Pierce, they have to offer Curry and their first rounder (2004). And, as weird as it may sound, Im not ready to give up on Curry!  

Really, put yourself in Danny Ainge position. First, you trade Walker. Then, Pierce. I cant picture that one. It wont happen. Especially if you trade someone like Pierce to Chicago for some underachivers kids.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I still don't wanna trade Chandler...I think we're looking at a great defensive player in addition to a 15 ppg scorer.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> OK, here's a hypothetical add-on to the trade I suggested above.
> 
> In addition to the guys I mentioned before, the Bull could send Pippen (retires and come off the books), Jeffries, and Brunson to the Celtics, and they send Raef LaFrentz to us. *This clears another $9M off the books, giving the Celts a total of $25-26M!*. This means they can go after Kobe and still have another $10-12M to spend on probably two other of the better FAs in this class (Crawford, Q, Swift, Okur, Arroyo, Mihm, etc).
> ...


Lafrentz is decent. He gets a lot of blocks but isn't as good defensively as that would indicate. I feel he's extremely overpaid. I would only do the second part of the deal if Boston *really* insisted upon it as a condition to the first. And McCarty isn't bad at the three. We could probably use the midlevel on a 3 and get back a point guard from Boston because we're giving them Jamal. 

As for the 26 million of cap room, they would still have to resign Jamal.


----------

