# Tim Legler on Curry and the Warriors



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

Heard Legler interviewed on the Warriors sports talk show. He said Curry is the guy the Warriors want. Petrius is off the table. They want to trade Dunleavey.

On Dunleavey he made an interesting point about the problem posed by good, but not great, lotto picks. The Warriors just paid near max money to a couple of good, but not great, lotto picks in Richardson and Murphy. They'll have to do the same thing with Dunleavey or else he'll walk. Not because he is any good, but because there is some "good" team out there with cap space (a team with legit stars) for whom Dunleavey would fill a valuable role and that team will pay for that.

Legler was saying that this is the losing merry-go-round that teams like the Warriors, Bulls, Clips, Hawks, Wizards, etc. get on. The keep drafting lotto players who are O.K., but not stars, and then either lose for them and get nothing via free agency or have to grossly overpay to keep them, thereby hamstringing their ability to acquire decent free agents. 

That's a very interesting, and seems to me, accurate observation. Looking down the road, what are the Bulls going to do? Pay max or near max money to all of Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, Deng and Gordon? The Bulls can't afford that and, even if they could, the Bulls still wouldn't have a 30 win team.

Got to start trading some of those folks before other GM's lose interest and decide to just wait for free agency.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

good post.

we lost crawford for considerably less than the MAX.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

A dunleavy for curry deal is never going to happen and if mullin wants curry it is going to have to be pietrus. The bulls aready have two young SF in deng and noci. No way do we take another SF and no dunleavy does not play SF.

david


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> A dunleavy for curry deal is never going to happen and if mullin wants curry it is going to have to be pietrus.
> david


Whew. I'm glad you're putting your foot down.


----------



## NISMO (Jul 15, 2002)

*Give up on the Pietrus dream*

Goldenstate is not going to trade him..

Dunleavy is now being showcased around the league..


----------



## p_s (Jul 21, 2004)

If that's the case, then it is in our best interest to trade our players in a package -- we have to overpay for a star. Our players are undervalued but we run the risks of losing them anyway -- so why overpay for a player we really need. All good teams have at least one star -- we have none. Try and trade Curry and Hinrich and someone else for a Lamar Odom -- he's a second teir star with 1st teir talent, who along with Loul Deng, could be come a great tandem. Or overpay for Pierce and don't be afraid to put our 2008 1st rounder out there. 

And to those that point towards detroit, they have second teir stars at 4/5 positions, so that is an invalid argument. They also didn't draft any of them, except Prince. 

I think the only star out there that is fool's gold is VC. And I wouldn't want to try and pay Ray Allen's next deal when he may be on the decline. 

My personal choice is Lamar Odom, who would make whoever we had left on the roster better. I think we can fill a roster hole with the MLE if that's all we have. Ultimately, good players want to play with good players and I don't care if we have half of fort knox to offer to FA's in 2006, they will not come to just lose and be miserable unless they plan on stealing money like e-rob, anyway.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,1413,125~11080~2583442,00.html



> The Bulls have been shopping young starting center Eddy Curry ever since getting -- and immediately rejecting -- his Jason Richardson-type demands for a contract extension this past off-season.
> 
> Curry, who turned 22 Sunday, will become a restricted free agent at year's end ... wherever he happens to be at that time.
> 
> ...


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Ok i agree that may be true and GS is not going to trade Peitrus but why is he stuck on the bench? I just makes no sense to me and montgromy is always talking him down? Is this some GS con game?

david


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

and I think that is what the problem is with the NBA right now, don't get me wrong I think Richardson and Murphy are good players but not worth the kind of money they are getting paid what did they both get like 70 mil a piece? that along with the money they paid Fisher, and Foyle, and this team is going to have the kind of money to attract a free agent to make this team better.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

Legler did allow as how a third team might have to be involved to work a deal that from Golden State's perspective involved giving up Denleavey and getting Curry.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> Heard Legler interviewed on the Warriors sports talk show. He said Curry is the guy the Warriors want. Petrius is off the table. They want to trade Dunleavey.
> 
> On Dunleavey he made an interesting point about the problem posed by good, but not great, lotto picks. The Warriors just paid near max money to a couple of good, but not great, lotto picks in Richardson and Murphy. They'll have to do the same thing with Dunleavey or else he'll walk. Not because he is any good, but because there is some "good" team out there with cap space (a team with legit stars) for whom Dunleavey would fill a valuable role and that team will pay for that.
> ...


The 4 year rookie contract works OK with guys who played 3-4 years in college. After 3 years in the league, you have a pretty clear idea of what you have and can make a more informed decision on the 2nd contract.

As Curry and Chandler demonstrate all too well, after 3 years there reamins way too much guesswork.

Unless something incredible happens in terms of "instant development," Paxson will not pay max or near max money for Curry or Chandler. If he can trade 'em, he'll trade 'em. If not, they can walk or leave via sign-and-trades.

Hinrich will probably sign an extension, maybe at 1/2 max money, give or take a couple mil. If Steve Nash is worth less than $9MM, what's Hinrich worth?

Deng and Gordon? Who the heck knows?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> good post.
> 
> we lost crawford for considerably less than the MAX.


I'm just speculating here, but isn't it possible that Crawford accepted less money to make the trade to Knicks happen? I seem to recall bigger numbers floating around before the trade happened, and that would have affected the Knicks' ability to even complete the deal. Again, it's just speculation, but I think Crawford wanted to leave so badly that this is entirely possible. I guess it's impossible to know for sure though. 

Good recap of Legler though. I'm glad to hear Golden State's interest in Curry because it's at least something to work with. Only thing is (and there is plenty of time to do this) is that the Bulls need to find a 3rd team to complete a trade. I guess that's where the Clipper rumor comes in and was shot down. Miami could probably use a guy like Dunleavy for both short-term and long-term purposes. As I mentioned in another post, I'm a big Udonis Haslem fan. If we got Haslem and Miami's 1st rounder, with Curry going to GS, and Dunleavy going to Miami, I think all sides like what they get. Just an idea.

Edit: I just realized Miami may have sent their 1st rounder to LA in the Shaq deal. Still, I like the idea of Haslem on the Bulls.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm just speculating here, but isn't it possible that Crawford accepted less money to make the trade to Knicks happen? I seem to recall bigger numbers floating around before the trade happened, and that would have affected the Knicks' ability to even complete the deal. Again, it's just speculation, but I think Crawford wanted to leave so badly that this is entirely possible. I guess it's impossible to know for sure though.


I don't remember any reports of significant (same $$ as the Knicks) free agent offers for Crawford. As I recall, the sign-and-trade with the Knicks was the best deal Crawford was going to get.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Curry and filler (F-Will or duhon or pargo or whatever...) for Dunleavy and Biendris. GS would have to throw in their first round pick. Lottery protect it this year, top 7 next year, top 3 the following year and unprotected after that. I'd rather have the consistancy that Dunleavy could provide over what F-Will gives us and I'll take the potential of Biendris over what Curry may or may not become. I think Curry is the best player in the deal - even with all his shortcommings and hence the future first rounder.

Pietrus shouldn't be a deal-breaker if Pax is dead-set on moving Eddy. He's not gonna get a much better trade at this point in time with Eddy becomming a RFA at the end of the season and with his inconsistant efforts.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: Tim Legler on Curry and the Warriors*



> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> The 4 year rookie contract works OK with guys who played 3-4 years in college. After 3 years in the league, you have a pretty clear idea of what you have and can make a more informed decision on the 2nd contract.
> ...


Sometime last year (during my anti-HSer state) I proposed an idea where under-20 draftees would have an longer rookie contract at maybe 7 years, first 2 guaranteed with sole option for the team to extend in years 3,4,5, and 6. By year 7 the player is free to sign where ever he pleases given cap room (retaining team has Bird rights). I think it would serve two-fold. Deter scrubs from jumping to the NBA and allow NBA teams to reap the benefits of developing a player for all those years. 

Of course a provision needs to be put in place where a stud like Amare or Lebron is able to re-up earlier than 7 years but I think something can be worked out. For example, baseball has arbitration and football has a system in which you can label FAs as franchise players and salary is determined according to the average of the top 5 at that position. Get enough creative minds together and a solution will be found.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

> The 4 year rookie contract works OK with guys who played 3-4 years in college. After 3 years in the league, you have a pretty clear idea of what you have and can make a more informed decision on the 2nd contract.
> 
> As Curry and Chandler demonstrate all too well, after 3 years there reamins way too much guesswork.


This is a fair point with respect to high schoolers and underclassmen. It is easy to make a mistake and hold them too long (as Paxson did) or make a mistake and move them too early.

It doesn't really apply to college seniors and juniors, who pretty much show you all you are ever going to see in their rookie season. You can look at a guy like Hinrich now and say, "am I going to want to give this guy a big contract in 3 years?" Same for Gordon by season's end.

Legler made the point that the good GM's in the league are doing that. If they have an O.K. player who is not a guy that would ever be worth max money, they move 'em out quick while they still have trade value.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Curry and filler (F-Will or duhon or pargo or whatever...) for Dunleavy and Biendris. GS would have to throw in their first round pick. Lottery protect it this year, top 7 next year, top 3 the following year and unprotected after that. I'd rather have the consistancy that Dunleavy could provide over what F-Will gives us and I'll take the potential of Biendris over what Curry may or may not become. I think Curry is the best player in the deal - even with all his shortcommings and hence the future first rounder.
> 
> Pietrus shouldn't be a deal-breaker if Pax is dead-set on moving Eddy. He's not gonna get a much better trade at this point in time with Eddy becomming a RFA at the end of the season and with his inconsistant efforts.


If we must obtain Dunleavy, then that means Nocioni needs to go. There's not room for Deng, Nocioni, and Dunleavy. Too much logjam, and I think we all agree that Deng needs to stay. So here's one that works (once Dec. 15th arrives):

Bulls trade Curry, Nocioni, and Pargo (filler) to Warriors

Warriors trade Dunleavy, Biedrins, and Cheaney (filler) to Bulls.

Trade works under the cap. Bulls make sure to get a big man back in the deal too. This is something I'd do personally, though I wonder if the Warriors would part with Biedrins. Maybe getting Nocioni off-sets Biedrins.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> http://www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,1413,125~11080~2583442,00.html


So now it's saying that the clippers are just waiting for the warriors to say yes?! what the hell...


----------



## p_s (Jul 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> 
> Legler made the point that the good GM's in the league are doing that. If they have an O.K. player who is not a guy that would ever be worth max money, they move 'em out quick while they still have trade value.


Again, if this what other GM's are doing, then we should be looking to do the same. We should be packaging up talent at looking to get a star. Our cap room is pointless, as no one wants to come to a loser and play with rookies still learning the game. 

Also, we should not be looking towards golden state as the great bastion of talent. Why would players that are mediocre for them become immediate stars for us. 

We need to package up Kirk or Gordon/ Curry/ another salary and possibly our 2008 first rounder for a star. Sometimes you have to take a big risk to get a big reward. 

This is what Krause had in mind when he traded for Jalen. It was the right idea, but poor execution. Krause wasn't dumb, he was just misguided in the end. During the championship run, all his moves were gold. Afterwards, fool's gold. Ultimately, Pax should just execute the idea better and land a proven star, not a complementary player or a has-been. Loul Deng needs a star to be his best in my opinion -- he, moreso than any other player, represents the best chance this franchise has -- but he is a complement to a good player.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>p_s</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, if this what other GM's are doing, then we should be looking to do the same. We should be packaging up talent at looking to get a star. Our cap room is pointless, as no one wants to come to a loser and play with rookies still learning the game.
> ...


I agree with you, but the general perception around the league is that the Bulls are 2-13, hence their team is full of crap. Nobody would trade us a star for what are perceived to be a bunch of underachievers. This is why the good teams tend to get better, and the bad teams remain bad. It's things like this that make it incredibly difficult to rebuild a team in the NBA. 

It's much easier for the good teams to trade away their players because they are perceived as winners. Heck, that's why the Bulls wanted Jalen Rose, right? He was a winner, or so the Bulls thought. That turned out just great now, didn't it.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

> Krause wasn't dumb, he was just misguided in the end. During the championship run, all his moves were gold.


Let's be reasonable here. Krause was just one Portland brain fart away from having been the Elgin Baylor of his time.

Pippen was nice get. But as those teams showed, you could pick up just about any 3 guys in the league, put 'em on the court with Jordan and Pippen and do just fine. If Portland does the sensible thing and drafts Jordan, I doubt Krause would be on the receiving end of such praise.

Sorry for the brief digression.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> If we must obtain Dunleavy, then that means Nocioni needs to go. There's not room for Deng, Nocioni, and Dunleavy. Too much logjam, and I think we all agree that Deng needs to stay. So here's one that works (once Dec. 15th arrives):
> ...


I don't see it that way. In Dunleavy, Deng and Nocioni you've got three guys that can play multiple positions. Dunleavy is more of a 3/2, Deng is also. Nocioni is more of a 3/4. Not a bad thing to have.

I wouldn't be adverse to Pax even sweetening the deal with either Hinrich or Gordon. We'd have to get more back than Dunleavy and Biendris but GS has some barganing chips that might interest Pax. I believe they have a Dallas first rounder also and while that might not be all that valuable (low first round pick) it's still got value. It sure does seem like Pietrus isn't available. He'd be nice to have over Dunleavy but if Pax can swing giving as little away with Eddy as possible and still come out with Dunleavy, Biendris and maybe a pick or two - that's not all that bad of a days work.


----------



## p_s (Jul 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you, but the general perception around the league is that the Bulls are 2-13, hence their team is full of crap. Nobody would trade us a star for what are perceived to be a bunch of underachievers. This is why the good teams tend to get better, and the bad teams remain bad. It's things like this that make it incredibly difficult to rebuild a team in the NBA.
> ...


And that is why I say we trade Kirk -- who's rep, I would assume, is that he is a good player in a bad situation and/or Gordon, who hasn't had the chance to get a rep yet with Curry. Who many think can turn it around. We have to give more than we get. 

As to Krause and Portland -- that was uhh -- not Krause, but his predecessor -- can't remember his name -- Thorn -- I think. He went out and got Pip and Grant. Two very good deals. He also brought in the Worm and an aging, but very useful Ron Harper -- he didn't draft well during the championship runs, but no one was really noticing at that point.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>p_s</b>!
> 
> 
> And that is why I say we trade Kirk -- who's rep, I would assume, is that he is a good player in a bad situation and/or Gordon, who hasn't had the chance to get a rep yet with Curry. Who many think can turn it around. We have to give more than we get.
> ...


Yeah Rod Thorne...was the NBA deputy or something for a long time..I think he is GM of the Nets now.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

No i don't thank that is right. Krause drafted both pippen and grant in the same year. To get pippen he swapped pickes with settle how draft that head case center who i can never remember.

david


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> No i don't thank that is right. Krause drafted both pippen and grant in the same year. To get pippen he swapped pickes with settle how draft that head case center who i can never remember.
> 
> david


Pippen and Grant WERE drafted by Krause...Jordan was not. Your probably thinking of the Oakley for Cartwright trade but I think it was with NY.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*ahhhhh*

The Bulls, the Clippers and the Warriors contemplating a three way trade.

The expression "rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic" comes to mind.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I agree with most of what is said in this thread. The Bulls are not dealing from a position of strength, hence the vicious cycle of losing that we're in. Look at the teams that were able to rebound and how they did so - Cavs with James, Nuggets with Melo, Grizz with Gasol, Mavs with Dirk. They all literally lucked into a superstar. Given our luck, the closest thing to a superstar we drafted likely ruined his career.

Krause erred several times, but at least had the right idea in trading away for Rose. Overpay for a stud because that is the only way. Unfortunately Rose was far from a superstar and he knew that beforehand. I say trade Gordon, Tyson, and Eddy for a stud at the deadline, sign Stromile this offseason, give up our draft pick this season, and pray for the number one the season afterwards. At least a stud plus Stromile will bring us to respectability. It's time to set our goal for 'mediocrity' and get rid of these fantasies of championship contenders.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

> As to Krause and Portland -- that was uhh -- not Krause, but his predecessor -- can't remember his name -- Thorn -- I think. He went out and got Pip and Grant. Two very good deals. He also brought in the Worm and an aging, but very useful Ron Harper -- he didn't draft well during the championship runs, but no one was really noticing at that point.


I gave him credit for Pippen. That was a great draft pick, but that is really all you can give him credit for. With Pippen and Jordan it didn't matter who else you put on the floor -- Cartwright, Wennington or Longley, Oakley, Grant or Rodman, Paxon, Kerr or Armstrong. You can't give Krause any credit for that. He was basically picking out three guys from the local bar, throwing them on the court, and the other two were still enough to win it all.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I DO believe Curry will get traded to golden state, I just don't know who we'll get back.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> No i don't thank that is right. Krause drafted both pippen and grant in the same year. To get pippen he swapped pickes with settle how draft that head case center who i can never remember.
> 
> david


Olden Polynice


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> 
> I gave him credit for Pippen. That was a great draft pick, but that is really all you can give him credit for. With Pippen and Jordan it didn't matter who else you put on the floor -- Cartwright, Wennington or Longley, Oakley, Grant or Rodman, Paxon, Kerr or Armstrong. You can't give Krause any credit for that. He was basically picking out three guys from the local bar, throwing them on the court, and the other two were still enough to win it all.


Take a look at the Bulls team that nearly made the finals the first year after Jordan retired.

That's when I gained respect for Krause.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=CHI&lg=n&yr=1993


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Reading Curry and Warrior on the same sentence seems odd.

:uhoh:


----------



## p_s (Jul 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah Rod Thorne...was the NBA deputy or something for a long time..I think he is GM of the Nets now.


I was saying that Krause didn't draft Jordan. My use of a pronoun with confusing reference made it look like I was saying it was Thorne but I meant Krause.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> Heard Legler interviewed on the Warriors sports talk show. He said Curry is the guy the Warriors want. Petrius is off the table. They want to trade Dunleavey.


Damnit. I knew it. Maybe it isn't 100% true, but it makes a lot more sense. There isn't a worlds difference between the 2 and 3 and I thought why not just slide Pietrus there instead and trade Dunleavy? Damnit, damnit, damnit. I don't see a whole lot else with this team that I'd like.


----------



## p_s (Jul 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> I agree with most of what is said in this thread. The Bulls are not dealing from a position of strength, hence the vicious cycle of losing that we're in. Look at the teams that were able to rebound and how they did so - Cavs with James, Nuggets with Melo, Grizz with Gasol, Mavs with Dirk. They all literally lucked into a superstar. Given our luck, the closest thing to a superstar we drafted likely ruined his career.
> 
> Krause erred several times, but at least had the right idea in trading away for Rose. Overpay for a stud because that is the only way. Unfortunately Rose was far from a superstar and he knew that beforehand. I say trade Gordon, Tyson, and Eddy for a stud at the deadline, sign Stromile this offseason, give up our draft pick this season, and pray for the number one the season afterwards. At least a stud plus Stromile will bring us to respectability. It's time to set our goal for 'mediocrity' and get rid of these fantasies of championship contenders.


But you have to start somewhere and I think that moving our "potential" good guys for a real player is where we need to go. Again, the good execution of a good idea. Krause had it 50% right. He had alot ideas that were like that but he missed on the execution. If the Twin towers were Gasol and Curry or Chandler then it works, I think. If he got T-Mac because he left Benny the Bull at home -- who knows. This guy wasn't dumb -- we need to overpay for a star.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>p_s</b>!
> 
> This guy wasn't dumb -- we need to overpay for a star.


 


What veteran are we going to be able to land via trade or FA that is any better than Jalen Rose circa 2001?


----------



## p_s (Jul 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I mean overpay in players. I mean "lose" a trade. That is what I have been writing the whole thread -- did you read it. If so, what should I make more clear? If not, please do read it before you post.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>p_s</b>!
> 
> 
> I mean overpay in players. I mean "lose" a trade. That is what I have been writing the whole thread -- did you read it. If so, what should I make more clear? If not, please do read it before you post.


I was not asking you to clarify... I was agreeing with you.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

If it's Dunleavy for Curry straight up - no thanks , only as last resort.

Wer'e trading an underachiever for another one - but ours is younger , and Bigger.
I think if it ain't Pietrus - we gotta get something in addition - if it's a big youngster not playing as Biedrins,If it's a protected 1st rounder , or if it's relief by taking AD for Expirers(less likely).Even 2 high 2nd rounders (GS 2nd rounders the next 2 years since we have none) might do - but not for me.

The good part - I guess Mike D will fit in better since although an underachiever - he's a coaches player , and Skiles or not - any coach would prefer him on his roster (in turms of Ethic - not talent).


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

I think a Curry for Dunleavy deal would be meaningless for the Bulls. I would rather have Curry. The team Paxson should be looking at is Memphis if they can't shake Pietrus out of Mullin

If I recall correctly, West had an interest in Curry at one time. They have a glut of swingmen and the guy I really think could energize this team is James Posey. He is an excellent two-way player. Of course, Pax should have gotten Posey when he was a free agent a couple of years ago but he had a hard-on instead for a broken down ex-Bull named Scottie Pippen. 

I would even consider Mike Miller straight up for Curry but I have issues with Miller's health and his mediocre defense. The kid can sure score, however, and that is what the Bulls could use. 

In any event, I am banging the drums for Posey. A very underrated player in my opinion.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Curry for MDJr is not ideal... but better than NOTHING IMO.

If Paxson manages to do this, its easily and sadly the greatest trade he's ever made.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Curry for MDJr is not ideal... but better than NOTHING IMO.
> 
> If Paxson manages to do this, its easily and sadly the greatest trade he's ever made.



I agree it's the best trade by Pax - but as u said not Ideal.

I tend to think I'd rather trade Curry to the Suns back for our pick(and lets say Jacobson) and take my chances in the draft or trade the pick over taking Dunleavy...


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>charlietyra</b>!
> I think a Curry for Dunleavy deal would be meaningless for the Bulls. I would rather have Curry. The team Paxson should be looking at is Memphis if they can't shake Pietrus out of Mullin
> 
> If I recall correctly, West had an interest in Curry at one time. They have a glut of swingmen and the guy I really think could energize this team is James Posey. He is an excellent two-way player. Of course, Pax should have gotten Posey when he was a free agent a couple of years ago but he had a hard-on instead for a broken down ex-Bull named Scottie Pippen.
> ...


I agree about Posey - though I think he's not that underrated after last season - he had a great season , everybody saw it , he was the 1st in Hubies wing option , in a team with endless good wings(Miller,Bonzi,Battier,and even rooks like Jones...)
I'd also prefer Battier+something (pick,player,whatever) on Dunleavy - he's also underrated,plays great defense,quiet,Humble,efficient,can play 4 positions or even 5 (If I remember correctly he even played Center for few games ) and there is a reason for him being a true fan favorite in Memphis (probably the reason we won't get him) - but thats a "prefer on Dunleavy" - not saying it's good enough for us...


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

*Re: ahhhhh*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> The Bulls, the Clippers and the Warriors contemplating a three way trade.
> 
> The expression "rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic" comes to mind.


Are you kidding? Both Simmons *and* Wilcox are considerably better players than Curry. Simmons would be the steal of the trade, that kid is going to be a star.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Legler is so full of crap. The Warriors did not have to pull the trigger on those contracts. They had all the leverage. They could have waited a year and matched any offer while getting another year to evaluate those players. I am highly doubtful that people would have given bigger offers as RFAs.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> I agree with most of what is said in this thread. The Bulls are not dealing from a position of strength, hence the vicious cycle of losing that we're in. Look at the teams that were able to rebound and how they did so - Cavs with James, Nuggets with Melo, Grizz with Gasol, Mavs with Dirk. They all literally lucked into a superstar. Given our luck, the closest thing to a superstar we drafted likely ruined his career.
> 
> Krause erred several times, but at least had the right idea in trading away for Rose. Overpay for a stud because that is the only way. Unfortunately Rose was far from a superstar and he knew that beforehand. I say trade Gordon, Tyson, and Eddy for a stud at the deadline, sign Stromile this offseason, give up our draft pick this season, and pray for the number one the season afterwards. At least a stud plus Stromile will bring us to respectability. It's time to set our goal for 'mediocrity' and get rid of these fantasies of championship contenders.


I think this is the most accurate portrayal of what our problem is. We actually had two guys on our team to build around. Elton Brand and Jay Williams. We traded one and the other nearly killed himself. Luol Deng might be the 3rd guy but Carmelo and Bron were instant turnarounds. Why aren't the Bulls any better? I think Deng is more of a 2nd option then he is a star.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

On second thought...

Right now if there's anything going on, Mullin can tell Pax he wants Curry but he isn't giving up Pietrus with a straight face b/c of the way Curry is playing. 

But if Curry gets a little hot streak going, Pax can turn around and say if you want this guy, there's no way you're getting him without Pietrus. 

Mullin can stall some more if he wants but if Pax is ready to deal Curry, is it really out of the question Mullin turns around and gives up Pietrus? I don't think so.


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

curry = future superstar
pietrus = future benchwarmer
dunleavy jr = future ball boy


----------

