# Curry: "Its me or Skiles"



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

First of all, this was reported by the NY Daily News, so dont take it serious. Just laugh.

*Word is that big man Eddy Curry doesn't want to re-up with the Bulls as long as they're bringing back caoch Scott Skiles next season. It might not be set in stone, but Curry is definitely thinking about it. * 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/282511p-242124c.html

LMAO @ the NY press.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The full bit about the Bulls:

The Bulls appear to have a bright future, but they are already hearing rumblings that could affect how far this team can go. It's not just Ben Gordon and Luol Deng who have been frustrated by their inconsistent playing time. Word is that big man Eddy Curry doesn't want to re-up with the Bulls as long as they're bringing back caoch Scott Skiles next season. It might not be set in stone, but Curry is definitely thinking about it.


----------



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

LMAO

Denver loves Jake Plummer? Curry hates Skiles? Pure and utter horseflop. 
NewYork deserves this innaccurate writer.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The full bit about the Bulls:
> 
> The Bulls appear to have a bright future, but they are already hearing rumblings that could affect how far this team can go. It's not just Ben Gordon and Luol Deng who have been frustrated by their inconsistent playing time. Word is that big man Eddy Curry doesn't want to re-up with the Bulls as long as they're bringing back caoch Scott Skiles next season. It might not be set in stone, but Curry is definitely thinking about it.


As serious as it sounds, I dont' believe it's true. Curry and his agent would be stupid to make such a statement or direction. First of all, teams will be reluctant to make offers due to Paxson.

NY is just trying to do another ST like Crawford. I don't think it will work this time.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Don't know what to think about that. True or not it's not exactly a good story to have floating out there.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Hilarious.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_Word is that big man Eddy Curry doesn't want to re-up with the Bulls as long as they're bringing back caoch Scott Skiles next season. It might not be set in stone, but Curry is definitely thinking about it._


if eddy's agents are spreading this manure, they should be fired. 

this story is B.S.

if it weren't for skiles cracking the whip, eddy would weigh 482 pounds, and that's just for starters. practically every week skiles goes on the radio, and has praise for eddy, and his skills and how important his improvement has been to the team. 

eddy still needs to grow up. if recent comments from skiles about how the guards get him most of his shots, or his lack of rebounding (for a CENTER!) are bothering him, i say _boo freakin' hoo_. sam smith had a throw away line about this in that recent trade eddy story he did. this writer probably got this from that article.



:roll eyes smiley:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> _Word is that big man Eddy Curry doesn't want to re-up with the Bulls as long as they're bringing back caoch Scott Skiles next season. It might not be set in stone, but Curry is definitely thinking about it._
> 
> 
> if eddy's agents are spreading this manure, they should be fired.
> ...



What about the stuff about Gordon and Deng? Fire their agents, too?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> What about the stuff about Gordon and Deng? Fire their agents, too?



rookies have to learn to take their lumps. skiles has made it clear, again and again, that players determine THEIR OWN PLAYING TIME. and these two seem to understand that. even ben said he played bad the first three Q's of the toronto game. and every interview i've heard from luol and ben about skiles chalk their success up to the fact the players have bought into the coaches philosophy. this writer is grasping at straws. are you trying to stir the pot? 

if they are complaining privately about this and now it's being "leaked", i would say, they are young, they'll learn to keep their mouths shut.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I dont see why this story is being discredited by people because its the ny daily news especially from people whose local newspapers i have never heard of.

but on to the story , is it really so hard to believe?

Has Curry for all his recent splendor ever struck anyone as any different than he was earlier in his career.

he came into camp at the right weight but still wasn't in condition despite the fact it was a contract year he got into shape around dec. (just like last season , the only difference is he didn't get a hamstring injury this past dec. ruining his conditioning again).

There has been rumors all along that he doesn't like skiles.

and his recent good play has put curry in a position that there is pressure to listen to sign curry...so is it so out of whack that curry if he doesn't like skiles would send out feelers to have a coach of his liking (no hard statements were recorded in the article saying that curry said anything or anyone in his camp , just that "word is" , )

even the article said it wasn't set in stone so its just a rumor and the article says so.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> rookies have to learn to take their lumps. skiles has made it clear, again and again, that players determine THEIR OWN PLAYING TIME. and these two seem to understand that. even ben said he played bad the first three Q's of the toronto game. and every interview i've heard from luol and ben about skiles chalk their success up to the fact the players have bought into the coaches philosophy. this writer is grasping at straws. are you trying to stir the pot?
> 
> if they are complaining privately about this and now it's being "leaked", i would say, they are young, they'll learn to keep their mouths shut.


Ummm...

The thing is that Deng, Gordon, and Curry are supposedly unhappy with Skiles. Forget about MY agenda here. If Curry's agent is leaking stuff to the press, aren't Deng's and Gordon's, too?

Tis my only point about this.

I don't think it's true, in any case, like everyone else...


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

oh Deng and Ben are definately wanting more minutes. That I believe. The only surprising thing is that this would be a story right after they start playing more 

The alleged Curry threat..... If this story is floating around the all-star break, its a deliberate plant by an agent for sure. Thats how they sometimes get the buzz going they want to get. I beleive thats possible too.

I don't know, you just can't brush it off as untrue because its heinous NY media. Or because we thought things were cool. Its in the realm of possibility. The question becomes whats the endgame they would want to engineer?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Curry was playing well before Skiles was the coach. 

IMO, his being in shape has a lot more to do with his contract status than anything PaxSkiles are doing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> rookies have to learn to take their lumps. skiles has made it clear, again and again, that players determine THEIR OWN PLAYING TIME. and these two seem to understand that. even ben said he played bad the first three Q's of the toronto game. and every interview i've heard from luol and ben about skiles chalk their success up to the fact the players have bought into the coaches philosophy. this writer is grasping at straws. are you trying to stir the pot?
> 
> *if they are complaining privately about this and now it's being "leaked", i would say, they are young, they'll learn to keep their mouths shut* .



curry is only 5 months older than gordon.

so why isn't he considered young ...supposedly gordon and deng were so very worldly for their age and somehow curry so immature , but gordon and curry are commiting the same crime and are virtually the same age ....sounds like a double standard to me.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Ummm...
> 
> The thing is that Deng, Gordon, and Curry are supposedly unhappy with Skiles. Forget about MY agenda here. If Curry's agent is leaking stuff to the press, aren't Deng's and Gordon's, too?
> 
> ...


yeah, sorry about that (you are one of the best stirrers we have  ) 

i don't think ben and luol are unhappy with skiles, and i do think this writer is really reaching. 

if they are unhappy with playing time, then perhaps they need to get their ears cleaned out, so when skiles says that players determine their own playing time, they will hear him clearly!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

happygrinch said:


> curry is only 5 months older than gordon.
> 
> so why isn't he considered young ...supposedly gordon and deng were so very worldly for their age and somehow curry so immature , but gordon and curry are commiting the same crime and are virtually the same age ....sounds like a double standard to me.


Paxson drafted Deng/Gordon and both had valuable college experience just like Ed O Bannon and Cherokee Parks.

Curry is associated with the losing years... while Deng/Gordon are associated with the turnaround.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

IMHO I don't give this blurb too much credit. It's good fiction. Curry is clearly enjoying the winning. And it didn't happen until Skiles.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

prediction. Denials by all will be in by 8AM tommorow. Damage already done. Mission accomplished by whoever is engineering


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Ummm...
> 
> The thing is that Deng, Gordon, and Curry are supposedly unhappy with Skiles. Forget about MY agenda here. If Curry's agent is leaking stuff to the press, aren't Deng's and Gordon's, too?
> 
> ...


It's also possible that Curry's agent could be the one leaking rumors on Gordon and Deng. That would make Curry look better because the agent could then say "hey look, my client's not the only having problems with the coach." There's way too many hypotheticals to this story.

I love Skiles, but am of the opinion that his act will eventually wear thin with this team (ala Doug Collins) and a change will have to be made. It's still too early for that at this point.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

look, its totally consistent with the previous story from Curry's agents before the team began winning. The question then is, is the NY writer just rehashing old info, or is on to something else.

In any case, its believable based on the first story


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

The premise to this is even absurd: Paxson is not going to decide, "Gee, I really like what Skiles has done, but if Eddy wants him out, he's fired."


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> look, its totally consistent with the previous story from Curry's agents before the team began winning. The question then is, is the NY writer just rehashing old info, or is on to something else.
> 
> In any case, its believable based on the first story



Ok, so if I were to believe it's true...who cares? What is Eddy going to do, pass up a 60 or 70 (guaranteed) million dollar contract this summer and play on the one year tender just to get out of here and away from Skiles? 

The article is a joke.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Skiles does have a history of players not liking him.

We all know about Kidd's tirades against the guy, that continue to this day and long after Kidd's gotten out of Phoenix and away from Skiles.

Corie Blount had issues, too.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I don't believe a single word of this ridiculous report. I read the original story and this reporter tried to put a negative spin on teams all around the league. So he is what? Tell-all guy around the league. He should stick to Knicks if he want to stick a jab around. He put out a lot of speculation and yet not a single quote.

National Enquirer journalism 101.

Don't pay any attention. Garbage.

It seems like he has his own agenda. He even looks like clueless jerk in his picture. So don't waste your guys' time and effort analyzing this garbage.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Ok, so if I were to believe it's true...who cares? What is Eddy going to do, pass up a 60 or 70 (guaranteed) million dollar contract this summer and play on the one year tender just to get out of here and away from Skiles?
> 
> The article is a joke.


as previously said, thats the question..what is the endgame?

Maybe there are trade proposals being bandied about. This is All-Star weekend where the whole league is gathered at the deadline. Maybe The Bulls have been pitched a deal that they are reluctant to pull the trigger on. Maybe this would be a way for an agent to goose the Bulls into working the deal. Of course, thats based on the premise that Eddy wants to play elsewhere. To believe that one, you have to believe all the recent happy talk was phony.

It does seem like its a joke without more info, and on all the previuos happy talk from the whole team. Maybe something has changed this weekend. Lots of maybes.

anyways, stay tuned for the denials


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

You guys all missed the red flag in this writer's story.

*"If"* Skiles comes back? Come on, there are 3 things in life that are certain- death, taxes, and Skiles coaching the Bulls next season.

This is obviously an old, old story. Ben and Luol *did* complain about PT- back in late November, and we all heard and read about it in the Chicago press. And Skiles' future here, while never in any jeopardy at all according to Pax, might have looked shady back when we were 0-9 on the season- but that "if" disappeared a few a good while back. 

To me, this is a complete non-story. I wouldn't have even clicked on this thread, except the title *quotes* Eddy as saying "It's Skiles or me". I thought it was an old thread, to be honest.

And I know, the writer didn't say "if", he said "as long as"- but that still strongly implied that there was some way he wouldn't be coming back. Old news.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...reak,1,5006340.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines  


*Eddy Curry, the subject of intense trade rumors earlier this season, laughed when asked what he would have thought if he were told the Bulls would be 26-23 at the break.

"I'd ask you what team you were talking about," Curry said. "Was I going to be on the Bulls? It's crazy how the season turned around. You almost wish the break didn't come. You want to keep playing and keep this flow we're in right now."*

does this sound like a quote from someone who is unhappy?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

no


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...reak,1,5006340.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines
> 
> 
> *Eddy Curry, the subject of intense trade rumors earlier this season, laughed when asked what he would have thought if he were told the Bulls would be 26-23 at the break.
> ...


quick answer..nope
I agree

I'm just not ready to say the story is bogus yet. It does indeed _sound_ bogus or like a reach because we have the winning team, and everyone is saying the right stuff.

the only thing that lends some pause for thought is the trading deadline, the previos Eddy/agent story and all the GMs and agents smashed together in the same place at the same time. Its just not 100% dismissable is all


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...reak,1,5006340.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines
> 
> 
> *Eddy Curry, the subject of intense trade rumors earlier this season, laughed when asked what he would have thought if he were told the Bulls would be 26-23 at the break.
> ...


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ry?coll=cs-bulls-headlines&ctrack=2&cset=true

*"Most people in my position, the third pick, would come in and feel they should be starting, like other third picks have. That they should be playing 40 minutes. That can take a toll on players. I know the opportunity is there to help the team coming off the bench and give us a spark. That's what I've done."*

That's from Thursday- doesn't sound like Ben is very unhappy with his playing time, either.

Like I said before, old news. More NY media BS. No surprise.

From the same article, a little bit of disturbing news-

*"I like all that decorating," he says, "trying to figure what paint color, getting stuff to fix up the house."*

Not that there's anything wrong with that...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> the only thing that lends some pause for thought is the trading deadline, the previos Eddy/agent story and all the GMs and agents smashed together in the same place at the same time. Its just not 100% dismissable is all


It could be an old rumor. It could just be dreamed up the writer to fill up space. It could be speculation by people far removed from the situation. It could be planted by a rival team trying to trade for Curry. It could be a lot of things - most of which are not true.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sorry, but the flowery quotes by the players when talking about Skiles or Paxson can be purely attributed to brown-nosing.

What they say and what they actually feel are not necessarily the same.

What's a guy like Gordon going to say? "I think I should be starting and don't agree with the coach." If he said that, would Skiles start him? Or would Gordon suddenly be in the doghouse like ERob was?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Gordon could never be in the doghouse like E-Rob, because E-Rob practiced like it was something of a nusance to get thru. Ben is a workout warrior.

But yeah, Players know what to say. Sometimes they don't feel like saying the right thing. But they can if they want to


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> IMHO I don't give this blurb too much credit. It's good fiction. Curry is clearly enjoying the winning. And it didn't happen until Skiles.


I agree. 

I think Isiah might be tipping some New York writers some extra cash...:biggrin:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

It was Jamal Crawford, god damn that Jamal Crawford!!!!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If any other team in the NBA offers Curry more than the Bulls do, he will leave IMO.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> If any other team in the NBA offers Curry more than the Bulls do, he will leave IMO.


That's a given.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

This was the same guy who said Lebron wanted a million dollars to participate in the dunk contest. Utter BS.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> If any other team in the NBA offers Curry more than the Bulls do, he will leave IMO.


He *can't* leave, the Bulls have the right to match any offer.

The Bulls can choose to let him leave by not matching the offer sheet, but Eddy can't just leave, plain and simple.

Are you saying that you think the Bulls will just let Eddy walk if he signs an offer sheet for the max? If so, I disagree completely, IMO Paxson matches the offer sheet then trades Eddy. He's got too much trade value just to let him walk, even signed for the max we can get some good assets in return.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i choose to place more faith in what someone like, oh, mike mcgraw says. he is with this team everyday which is more than mr. daily news hack.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp




> 2. Coaches speak
> 
> This idea finally may be catching on about Scott Skiles: He's not a drill sergeant or a screamer.
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> You guys all missed the red flag in this writer's story.
> 
> *"If"* Skiles comes back? Come on, there are 3 things in life that are certain- death, taxes, and Skiles coaching the Bulls next season.
> 
> ...


Actually, this could be another escalation of the escalating power struggle every team seems to face with its players for control.

That seems to be the reality of the league anyway, even though it's often not talked about. Who's calling the shots?

* In Portland, Darius Miles' outburst was centered on "why should I listen to you, you're gonna be gone anyway".

* In Denver, no one listened to Jeff Bzdellick because he was clearly a lame duck. Now they've got Karl as a guy everyone knows is going to be there, and it's changed the credibility relationship.

*With the Bulls that was true as well.* Even when Skiles first came in, there was perhaps a sense, perhaps, last year and going into this year, that maybe the players just had to "wait him out", and if he broke, they'd end up having more clout with the next guy.

And of course, the fact Paxson repeatedly gave him votes of confidence, sent a message that even when things sucked, he was willing to go down with his ship (Skiles). Faced with that, the players folded up and realized they had nothing left but to buy in and accept the fact he wasn't going anywhere.

Of course, that's only one victory in an everlasting war with some guys. Having a contract ending gives a guy some leverage to say how he'd like things done. No question about that (at least if it's a guy you feel you need to keep).

I dunno, that's just one possibility.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Hmm, well it's in the NY papers, and a CERTAIN center on our team happens to have a best friend that plays for NY, so I'm guessin Curry's been talking to Crawford about it and Crawford leaked the info. Seems pretty logical.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Repeat after me, guys.

This story is a BULL****.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I think its far more likely that Curry still has doubts about resigning PERIOD regardless of Skiles .Most just assume that Curry and Chandler would want to finish out their careers as Bulls so us locking them up is more a matter of Pax wanting to pay them as opposed to themn wanting to be back.

I have no no doubt deng and Gordon want to play more but I doubt they said it out loud.

I doubt Curry said its me or skiles but the writer may had heard that Curry may not resign and just assumed it was because of Skiles .


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

As bad as some of our writers can get, (Smith, Mariotti, Banks) the New York sports journalism is just horrendous. It's the National Enquirer of sports. I'd take our journalists over their bull**** anyday.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Hmm, well it's in the NY papers, and a CERTAIN center on our team happens to have a best friend that plays for NY, so I'm guessin Curry's been talking to Crawford about it and Crawford leaked the info. Seems pretty logical.


Yeah I can see that

4 years of losing 

A winning season at last with a Coach whose method has actually helped you to a greater profile and therefore a guaranteed bag of $80M large

Chemistry off the charts

Yeah I can see Eddy hanging in Jamal's crib over the allstar weekend and plotting on how to get him off the Bulls so Isiah has leverage to trade Kurt Thomas and Moochie Norris for him

This story has about as much legs as an amputated spider


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Hopefully come practice tomorrow Eddy will affirm his desire to remain in Chicago whoever is the coach. 

I tend to file this article under the fiction catagory. While watching NBATV Insiders, Frank Isola (NY writer) talked about Ben Gordon and Scott Skiles having a Love-Hate relationship. So i have to ask, how does it that these NY writers know so much about the Bulls inner workings? Either Chicago has the worst beat guys (well Lacy is horrible, thats for sure) or NY writers are so great that they can cover 2 cities @ once.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Yeah I can see that
> 
> 4 years of losing
> 
> ...


Don't really mean much of nothing. Just because were winning right now doesn't mean players still won't have problems with the coach. You can't make everybody happy all the time.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I believe every word in that article. 

On a sidenote, did you guys know the moon landing was a hoax? Crazy stuff, but I read about it somewhere.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Lets wait and see if the story grows legs...*in Chicago*, before we lend any credibility at all to an out of town reporter who uses the dreaded phrase, "Word is..." and then tops it of with, "it might not be set in stone...".

The auther doesn't even have the stones to say something like, "reliable sources...".

As for Curry's agents being the source of the leak...first, are they really that stupid that after hearing Paxson commit to signing him, they'd jeopardize their continued relationship with him and risk losing one of their biggest paydays ever this summer? Second, if there were leaks to be spread, why go to NY when we've got the original journalistic whore right here in town in Lacy Banks? It was, afterall Mr. Banks who started the last big EC rumor, supposedly initiated by these same agents.

Oh, one last thing. Last week I watched a TV interview of Chandler and Curry together. I think they were in someone's livingroom. One of the things they both stated was that they both wanted to remain in Chicago, and they definitely *did not* want to be split up.

Like I said, lets see if our Chicago media backs up this report befor drawing any conclusions.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

This story should not be taken seriously about Gordon, Curry or Deng. I'll believe even one word of it when I see it in a Chicago paper or hear anyone in Chicago even so much as comment on it. If this story was real, or even close, the Chicago media would have gone nuts by now.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> Gordon could never be in the doghouse like E-Rob, because E-Rob practiced like it was something of a nusance to get thru. Ben is a workout warrior.
> 
> But yeah, Players know what to say. Sometimes they don't feel like saying the right thing. But they can if they want to



If ben is a workout warrior why does he according to skiles have stamina problems.

there are a fair share of disconnects with what we have been sold and what actually is the case


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Isn't it interesting how one bad piece of press (fabricated or otherwise) that surfaces amidst all the positive things that have surrounded this team for months now automatically brings out the usual Chicken Little reactions from certain glass half empty Bulls posters?

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/chicken_little/

It would be really funny if it wasn't so predictable.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Isn't it interesting how one bad piece of press (fabricated or otherwise) that surfaces amidst all the positive things that have surrounded this team for months now automatically brings out the usual Chicken Little reactions from certain glass half empty Bulls posters?
> 
> http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/chicken_little/
> 
> It would be really funny if it wasn't so predictable.


its funnier that certain posters cant discuss a topic without focusing on posters instead .


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I have trouble believing the story, simply based on the totality of what has been said by all parties involved throughout the season. It seems inconsistent.

If it is true, and Curry really is drawing a line in the sand, that says something to me about Curry.

If it is true, I prefer Skiles -- for that reason.


But I am anxiously awaiting clarification and denial from the Bulls and Curry about this flimsy rumor.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> He *can't* leave, the Bulls have the right to match any offer.
> 
> The Bulls can choose to let him leave by not matching the offer sheet, but Eddy can't just leave, plain and simple.
> 
> Are you saying that you think the Bulls will just let Eddy walk if he signs an offer sheet for the max? If so, I disagree completely, IMO Paxson matches the offer sheet then trades Eddy. He's got too much trade value just to let him walk, even signed for the max we can get some good assets in return.


Yah.. .no kidding.

If any other team in the league offers more than the Bulls decide to offer, then Eddy will leave.

In the case of a MAX tie... then yah... I would hope the Bulls match.

My point is that despite everything that has happened this year, I believe that Curry would leave for a little bit more money.

I'm not sure that Paxson would sign Curry to the MAX..... even if just to trade him... but that was not what I was getting at.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> But I am anxiously awaiting clarification and denial from the Bulls and Curry about this flimsy rumor.


What can you expect Curry to say if asked about this? Obviously he would say all the right things about his coach, winning, etc. After all, he is playing for his next contract and some GMs are taking notes about this off the court stuff as well.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

When did they contact Eddy??? Last I checked he was going on vacation with Antonio Davis over the allstar break. Who is talking to him? Did Antonio Davis leak this to the press? Don't think so. This is so much bull****. Just like that Eddy Curry has a bummed knee and will sit out until the Bulls trade him thread.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Remember this article? Cause I do!

* While criticizing Bulls coach Scott Skiles on Tuesday night, New Jersey Nets star Jason Kidd suggested reporters "ask Eddy Curry and all those guys how they feel about him.''

Asked Wednesday, Curry said he has adjusted to Skiles' style.

"I can see how some people may get rubbed the wrong way,'' said Curry, who has said that he needs to be prodded and that he's good at taking constructive criticism from coaches. "But I personally like him, and I think everybody on the team likes him.

"He definitely has a way of getting his point across. It takes some getting used to. But it's fine with me.''
* 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/basketball/cst-spt-curry30.html

:wink:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah.. .no kidding.
> 
> If any other team in the league offers more than the Bulls decide to offer, then Eddy will leave.
> 
> ...


I know, but Eddy *can't* leave. That's my point. You can say that Eddy would *want* to leave for a little bit more money- is that what you mean? It seems like that's what you're trying to say.

Part 2, do you think Pax will let Eddy walk if he is offered the max by some other team? Or do you think he will match the offer and re-sign Curry for more money than he wants to pay, knowing he can still trade Eddy in 90 days and get something in return?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I know, but Eddy *can't* leave. That's my point. You can say that Eddy would *want* to leave for a little bit more money- is that what you mean? It seems like that's what you're trying to say.
> 
> Part 2, do you think Pax will let Eddy walk if he is offered the max by some other team? Or do you think he will match the offer and re-sign Curry for more money than he wants to pay, knowing he can still trade Eddy in 90 days and get something in return?


On the one hand, I guess it's smart of the Bulls to let another team determine Curry and Chandler's worth, especially if they are pretty sure the top offer will be well short of the max.

On the other hand, it's going to create a lot of tension and possible ill-will -- especially if there's a huge gap between the highest offer and whatever the Bulls initial offer is.

I hope that Pax and the Bulls have done their homework here, and that their initial offer to Curry and Chandler is a competitive one. Once you get to the stage where their names are on another team's offer sheet, all it takes is one little flinch and poof, you've lost 'em for nada.

I'm not sure if the Curry talk in this article is new noise or mere regurgitation, but in either case, it's just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I know, but Eddy *can't* leave. That's my point. You can say that Eddy would *want* to leave for a little bit more money- is that what you mean? It seems like that's what you're trying to say.
> 
> Part 2, do you think Pax will let Eddy walk if he is offered the max by some other team? Or do you think he will match the offer and re-sign Curry for more money than he wants to pay, knowing he can still trade Eddy in 90 days and get something in return?


If another team offers Curry more than the Bulls offer, then he can leave, yes? Unless its the MAX... where the Bulls would have to offer the same.

Eddy can leave if another team offers him more money. Does he not have a choice? Does Curry have to sign the other team's offer? 

I'm not sure what Paxson would do. There is not much evidence to base a conclusion on.... other than the Crawford and Rose trades.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> If another team offers Curry more than the Bulls offer, then he can leave, yes? Unless its the MAX... where the Bulls would have to offer the same.
> 
> Eddy can leave if another team offers him more money. Does he not have a choice? Does Curry have to sign the other team's offer?
> 
> I'm not sure what Paxson would do. There is not much evidence to base a conclusion on.... other than the Crawford and Rose trades.


Curry will be a Bull next season unless the Bulls decide otherwise. He can take the q-offer and remain one more season here, or the bulls can match any offer sheet. Its up to Paxson and Reinsdorf.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Curry will be a Bull next season unless the Bulls decide otherwise. He can take the q-offer and remain one more season here, or the bulls can match any offer sheet. Its up to Paxson and Reinsdorf.


So, Curry can leave if another team offers more money than the Bulls do... just like I'm saying.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> So, Curry can leave if another team offers more money than the Bulls do... just like I'm saying.


But by the way you are saying it, it looks like Curry is an unrestricted free agent. 
Most probably, Curry will get an initial offer from the Bulls. After that, he will start visiting some teams and after all that, he will decide which offer to take. 
Once he decides, the ball is on the Bulls court. If he takes Paxson's offer, he will be a Bull for the next 4 or 5 seasons. If he takes, say, the Hawks contract, Paxson will have 15 days to decide whether he keeps Curry or lets him go. Curry pretty much has his hands tied up, unless he cries and openly demands a trade.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> But by the way you are saying it, it looks like Curry is an unrestricted free agent.
> Most probably, Curry will get an initial offer from the Bulls. After that, he will start visiting some teams and after all that, he will decide which offer to take.
> Once he decides, the ball is on the Bulls court. If he takes Paxson's offer, he will be a Bull for the next 4 or 5 seasons. If he takes, say, the Hawks contract, Paxson will have 15 days to decide whether he keeps Curry or lets him go. Curry pretty much has his hands tied up, unless he cries and openly demands a trade.



Curry does have choices. If "The Right Way" is the only way for Curry, he can choose to play for the Bulls for less money than he can get from other teams. He simply does not sign their offer sheets.

Perhaps Curry will choose to stay with the Bulls for less $$$ out of gratitude to the PaxSkiles "Right Way" wisdom imparted upon him.

Perhaps Curry thinks that without Paxson and Skiles he’ll become an overweight, useless piece of trash.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry does have choices. If "The Right Way" is the only way for Curry, he can choose to play for the Bulls for less money than he can get from other teams. He simply does not sign their offer sheets.


You are confusing me, Kukoc! :biggrin: 

Lets put it this way: The only way Curry wont play for Chicago next season is if he is traded. The Bulls most probably will match any offer sheet.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Don't forget about the new CBA, that will make the maximum like 5 years for vets and 4 years for players coming off their rookie contract. No way Paxson can pass up say a 4 year contract starting at 10 million. 46.5 million over 4 years approximately. Paxson would be crunked up to pass up that. If Curry slacks off he will be easier to move, or his contract comes off earlier rather then a guy like AD where the years are lingering where you wait for it to come off.

Eddy Curry better be a Bull next year or we better have a damn good replacement. You don't let Curry talent walk without getting someone really good to replace him.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

In a way the ball really will be in Curry and Chandlers court this summer.because lets face facts if the Bulls make the playoffs expectations will be raised .....Heck they have already been raised so if Curry or Chandler decide to play out the qualifying offer basically tying Paxs hands for an entire season I doubt Pax would be happy.he just cannot afford to get NOTHING for them and if the new cba comes thru yes the deals are shorter but we dont knopw what else will be included in that .

Curry will make 5.1 mil on the Q offer next year and Chandler 6.2 mil next year if they played out the qualifying offer .With the new cba we asssume there will be changes that will favor the teams but I find it hard to believe the players will not have some things in it that will benefit them contract wie as well


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> In a way the ball really will be in Curry and Chandlers court this summer.because lets face facts if the Bulls make the playoffs expectations will be raised .....Heck they have already been raised so if Curry or Chandler decide to play out the qualifying offer basically tying Paxs hands for an entire season I doubt Pax would be happy.he just cannot afford to get NOTHING for them and if the new cba comes thru yes the deals are shorter but we dont knopw what else will be included in that .
> 
> Curry will make 5.1 mil on the Q offer next year and Chandler 6.2 mil next year if they played out the qualifying offer .With the new cba we asssume there will be changes that will favor the teams but I find it hard to believe the players will not have some things in it that will benefit them contract wie as well


Who was the last player to take the Q offer? Im talking players that commanded more than 10M per season. A one year contract is another risk any player cant afford to take, especially coming off a rookie contract. 

And Curry will have to prove all over again next season, so Im sure he would gladly sign for as much as gets offered and call it a day.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> So, Curry can leave if another team offers more money than the Bulls do... just like I'm saying.


He can leave... *IF* the Bulls let him leave. There is no way a team can offer more money than the Bulls if the Bulls want to pay the max.. If a team offers Eddy the max, the Bulls have the right to match the offer.

Curry can only leave the Bulls this summer if the Bulls choose to let him leave. That's all we are trying to tell you. In the end, it's not Eddy's choice, it's Paxson's, end of story. 

Eddy is a restricted free agent and we have his Bird Rights, we can match any offer sheet that Eddy signs. He can choose to sign and offer sheet, but that doesn't mean he can leave- Paxson has 15 days to match the offer sheet.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> Who was the last player to take the Q offer? Im talking players that commanded more than 10M per season. A one year contract is another risk any player cant afford to take, especially coming off a rookie contract.
> 
> And Curry will have to prove all over again next season, so Im sure he would gladly sign for as much as gets offered and call it a day.


I know Stromile Swift took the QO last summer, we'll have to see how much he winds up getting this summer.

Olowokandi took the QO from the Clips, then got the MLE the next summer.

Those are the only 2 that pop to mind immediately.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> He can leave... *IF* the Bulls let him leave. There is no way a team can offer more money than the Bulls if the Bulls want to pay the max.. If a team offers Eddy the max, the Bulls have the right to match the offer.
> 
> Curry can only leave the Bulls this summer if the Bulls choose to let him leave. That's all we are trying to tell you. In the end, it's not Eddy's choice, it's Paxson's, end of story.
> 
> Eddy is a restricted free agent and we have his Bird Rights, we can match any offer sheet that Eddy signs. He can choose to sign and offer sheet, but that doesn't mean he can leave- Paxson has 15 days to match the offer sheet.


I don't disagree with you.

This is still true, yes?

"So, Curry can leave if another team offers more money than the Bulls do... just like I'm saying."


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

bullsville said:


> I know Stromile Swift took the QO last summer, we'll have to see how much he winds up getting this summer.
> 
> Olowokandi took the QO from the Clips, then got the MLE the next summer.
> 
> Those are the only 2 that pop to mind immediately.


Yeah, but as I said, they werent going to get anything close to 10M per season. Curry and Chandler are both expected to sign contracts starting at around 10M (more or less). So they will take the money from the Bulls or another team, but its a longshot to see them signing for the q-offer.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

El Chapu said:


> Who was the last player to take the Q offer? Im talking players that commanded more than 10M per season. A one year contract is another risk any player cant afford to take, especially coming off a rookie contract.
> 
> And Curry will have to prove all over again next season, so Im sure he would gladly sign for as much as gets offered and call it a day.


With the new cba... who knows ? who knows how close they were on the numbers to begin with last summer .Who knows what options will be added to the new shorter contracts that could benefit the players ?

The one assumpton that is always made around here is will the Bulls resign someone for the max ?Until its actually done its just a urban legend :biggrin: 

When we know for certain that Pax will put a max deal on the table then its a risk but if he doesnt it becomes a insult and Curry decides to play for teh qualifying offer .

Pax declined to offer the max to curry last summer but has Curry done enough to change his mind these last couple of months ?

the biggest difference in our team this year has been the play of Curry and Chandler and I dont think Curry has decided to take a paycut in fact I would say he is even more convinced now than ever of what he is worth.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't disagree with you.
> 
> This is still true, yes?
> 
> "So, Curry can leave if another team offers more money than the Bulls do... just like I'm saying."


It's factual, yes. Completely true? Not even close- to be true it would say ""So, Curry can leave if another team offers more money than the Bulls do *AND THE BULLS CHOOSE TO LET HIM LEAVE.* So he cannot leave without the Bulls' explicit permission. 

Why not add "Curry can leave if another team offers *less* money than the Bulls"? That's true.

Or "Curry can leave for the league minimum"? That's also true.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> Yeah, but as I said, they werent going to get anything close to 10M per season. Curry and Chandler are both expected to sign contracts starting at around 10M (more or less). So they will take the money from the Bulls or another team, but its a longshot to see them signing for the q-offer.


Agreed. Those were the only 2 players I could think of at all who have ever accepted the QO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> It's factual, yes. Completely true? Not even close- to be true it would say ""So, Curry can leave if another team offers more money than the Bulls do *AND THE BULLS CHOOSE TO LET HIM LEAVE.* So he cannot leave without the Bulls' explicit permission.
> 
> Why not add "Curry can leave if another team offers *less* money than the Bulls"? That's true.
> 
> Or "Curry can leave for the league minimum"? That's also true.


The bulls are *CHOOSING TO LET HIM LEAVE* by offering him less money, which is what I said in the original statement. There is no need to say the same thing twice.

I think its a valid assumption that Curry will want to maximize his earnings... unless he really thinks playing for PaxSkiles is worth more than extra $$$ in his pocket.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I know Stromile Swift took the QO last summer, we'll have to see how much he winds up getting this summer.
> 
> Olowokandi took the QO from the Clips, then got the MLE the next summer.
> 
> Those are the only 2 that pop to mind immediately.


Kandi didn't take the QO offer. He turned down a $50M contract the summer BEFORE he was a FA. He stunk so bad that the Clips didn't bother to match the MLE offer that he got when he was an RFA.

Swift is the only guy that I can think of that took to QO.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

bullsville said:


> It's factual, yes. Completely true? Not even close- to be true it would say ""So, Curry can leave if another team offers more money than the Bulls do *AND THE BULLS CHOOSE TO LET HIM LEAVE.* So he cannot leave without the Bulls' explicit permission.
> 
> Why not add "Curry can leave if another team offers *less* money than the Bulls"? That's true.
> 
> Or "Curry can leave for the league minimum"? That's also true.


But when you consider the factors that the Bulls will have HUGE expectations placed upon them next year and if he decides not to accept the Bulls offer then Pax is truly between a rock and a hard place .

I think he gets a max deal from the Bulls or he will play out the qualifying offer and become unrestricted free agent.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Kandi didn't take the QO offer. He turned down a $50M contract the summer BEFORE he was a FA. He stunk so bad that the Clips didn't bother to match the MLE offer that he got when he was an RFA.
> 
> Swift is the only guy that I can think of that took to QO.


I knew Kandi had turned down more money than he wound up getting, couldn't remember the exact way it went down.

But Kandi *did* take the QO after his 4th season- he wound up playing 5 years for the Clippers, meaning that, without a doubt, he had to take the QO. I was thinking that was when he turned down the Clips' offer of an extension.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

But it does not have to be next summer unless the bulls trade him. Bulls can match all offers. So Eddy cannot "leave" this summer. He can be traded. 

Summer of 2006 he will be a unristricted FA and if the Bulls not sign him to an extension, then he can leave.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> But when you consider the factors that the Bulls will have HUGE expectations placed upon them next year and if he decides not to accept the Bulls offer then Pax is truly between a rock and a hard place .
> 
> I think he gets a max deal from the Bulls or he will play out the qualifying offer and become unrestricted free agent.


So you don't think Eddy will go to another team and get them to sign him to a max offer sheet? IMHO someone with cap space will be willing to pay him the max- but I don't know if anyone would sign him to an offer sheet, tying up their cap space for 15 days while the Bulls decide whether or not they want to match.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Eddy can also sign the Bulls offer and choose to pull an EROB.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Eddy can also sign the Bulls offer and choose to pull an EROB.


I thought that was widely known- the question on Curry, ever since high school, has been his heart and desire.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Who was the last player to take the Q offer? Im talking players that commanded more than 10M per season. A one year contract is another risk any player cant afford to take, especially coming off a rookie
> 
> And Curry will have to prove all over again next season, so Im sure he would gladly sign for as much as gets offered and call it a day.



You better believe it. Let's clear that up right now. Chandler and Curry are absolutely NOT going to take the qualifying offer this summer. 

Curry is going to have _at least_ 60 million dollars laying in front of him this summer in guaranteed money and there is not a chance in hell he leaves that on the table and takes the one year tender. He can hate the Bulls all he wants, whine, beg them not to match an offer sheet, but he and his agents are not going to let that kind of guaranteed money get away. 

And assuming Chandler stays healthy, he is going to have too much money on the table as well to pass up. 

Kandi believed he was worth like 40 million more than what he was being offered and Swift was never rumored to even be offered anything much more than the MLE last summer. Those things aren't giong to be the case this summer with our guys. 

You can bank on them both signing long term contract this summer.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

bullsville said:


> So you don't think Eddy will go to another team and get them to sign him to a max offer sheet? IMHO someone with cap space will be willing to pay him the max- but I don't know if anyone would sign him to an offer sheet, tying up their cap space for 15 days while the Bulls decide whether or not they want to match.



That's a nice point. I personally don't think a team is going to give Eddy a max deal. I think he'll get a Boozer type contract (68 million over 6 years) but it will probably be for 5 years with the new CBA. A lot of people consider that a max deal, but it's not a true max contract. I said it before the season and I'm still sticking to it. I don't think a team with capspace will put all their eggs in one basket and give Eddy the fullboat max deal.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

bullsville said:


> So you don't think Eddy will go to another team and get them to sign him to a max offer sheet? IMHO someone with cap space will be willing to pay him the max- but I don't know if anyone would sign him to an offer sheet, tying up their cap space for 15 days while the Bulls decide whether or not they want to match.



It all depends on how the cba shakes out and what offer the Bulls initially make to him.There will be teams that will offer him a nice deal but unless that deal blows away the Bulls deal he would just resign with the Bulls .

I do think Atlanta will be hot after him to get a Curry,Harrington,Josh smith frontline + lottery pick pg this year but all boils down to how much "respect" has he earned from pax since October and has earned enough to garner a max deal .


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I do think Atlanta will be hot after him to get a Curry,Harrington,Josh smith frontline + lottery pick pg this year but all boils down to how much "respect" has he earned from pax since October and has earned enough to garner a max deal .


Wow. That would be a nice team.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Eddy can also sign the Bulls offer and choose to pull an EROB.


I know in truth this is what you really want. Don't deny it. You were like this with JC and now with Eddy. All you want is to prove you are right and BUlls' way sucks. I can't believe that you even pretend to be BUlls fan. IF you are, why all of your post is something about how Bulls are going to screw up. You spent enormous energy to tell other people why Bulls will do something to screw up.

Seriously, are you a Bulls fan? Check your own post, you are so quick to blame Bulls, so eager to say a bad thing about Bulls, yet so reluctant to give the credit where credit is due?

Exactly what kind of fan are you?

Sorry about the tone. I am just frustrated with your post all over the topic. Not just this one. Exactly like JC's case, your tone suggest that you can't wait till something bad happens so you can say "I told you, so".

You really want Curry to just walk IF that is ever possible. If not, why keep arguing over the possibility no matter how remote that is. I wonder.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Who has the $$$ to make a max offer?

Atlanta? Have fun there.

Charlotte? Wow. Curry and Okafor or Chandler and Okafor would be huge.

Who else?

My thinking is that Curry and Chandler reject any QO and try the FA market to get the best offer they can.

I do not know if Pax will match over what he thinks they're worth, and he may well think they're not worth near the max.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow. That would be a nice team.


Whats scary is that they could have enough for 2 Max type deals 

Redd and eddy ???

Curry
Harrington
Josh Smith
Michael Redd
lottery pick Paul,Williams,Felton take your pick 

not bad


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Who has the $$$ to make a max offer?
> 
> Atlanta? Have fun there.
> 
> ...


Bobcats 30 million 
Hawks 25 million 
Sonics 19 million 
Cavs 18 million 
Clipps 14 million 
Bulls 12 million


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

Get rid of Curry if he thinks he has earned the right to say **** like that


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Bobcats 30 million
> Hawks 25 million
> Sonics 19 million
> Cavs 18 million
> ...


If I were the sonics, I'd strongly consider a max offer.

For either of our young bigs.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I know in truth this is what you really want. Don't deny it. You were like this with JC and now with Eddy. All you want is to prove you are right and BUlls' way sucks. I can't believe that you even pretend to be BUlls fan. IF you are, why all of your post is something about how Bulls are going to screw up. You spent enormous energy to tell other people why Bulls will do something to screw up.
> 
> Seriously, are you a Bulls fan? Check your own post, you are so quick to blame Bulls, so eager to say a bad thing about Bulls, yet so reluctant to give the credit where credit is due?
> 
> ...


I'm just trying to talk about the NBA team I follow. 

I would like the Bulls to resign Curry and Chandler and win the NBA title.

Why U Hatin on me? :biggrin:


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Bobcats 30 million
> Hawks 25 million
> Sonics 19 million
> Cavs 18 million
> ...


Bobcats can only use like 75% of the cap I believe for next year, but even if, they got a lot of money to play with. I know they like Primo, but Eddy is better than him. 

Atlanta is an option. It's going to take a full max deal from them to get him to sign on the dotted line though I bet. 

Sonics have 8 free agents including Ray so that probably counts them out. 

Cavs will most likely re-sign Z and still have a lot of money to play with. They won't need Eddy if they get Z back though. Will likely go after Redd as well. Would Jimmy really try to steal from brother John like that anyway? 

Clippers? They have Kaman I guess...but you have to believe that is one organization even Eddy will stay away from. 

From this, I'd say Eddy probably gets a deal done with the Bulls at the start or seeks a deal from Atlanta.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why U Hatin on me? :biggrin:


Don't you get it? Because you hate my beloved Bulls. It's that simple. You may love JC, you may love EC, you may even love TC, LOL you may even loved ERob but the one thing you don't love is the Chicago Bulls. You know it and I know it. That's why. Got it? :no:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Don't you get it? Because you hate my beloved Bulls. It's that simple. You may love JC, you may love EC, you may even love TC, LOL you may even loved ERob but the one thing you don't love is the Chicago Bulls. You know it and I know it. That's why. Got it? :no:


If you say so.

I spend a fair amount of $$$ and time following the team..... and I have been for decades.... but I guess if *lgtwins* thinks I'm not a fan... then it has to be true.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Bobcats can only use like 75% of the cap I believe for next year, but even if, they got a lot of money to play with. I know they like Primo, but Eddy is better than him.
> 
> Atlanta is an option. It's going to take a full max deal from them to get him to sign on the dotted line though I bet.
> 
> ...


I'm reading that the Sonics don't think they will sign Ray.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I knew Kandi had turned down more money than he wound up getting, couldn't remember the exact way it went down.
> 
> But Kandi *did* take the QO after his 4th season- he wound up playing 5 years for the Clippers, meaning that, without a doubt, he had to take the QO. I was thinking that was when he turned down the Clips' offer of an extension.


Ok - you're right. Kandi did take the QO. Clipps offered big money that summer to both Brand and Kandi and they both passed it up. Worked out well for Brand. Not so well for Kandi.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I'm reading that the Sonics don't think they will sign Ray.



I've heard that too. At least not for 90 million over 5 years. But if that's really the case, you'd think they would look into trading him by next week (and then gaining a contract back that takes up that space) if they don't reach an extension and they really thought they could lose him for nothing. I know that sounds absolutely crazy to think about considering how well Seattle is playing, but do they really want to go into the offseason with him on bad terms facing losing him for absolutely nothing? 

But then again, they could always strike a deal in the summer. Rashard Lewis wanted a max deal with them a few years ago and whined and whined that they "weren't respecting him" b/c they didn't want to give him a max contract.  But when worse came to worse and all the offers were on the table, Seattle's offer was better than what anyone else could offer, even though it wasn't exactly what Rashard was looking for. 

We'll see.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Allen Iverson has taken back his supposed trade request of the month, though there are some big names floating around with some uncertainty, like Boston's Paul Pierce, Sacramento's Peja Stojakovic, Milwaukee's Michael Redd *and, no, not the Bulls' Eddy Curry*.

But there was some interesting buzz here with word that Curry is not too happy with his rotation and playing time and might make a fuss about re-signing to play for Scott Skiles. And with Skiles' option for next season not picked up yet.

Bulls general manager John Paxson continues to say Skiles will be the team's coach for a long time, and the way they're playing, there's no reason not to believe him. *And Curry has given no indication to the Bulls he's upset with his situation.*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...b21,1,1095671.column?coll=cs-basketball-print

Here's the first mention of the story in the Chicago press. Not exactly a ringing endorsement from Smith of his NY associate's "...Curry is definitely thinking about it" claim.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

This is pretty much exactly the same thing that happened "when Curry demanded a trade." It's his agents. Eddy, after getting benched for most of the fourth quarter was frustrated said the wrong thing in front of the wrong person and this is what happens.

There is no way Eddy would give an altimatum (spellcheck)  
Paxson would ship his *** in a second.

If it is true, it is for such selfish reasons that I don't think he is good for team chemistry, and although he has a talent that is hard to replace. The Bulls are not only winning but look to have the brightest future in the league. I don't think it is at all a stretch to say there is no way Eddy will go to a better team.

Also playing in Chicago is only second to LA and NY in terms of endorsments.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Hustle said:


> This is pretty much exactly the same thing that happened "when Curry demanded a trade." It's his agents. Eddy, after getting benched for most of the fourth quarter was frustrated said the wrong thing in front of the wrong person and this is what happens.
> 
> There is no way Eddy would give an altimatum (spellcheck)
> Paxson would ship his *** in a second.
> ...


I don't know whether it's just his agents or not, but given the events of the last year or so, you gotta figure ANY Bulls player - especially Curry- is going to be pretty discreet when it comes to voicing any displeasure. That doesn't, however, mean there's no displeasure.

I dunno, I figure someone said something... the Trib story isn't exactly a complete denial. 

The bigger point to me is that we shouldn't expect everything to be 100% perfect. Every perceived slight shouldn't be made into the end of the world, but it shouldn't be completely ignored and dismissed as having nothing to it either.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I dunno, I figure someone said something... the Trib story isn't exactly a complete denial.


It's Smith's way of saying a rumor is out there. I still don't think it's true. But if it is, it's sure not a a very effective way to get traded.... if the team only hears about it 3rd hand via a NY tabloid.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I don't buy this garbage. Of all the times for Eddy to complain, why the hell would he do it now? The team is doing great at 26-23...Eddy is as big a reason for the turnaround as anybody...he's playing nearly 30 minutes a game and his teammates do their darndest to get him the ball...he's putting up solid numbers with nearly 16 ppg at 54% shooting. And everytime I see Eddy get interviewed on TV, he looks noticeably excited at the team's play. Look, I know it's typical NBA behavior to simply kiss management's behinds and to "say the right things"....but comparing Eddy's persona now to the last couple years, there is a VERY noticeable difference. Eddy loves this team, and he loves the direction he is heading. He loves playing in Chicago, near his hometown. You can watch the guy lately and just see that, because we're only just now seeing it. 

Now why in God's green earth would Eddy want to leave NOW? The Bulls have expressed that they'll pay him his money. Skiles is doing his part, giving Eddy as many post feeds as he can handle and helping the team in the right direction. Even if Eddy had a personal vendetta against Skiles (which I still don't believe), he can't deny the job he's done coaching the Bulls. 

It just isn't rational that any of this is true, which is why I don't believe it unless it came directly out of Eddy's mouth, word for word. And if that happened, then my view of Eddy Curry just went down a few notches, because then HE'S the one not being rational.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I dunno, I figure someone said something... the Trib story isn't exactly a complete denial.


Come on, Mike. You don't really think that just because a sportswriter prints an uncited, generic rumor that this somehow establishes an indicia or reliability, do you? 

This type of blurb is the kind of dime-a-dozen-column-filling garbage that saturates the articles of guys like Smith and Lawrence every week - 99.99% of which is speculation piled on speculation. Fun to read, and great for lining the bird's cage.

I'm not saying that it *can't* have a foundation in truth, but just because its printed doesn't mean it does - or even suggest that it does. It merely suggests the possiblity.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

rumors always come from somewhere , maybe its an old rumor being rehashed , maybe its not and its a new rumor because curry has a lil' pull with the pressure to resign him.

The final denominator is almost always $ i have no doubt that if pax ponies up the dough skiles or no skiles curry will resign , and if he doesn't he wont skiles or no skiles.

pax has left enough legroom for another team to think they have a chance and thats what worries me the most , not whether or not curry likes skiles which i am almost positive he doesn't (Curry in my opinion has a problem with authority) pax will likely not off the max and another team will, and it will be up to pax to match it, and thats when the fun begins, up until then its just posturing and hypotheticals by us fans , pax and curry himself.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Come on, Mike. You don't really think that just because a sportswriter prints an uncited, generic rumor that this somehow establishes an indicia or reliability, do you?


Not to any level I'm concerned about, which is why I said *"Every perceived slight shouldn't be made into the end of the world*_, but it shouldn't be completely ignored and dismissed as having nothing to it either."_

More specifically, lots of people are jumping to the assumption its Curry's agents who leaked something, its some kind of Machiavellian conspiracy theory by Jamal Crawford or the vast New York Media Establishment that has some interest in seeing Eddy Curry a knick. I don't think it has to be anything so grandiose. 

It could have been an offhand or heat of the moment remark someone made, it could have been made up, it could have reflected the truth a few months ago, or any number of other relatively simple explanations that don't require a lot of worry but also shouldn't be religiously ignored either.



Ron Cey said:


> I'm not saying that it *can't* have a foundation in truth, but just because its printed doesn't mean it does - or even suggest that it does. It merely suggests the possiblity.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You're saying something being printed in the paper doesn't DOES NOT suggest there is truth, but it DOES suggest there is the possibility of truth.

As a semantic point, I agree. But to continue, I'd point out that something being printed in the paper doesn't DOES suggest there is truth more than something not being printed in the paper at all.

The fact that all of this stuff reflects underlying probabilities in a Bayesian sense is a given. I generally think of these things in Bayesian terms (continually updating probabilities). The appearance of a single article doesn't mean a lot, but does mean something different from an article never appearing.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

happygrinch said:


> rumors always come from somewhere.


Except when the writer is basing his article on pure speculation, which means the rumor has merely come out of his own corn hole.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Except when the writer is basing his article on pure speculation, which means the rumor has merely come out of his own corn hole.



do you know *that* to be the case?

I dont ,and i dont consider it a lock to become true , in fact the post you responded to i said flat out I dont think it will matter either way. BVut just because something isn't pleasant to me I dont put my head in the sand and claim it must be a lie and cant exist.

there has been a fair share of statements on this thread of people saying that mitch lawrence has flat out lied on this one , that seems to me to be very extreme, especially with no proof put out by anyone that he has ever in the past made up stories.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

happygrinch said:


> do you know *that* to be the case?
> 
> I dont ,and i dont consider it a lock to become true , in fact the post you responded to i said flat out I dont think it will matter either way. BVut just because something isn't pleasant to me I dont put my head in the sand and claim it must be a lie and cant exist.
> 
> there has been a fair share of statements on this thread of people saying that mitch lawrence has flat out lied on this one , that seems to me to be very extreme, especially with no proof put out by anyone that he has ever in the past made up stories.


As I said in a previous post, I think this report is too irrational to be held as fact. More than likely, it is based on speculation (which isn't a flat out lie...it's only a lie if the writer claims it to be true, which I don't believe he does). I'm not discrediting the source because it's unpleasant news; I can handle the hard facts. But things have been rather peachy-keen lately around the Bulls organization...watching Curry in interviews, he's noticeably upbeat; comparing this to his past 3 years on the team, it's like night and day. Of all the times to express unhappiness with his coach/team, why would he do it now? As I said, it's irrational thinking.

I agree with you that it will come down to the contract offer, and that Skiles is moreorless moot to the contract negotiations. If Pax gives Curry an offer that he likes, he's here to stay, Skiles or no Skiles.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You're saying something being printed in the paper doesn't DOES NOT suggest there is truth, but it DOES suggest there is the possibility of truth.
> 
> As a semantic point, I agree. But to continue, I'd point out that something being printed in the paper doesn't DOES suggest there is truth more than something not being printed in the paper at all.
> 
> The fact that all of this stuff reflects underlying probabilities in a Bayesian sense is a given. I generally think of these things in Bayesian terms (continually updating probabilities). The appearance of a single article doesn't mean a lot, but does mean something different from an article never appearing.


This is all very well said, Mike. But everything you wrote is obviated by your statement that as a result of reading the article, that you "figure someone said something". In other words, after reading that uncited blurb from a writer who is the equivalent of an NBA gossip columnist, you decided it was more likely than not to be true.

Now, is this where I post the winky-guy to show that I'm just trying to be friendly? :wink:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> It's Smith's way of saying a rumor is out there. I still don't think it's true. But if it is, it's sure not a a very effective way to get traded.... if the team only hears about it 3rd hand via a NY tabloid.


Actually, Sam is trying to defuse the rumor without embarrassing a fellow writer. Smith would never overtly rat out a member of his own fraternity. Smith and Paxson have a very good working relationship. You can bet that the moment he heard the rumor he checked with Pax. If you read what Sam has said he's tried to put the issue to rest in the politest way possible without embarrassing or pi$$ing anyone off.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:
 

> As I said in a previous post, I think this report is too irrational to be held as fact. More than likely, it is based on speculation (which isn't a flat out lie...it's only a lie if the writer claims it to be true, which I don't believe he does). I'm not discrediting the source because it's unpleasant news; I can handle the hard facts. But things have been rather peachy-keen lately around the Bulls organization...watching Curry in interviews, he's noticeably upbeat; comparing this to his past 3 years on the team, it's like night and day. Of all the times to express unhappiness with his coach/team, why would he do it now? As I said, it's irrational thinking.
> 
> I agree with you that it will come down to the contract offer, and that Skiles is moreorless moot to the contract negotiations. If Pax gives Curry an offer that he likes, he's here to stay, Skiles or no Skiles.


curry may be upbeat in interviews but that doesn't mean he likes everyone in his workplace.

skiles and curry are a bad match if you are looking for people to get along .

Curry has had a problem with every coach he has had, including cartwright at times and there was never a coach better for his career development than mr. Bill , skiles is a confrontaional coach who will use the press as well as playing time to get his point across, curry whom I feel already had a problem with authority is a natural to basically hate his guts. the press is a weapon that is an especially tough pill to swallow when its your hometown press doing the damage by way of your coach.

when the bulls won 72 pippen hated krause with a passion as did jordan , krause and phil didn't get along, and pip also hated rodman , winning doesn't change things all the time all it does is make it easier to tolerate....if you really care about winning , something no one yet can say about curry anyway, and definitely not on the level as the above players.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This is all very well said, Mike. But everything you wrote is obviated by your statement that as a result of reading the article, that you "figure someone said something". In other words, after reading that uncited blurb from a writer who is the equivalent of an NBA gossip columnist, you decided it was more likely than not to be true.
> 
> Now, is this where I post the winky-guy to show that I'm just trying to be friendly? :wink:


It'd help if I thought you were trying to be friendly. In fact, however, it appears you're trying hard to disagree with me, which I find neither very friendly nor very interesting.

I don't really see why you're trying so hard to disagree with me, to be honest. I wrote at length and pretty explicitly that just because I "figure someone said something", that doesn't mean the rumor in the paper "was more likely than not to be true". 

Of course, I'm basically just repeating the part you consciously snipped out of the post above, which actually provides a pretty nice parallel with what could have happened. You're quoting four words from me as if I said them in exclusion of anything else- even though it's clear I didn't. By themselves they mean something other than what I intended. 

However, they still mean some of what I intended.

Similarly, someone said something regarding Curry, but it's unlear how much of what was intended is coming across. If it was something said in the heat of the moment, something consciously or unconsciously misunderstood, or the like, then the rumor reflects doesn't reflect much of what was intended at all. That's probably the case.

On the other hand, suppose it still means some of what was intended. Say that it was something Curry was heard to mutter to himself after playing 13 minutes in a game, but since the Bulls have rolled off three or four wins and he's been in a good mood. In general, he's also pretty happy and plans on staying with the Bulls.

That's a completely believable context- guys get pissed when they don't play, and they say things in the heat of the moment that don't reflect how they really feel. On the other hand, it does reflect how he might feel and who he might blame in a brief moment of stress.

Under good circumstances, those kinds of things don't amount to anything, but that doesn't mean they don't exist either. They just hang out below the surface and recede with time. Under bad circumstances, things, misgivings and complaints that fade in the light of winning come back to the surface.

Basic point is, just because "someone said something", it doesn't mean everything else that follows is the gospel truth, the way you imply (and I explicitly deny).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Thats some fine backtracking there, Mike. Look. Your first post, and not your subsequent posts seeking to qualify it, said point blank that you figured someone said something based on the article. You wrote it, not me. So I responded by questioning your assumption that the article had a foundation in truth, thats all. Everything that has come since then is two dueling idiots trying to one up each other.

My sole intent was to point out the unreliability of uncited blurbs from guys like Lawrence, nothing more.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

This thread is pushing 9 pages now, and I've yet to see anything to convince me that this Lawrence guy's article should be taken seriously. Is it possible that Curry doesn't get along with Skiles? Sure. But has Curry given ANY firsthand indication recently that he would ever refuse to play for Skiles? I've seen nothing of the sort. Not even close. And IMO, that's the real issue at hand. I could care less if they like each other. All that matters is whether or not they have an effective working relationship. Curry is having his best year as a pro, and it seems to me that Skiles has only helped his development. And if there is any truth to this matter, why has no other Chicago beat writer stepped forward (Sam Smith doesn't count!)? Of all the places to report such an article, why would it be a [edit: not small ] NY paper? This just doesn't seem like a formula for truth. I believe that's the point that myself, Ron Cey, and several others are trying to get across.

Edit: After re-reading this post, I don't know why I keep calling it an "article"...it wasn't even an article so much as it was a "blurb". Just a couple of brief sentences with bare-bone details. If this was really something to pay much attention to, he should've gone into better depth about it. All the more reason to be skeptic.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

well the NY Daily News isn't exactly a "small paper"

however...i still think this is rubbish. even sam smith sorta refuted it, without actually calling the guy a fraud (see kismet's post).

what do you want to bet eddy got bombarded today with this question after practice? 

we will know soon enough.

and does anyone besides mr. sunshine himself, happygrinch, think that "eddy hates skiles guts"? i'm sorry but that is just ridiculous.

and if eddy has had a problem with every coach he's ever had, then, that's an issue. i don't get the "problem with authority" vibe, sorry.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I don't recall Curry ever having significant problems with Cartwright. And no one liked Floyd.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Kismet said:


> Actually, Sam is trying to defuse the rumor without embarrassing a fellow writer. Smith would never overtly rat out a member of his own fraternity. Smith and Paxson have a very good working relationship. You can bet that the moment he heard the rumor he checked with Pax. If you read what Sam has said he's tried to put the issue to rest in the politest way possible without embarrassing or pi$$ing anyone off.


well if thats true Kismet, its out of character

Sam Smith is the last guy in the world with the credibility to be "grounded in reality" 
I would go so far as to call him a gas can. This guy calls 9/11 at every possible moment. I'd like to know what caused Sam to become the written words version of an opiate


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ok now i don't know _what_ to think.

check this out from foxsports, things to expect in the 2nd half:



> 8. Item: The Chicago Bulls find themselves holding down the seventh seed and just three games behind the fourth-seeded Cleveland Cavaliers, having played .700 ball (21-9) following a dreadful 5-14 start.
> 
> What it really means: Led by the young trio of Hinrich, Luol Deng and Ben Gordon, general manager John Paxson appears to have straightened out the roster for coach Scott Skiles. *The ruminations of Eddy Curry's unhappiness continue to ring true, and if that is the case, then they should finally concede and trade the overachiever.* The thing is, Tyson Chandler's shot-blocking and rebounding ability make him a better fit for big minutes anyway — provided his back issues area resolved. And while Chandler is very limited offensively, he's very much like a bigger and stronger Marcus Camby.
> 
> *So with the rest of its talent, the defensive focus and whatever decent addition they can get for Curry*, this is group is ready to make its first playoff appearance and get its feet wet enough to become a factor in years to come.


http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3409360


_is eddy unhappy?_ what ruminations? are things ruminating? where do these guys GET this stuff?

and even more mystifying, when did eddy become an "overachiever"?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> ok now i don't know _what_ to think.
> 
> check this out from foxsports, things to expect in the 2nd half:
> 
> ...


I think it's a misprint, he certainly seems to be describing Eddy as an "underachiever" with his own words.

I don't see any way Paxson moves Eddy before the summer, barring an offer he can't refuse. You never know- if a team wants Eddy badly enough and either doesn't want to wait until the summer to work out a sign-and-trade or doesn't want to take the chance that the Bulls will match their offer sheet, they might make a satisfactory offer now. 

If a team wants Eddy bad enough to offer him the max this summer, they'd be better off trading for him now and giving him the max this summer when they can offer more than any other team.

Just a thought.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> ok now i don't know _what_ to think.
> 
> check this out from foxsports, things to expect in the 2nd half:
> 
> ...


things sure seem to be ruminating, reverberating, and transmogrifying if you want to believe the papers. Nah they can't mean overacheiving. Maybe they meant overbiting. Theres a rumor going around that Eddy needs braces and said its either him or dental coverage


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sometimes the local guys are the last ones to know about something. I hope that's not the case here.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Sometimes the local guys are the last ones to know about something. I hope that's not the case here.


At the risk of further "backtracking" on my part, I'll just repeat my first take this- true or not, it's not a good thing to have out there.

Now we're seeing why it's not good- whether it's true or not, it's not been totally stomped and so it's gaining circulation.

I tend to think it's probably based on old/outdated/heat of the moment/third party information that's just being recycled as the deadline approaches. Just like everyone got worked up a few weeks ago when someone recycled a bunch of old Jason Kidd quotes about Skiles as if they were new. Just because Kidds didn't give him another blast doesn't mean Kidd likes Skiles.

Similarly, there's been quite a bit of underlying conflict in the past with Curry and Skiles/Paxson. While (thankfully) that's subsided, I don't see why it's at all controversial to imagine it might continue to be a sore point every once in a while. At least while there are so many short-term issues are out there. That being said, it also doesn't appear to be anything worth devoting a lot of worry on either.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> well the NY Daily News isn't exactly a "small paper"


Yep, IIRC it's actually a bit larger than the Chicago Tribune in terms of weekly circulation.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

and now we have our answer:

* After nearly four days of lounging on beaches in Mexico, Eddy Curry found himself back in the spotlight's glare Monday.

That's not a place where Curry feels comfortable, but he wanted to respond to reports from All-Star weekend that he won't want to re-sign with the Bulls because of coach Scott Skiles.

"That's ridiculous," Curry said. "I like Skiles. I want to come back regardless. I'd like to think coach Skiles and I have a good relationship. At this point, I don't see myself wanting to go anywhere else and having to start over with feeling a coach out and him feeling me out and getting used to a whole different system.

"Definitely, at this point, I really want to come back. I just hope everything goes well over the summer and they're able to do it."

Like most NBA players, Curry has privately grumbled about his playing time. He also has occasionally voiced displeasure about Skiles. But this isn't the first time Curry has stated his desire to keep playing in his hometown, and it won't be his last.*





http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,5855986.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> and now we have our answer:
> 
> * After nearly four days of lounging on beaches in Mexico, Eddy Curry found himself back in the spotlight's glare Monday.
> 
> ...



You beat me by a second Miz. :nonono:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Spoken like a man who means it. Or spoken like a guy playing for a contract and not stupid enough to say the "wrong" thing that'll cost him PT and plays called for him.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I don't recall Curry ever having significant problems with Cartwright. And no one liked Floyd.



http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam021231/col_harris-sun.html




> Cartwright told both Curry and the media it was a matter of "matchups," which seemed rather odd as the Spurs still boast their famous big-man tandem of Tim Duncan and David Robinson.
> 
> Curry, 20, said it must have been a "personal" issue on Cartwright's part and vowed to speak with his agent in an effort to "get this straightened out."






> "I think it's personal,'' Curry said. "It's got to be personal. He kept looking right past me [on the bench]. I've done everything he's asked me to do, and I guess this is my way of getting paid back.'' Curry said he plans to take the matter further. "I've got to go talk to him and to Jerry [Krause] and to my agent, [Arn Tellem]. I've got to get this straightened out.''--SunTimes.








http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14304&highlight=cartwright+curry

curry has a habit of taking small things and making them big things , he's sensitive, i dont think he's a bad guy at all , but cartwright was a guy as much in his corner as any coach could be. Is it really so hard to believe he could have a problem with skiles when he clearly at one time had one with cartwright?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

happygrinch said:


> http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam021231/col_harris-sun.html
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14304&highlight=cartwright+curry
> 
> curry has a habit of taking small things and making them big things , he's sensitive, i dont think he's a bad guy at all , but cartwright was a guy as much in his corner as any coach could be. *Is it really so hard to believe he could have a problem with skiles when he clearly at one time had one with cartwright?*


That's ridiculous," Curry said. "I like Skiles. I want to come back regardless. I'd like to think coach Skiles and I have a good relationship. At this point, I don't see myself wanting to go anywhere else and having to start over with feeling a coach out and him feeling me out and getting used to a whole different system.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,5855986.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Well, now what do you believe?


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

happygrinch said:


> curry has a habit of taking small things and making them big things , he's sensitive, i dont think he's a bad guy at all , but cartwright was a guy as much in his corner as any coach could be. Is it really so hard to believe he could have a problem with skiles when he clearly at one time had one with cartwright?


Those past quotes coupled w/ the quotes from Eddy this past season and showed how much he has grown up and matured. It's good to see that all indications are that Eddy will re-sign in chicago.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

One rumor *that came from left field* but made it into print last weekend was a New York Daily News suggestion that center Eddy Curry is planning to re-sign with the Bulls this summer only if Scott Skiles is replaced as head coach.

When told of the item, Curry reacted with bewilderment.

"It is ridiculous," he said. "I want to come back regardless. I definitely like to think that me and coach Skiles have a good relationship.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=3840591

"the rumor that came from left field..." is a nice way of puting it.

And here's a suggestion for a new bbb.net avatar for those who thrive on such "newsworthy" tidbits:










Call it, "Mitch-Slapped."


----------



## Krazy!!! (Jul 10, 2002)

You have to forgive Mitch Lawrence if he's woefully behind of the current news of the Chicago Bulls.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Like most NBA players, Curry has privately grumbled about his playing time. He also has occasionally voiced displeasure about Skiles. But this isn't the first time Curry has stated his desire to keep playing in his hometown, and it won't be his last


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0502220343feb22,1,1350635.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed

from the same article out the tribune that had the curry quote mentioned by some in response to whether or not this rumor has any legs ....its funny how it was left out.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Perhaps the funniest thing about this thread is watching many who generally rip sportswriters as being the least intelligent form of human life, now elevate them to knowledgeable insider status.

Its amazing how quickly people will climb on board *that* bandwagon when it suits them. 

I guess its just too difficult to pass up any opportunity to paint Paxson or Skiles in a bad light.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

very few people have elevated this story to insider status. Neither has Grinch. All he said was he's he's not ready to dismiss the story. The truth is, there have been just as many reasons to believe it possibly happened as not.

There's just no telling is all


----------

