# Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year"



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...3bulls,1,2312450.story?coll=cs-home-headlines



> If nothing else, Milstein offered clarity on Curry's future in the long term.
> 
> "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for the Bulls this season and then for someone else," he said.


Milstein is Curry's lawyer.

Nice work, Pax!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



> Milstein is confident the NBA players' association will lend support against genetic testing, a good assumption given the potential repercussions for players. Attempts to reach the association were unsuccessful.
> 
> "If employers could give employees DNA tests, then they could find out if there's a propensity for illnesses like cancer, heart disease or alcoholism," Milstein said. "They will make personnel decisions based on DNA testing."
> 
> ...


Interesting article. Way overdue.



> Paxson fell short of saying the Bulls will refuse to play Curry if he doesn't agree to be tested, but that's the direction the team appears ready to take, even though they have no intention of voiding his contract.
> 
> *"We don't plan on failing him if he doesn't take it," Paxson said. *"But I'm telling you that it's going to be very difficult for us to put him on the floor if he doesn't take it."


Well, this anwsers one of my questions. 

Bottom line: It seems very stupid to take such a hard line with a player. Pax should have cut his losses and recinded the QO long ago. There would have been no bad blood. Now, this could easily carry over and be a significant black mark on the franchise.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

Thanks for the link. Ugly stuff. Time to cut bait.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

One thing it is not Paxson, it is the Bulls organization. Pax is an employee, who is following directions.

Like I said in another thread, the Bulls can't win this fight especially when your cap room is coming up the following summer. This story is going to get bigger and bigger the longer it festers.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



MemphisX said:


> Like I said in another thread, the Bulls can't win this fight especially when your cap room is coming up the following summer. This story is going to get bigger and bigger the longer it festers.


This *could* be front page of the Wall-Street Journal if it goes to arbitration.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



MemphisX said:


> One thing it is not Paxson, it is the Bulls organization. Pax is an employee, who is following directions..


I might have agreed with this .... except the papers have reported that Paxson is angered by the Curry camp. Seems like a difference of opinion could be wararented in this case. So why is Paxson getting mad? Why is he belittling Curry's medical team on Chicago radio? 

I have supported Pax but he gets an F on this one.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

Amazing to me that Pax is still backpedaling and triangulating and dithering . . . 

"We don't plan on failing him if he doesn't take it," Paxson said. "But I'm telling you that it's going to be very difficult for us to put him on the floor if he doesn't take it."

Translation: if you'll sign this long-term lowball, Ed, we still might figure a way around this.

Disgusting.

And I wouldn't wipe my *** with anything that had Marlen Garcia's writing on it. How many times has he trotted out the Gathers/Lewis falsehoods in his six weeks on the job, twenty?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



johnston797 said:


> I might have agreed with this .... except the papers have reported that Paxson is angered by the Curry camp. Seems like a difference of opinion could be wararented in this case. So why is Paxson getting mad? Why is he belittling Curry's medical team on Chicago radio?
> 
> I have supported Pax but he gets an F on this one.


I think this was a response to the public mention of the NY offer which they might have had a 'gentlemen's' agreement not to make public.

I just hope they get this over with before training camp starts so this season can be about basketball only.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

*"But I'm telling you that it's going to be very difficult for us to put him on the floor if he doesn't take it."

*Does that mean Pax will order Skiles not to play him at all?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



spongyfungy said:


> *"But I'm telling you that it's going to be very difficult for us to put him on the floor if he doesn't take it."
> 
> *Does that mean Pax will order Skiles not to play him at all?


Pax is smart enough to have gotten a strong and non negotiable message across that is absolute but in not absolute language 

In view of what lays ahead he is choosing his words more precisely. He has to.

And all of this has come out directly after what I said in the other "Pax wants Curry to have a DNA test"

Everyone was bleating ''oh crap results mean voiding of the contract'

Well in a fairly short period of time this seems to have been put to rest too

They still intend to play him ..as their offer already contemplates the worst scenario of " a predisposition" But the rumoured incentives therein still see Eddy getting Chandler type money if he stays healthy .

They want him to have the test , and as per the CBA it appears they are in their rights to , so they can cover off on advice they have been given by their consulting specialist , which if they ignore , could have potential serious liability issues attached to it

Its no more than that.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



spongyfungy said:


> *"But I'm telling you that it's going to be very difficult for us to put him on the floor if he doesn't take it."
> 
> *Does that mean Pax will order Skiles not to play him at all?


And in answer to your question ..you bet


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

Pax's "I think he understands" makes it sound like things aren't in all out warfare, but that last sentence - whoa. Say it ain't so Milstein!  

Do we take the quote from the thread title at face value? Does Pax? Man. Even if the health issue magically goes away, now we have to wonder if it's possible to mend fences. This gets worse and worse. Lines are being drawn all over the place. If it's really like this behind closed doors, if it's irredeemable, there is no use of dragging this out another year. Sign and trade with ATL or NY for what you can get, I guess, before they take the QO.

Or... is that what Milstein is trying to force? Hmmm...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

Wow.

I fail to see how anyone that has to work in this country and is not a super-soldier would support Paxson in what he's trying to do.

Perhaps the Pax-lovers are already multi-millionaires and heads of multi-million dollar businesses like Paxson.

If not, and you still have to work in a competitive marketplace to put food on the table, I can't see supporting Paxson on this one.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Philomath said:


> Or... is that what Milstein is trying to force? Hmmm...


\

Basically..and I think they like their chances in thinking they can

But in rolling this dice ( in going to guns ) they put Eddy Curry in an awful ( and very risky ) position


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> Pax is smart enough to have gotten a strong and non negotiable message across that is absolute but in not absolute language
> 
> In view of what lays ahead he is choosing his words more precisely. He has to.
> 
> ...



He will never get forcibly tested.there is no way Stern or Hunter allows the nba to become the first pro league to approve genetic testing on players .The players would strike first .No matter how you try to spin it the majority of nba players are minorities who come from poor backgounds in which alcholism and heart disease are two of the main causes of death .There is no way the players association in the best interest if all the players allows this to happen.

Pax needs to bite the Bullet and let him go because this situation is in no way good for the Bulls. Were heading into a year hoping to have cap room to sign a big FA next summer .What agent is gonna allow their client to get involved with a team that forces dna testing on its players ?

Also if Curry now doesnt play everyone knows that there could very well be nothing wrong with him physically so why is Pax sitting him out just because he wouldnt take the test ?and even moreso why did they keep him on the roster just to sit him out ?

Just cut him loose pax for whatever you can get .


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



kukoc4ever said:


> Wow.
> 
> I fail to see how anyone that has to work in this country and is not a super-soldier would support Paxson in what he's trying to do.
> 
> ...



Good point 

I think a lot of opinion on this comes back to a lot of external things in our own lives and how we live that colour how we think about something like this 

I think your perspective however almost seems very welfare / dependency /who's going to take care of me ..based

That the only people who have rights are the poor down trodden workin man

Everyone has rights


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



TRUTHHURTS said:


> He will never get forcibly tested.there is no way Stern or Hunter allows the nba to become the first pro league to approve genetic testing on players .The players would strike first .No matter how you try to spin it the majority of nba players are minorities who come from poor backgounds in which alcholism and heart disease are two of the main causes of death .There is no way the players association in the best interest if all the players allows this to happen.
> 
> Pax needs to bite the Bullet and let him go because this situation is in no way good for the Bulls. Were heading into a year hoping to have cap room to sign a big FA next summer .What agent is gonna allow their client to get involved with a team that forces dna testing on its players ?
> 
> ...



I agree Truth

I have been consistent all through this that Eddy Curry should not be forcibly tested .

It his his fundamental right to refuse and if that is the case he can accept his QO this year, sit on the IL ( as it is Pax's right to ask him to have that test ) and not play in the final year of his contract with the Chicago Bulls

He is then free to got to the market and negotiate the best contract he can that is suitable to him 

In these circumstances we have to deal him ..particularly if Camp Curry turns the heat up as to his right to play in arbitration


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

Can you sit a player who says he isn't injured on the IL?
Wouldn't that go to arbitration as well, and if the Bulls lost, wouldn't they lose Eddy's rights?
Didn't the Heat try and sit Wesley Person on the IL when he wasn't injured and it almost got very ugly?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> =
> I think your perspective however almost seems very welfare / dependency /who's going to take care of me ..based
> 
> That the only people who have rights are the poor down trodden workin man
> ...


Agree everyone has rights. Paxson is just trying to efficiently allocate the resources he is in charge of. The shareholders may end up better off.

It just may be harder to wrench those resources from the Uncle Jerrys of the world if you don't have the "right way" DNA.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

I really have mixed feelings about this, and perhaps I would be more clear-headed if I more fully understood DNA testing. 

Given that the Bulls are searching for a very specific genetic predisposition, wouldn't it be possible to *only* examine the heart-related stuff? And we have yet to hear from Curry's camp on why he's so reluctant to take this test, other than the comments of "it's a violation of rights." I think principle alone is a stupid reason to refuse a test that one of the country's leading cardiologists has recommended, but that's just me. 

Saying this will linger over the franchise is a complete overstatement IMO, because as I've said for weeks now this is such a strange isolated instance. But obviously things have panned out pretty poorly here, and in light of these new developments it seems that our plan A (re-signing Curry) will not happen. Which means either plan B (sign-and-trade) or plan C (letting Curry walk, and signing a FA to take his place) will have to suffice in the future.

I can't say I'm angered by anybody, and that includes Pax and Curry both. I know the Pax bashers are out in full force about how "poorly" he handled this situation, but let's face it, he's in the middle of a situation that 95% of GM's will NEVER have to go through. Good luck to Eddy in finding a new team. Good luck to us in signing a new center next summer. We'll have to move on without him. Why, oh why, did this heart irregularity have to happen?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

Mcgraws article on the subject 
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=97692

This basically sums up what Ive been thinking the entire time as well.



> Milstein does not believe Curry’s health is at risk if he refuses to submit to a DNA test.
> 
> “The facts are there was one incident at one (pregame warmup),” he said. “The Bulls sent Eddy to see the doctor in Minnesota. That doctor did not say Eddy had the disease. He said he could not rule it out. Dr. Cannom did rule it out. He said Eddy did not have that disease and is in no more danger than anyone else. That should have ended it. No one has ever said Eddy has this disease.”





> If you talk to leading bio-ethicists, they will tell you it is impermissible for an employer to subject an employee to a DNA test,” Milstein said. “They could end up testing the employee for alcoholism, cancer. There are lots of legal issues at stake there. You simply can’t do it.”





> “Myself, along with several other people in the organization, have spent most of the summer agonizing over this,” Paxson said. “But I always come back to the fact that I honestly believe we have gone about this process in a compassionate, professional way.
> 
> “I’m following the advice of people who know more than I do. It’s obviously in our best interest. My heart tells me it’s in Eddy’s best interest too.”


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

The bottom line is it doesn't matter if the results of the test come back "positive" or "negative." Pax just wants the test done so he could say "we did everything ALL (Maron, et al) the doctors wanted us to do" in the unlikely event Curry drops dead on the court. He wants to cover all his bases in case the Bulls ever get sued. 

If Curry took the test, and the results said he was predisposed... does anyone honestly feel Pax would refuse to play Curry because of it? I don't! *Dr. Maron could still conceivably "clear" Eddy to play despite a poor DNA result.* Dr. Maron has said he only wants the results of the test to COMBINE that info with the results of all the other tests Eddy has already taken. 

I honestly feel that Pax would still clear Eddy to play for the Bulls this year no matter the results of the test. He just wants the test done because a leading expert recommended the test be done and Pax doesn't want to have to argue about the matter in court if Curry dies.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

Well ScottMay, it turns out you were right about the likelyhood of Curry's return next year, at least according to Curry's lawyer. 

So is no team ready to trade for him at this point? Or does Paxson not want to trade him so that he doesn't play and put himself at risk? Paxson can only really prevent that for a year, so that's a losing battle. Why does it seem all of a sudden that there are no more trade opportunities? McGraw implies as much in his article when he talks about the Bulls signing Eddy next week, and Milstein even says Curry will be a Bull this year (but not the next). Now that things have reached this point, I have no idea who it serves having Curry be a Bull this year. 

Would Memphis really not offer Lorenzen Wright and a future second rounder? Sure, a healthy Eddy is worth so much more, but Paxson has opened himself up to a great amount of scrutiny, and I'm not sure what for, because surely he has known that if he went this direction, Eddy would only be playing for him a maximum of one year. 

I really wish we would trade Eddy at this point. I hope we can work something out. That hurts me to say because I have loved watching Eddy play for the most part, but this situation just crossed the point of no return.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



yodurk said:


> I really have mixed feelings about this, and perhaps I would be more clear-headed if I more fully understood DNA testing.
> 
> Given that the Bulls are searching for a very specific genetic predisposition, wouldn't it be possible to *only* examine the heart-related stuff?


This isn't about that. All Maron wants to do is run two panels for HCM. I'm not worried about the Bulls coming back and saying, Jeez, Eddy, you're a lock to get prostate cancer and premature hearing loss and gum disease and there is no way we can resign you.



> And we have yet to hear from Curry's camp on why he's so reluctant to take this test, other than the comments of "it's a violation of rights." I think principle alone is a stupid reason to refuse a test that one of the country's leading cardiologists has recommended, but that's just me.


Isn't it pretty easy to understand why he wouldn't take the test? When a negative result doesn't totally rule out his not having HCM, and a positive one doesn't mean he'll get HCM, now or ever, what's the point? His heart will have to be monitored extremely carefully for the entirety of his athletic career in either case. From a personal standpoint, nothing really changes, either. There's nothing he can do to stave off HCM -- if it develops, it develops. Fortunately, he can rest easy knowing that a large percentage of people who carry the gene never develop HCM, or develop it later in life when its symptoms are very manageable with medication or a pacemaker.

The best application for DNA testing for HCM seems to be in teenage athletes whose first degree relatives have or appear to have HCM (Maron's field of interest is figuring out a cost-effective way to screen these kids). HCM is supposedly easy to diagnose in the adult heart via echocardiogram, but very difficult to diagnose in a growing heart. Maron likes to use DNA screening to help find hidden HCM in the teenage athletic population.



> Saying this will linger over the franchise is a complete overstatement IMO, because as I've said for weeks now this is such a strange isolated instance.


Well, yeah, the heart stuff is pretty isolated (again, it won't be if Eddy is forced to take this test and all NBA players have to have genetic testing). However, the brinksmanship, the negotiating in poor faith, the ill will, the acrimony, and the zero-sum style of management aren't isolated at all. That's all been going on since 1985.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



> Paxson said the Bulls are only interested in findings related to Curry's heart condition.
> 
> ''It's becoming that [by] asking him to do this ... we have some other motive,'' he said. ''The bottom line is if Eddy had not had any incident and a doctor hadn't suggested it, we wouldn't be asking for it.''


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull241.html


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

I think both sides are doing things right for their own interests, perhaps excluding Eddy if Pax really has offered him a deal w/ reasonable incentives that could be worth as much as Tyson's deal and his side has turned it down. Apparently no deal will be made that's acceptible to both sides this summer. Eddy will refuse a DNA test, the Bulls will continue to push for one. Who knows whether they can succeed in forcing it or whether they may ultimately let him play w/o one. I think he should be able to be forced to take the test, because it was recommended by a doctor and only the results related to the heart issue should be made available to the Bulls. This is very different from random DNA testing or DNA testing just to learn whatever we can for any/all players/workers. It's in both Eddy's and the Bulls best interests to learn what they can about his potentially serious condition. Even if it's not conclusive (most things in life are unknown), anything they can learn about the risks is useful and it may help the doctors to reach more of a concensus.

Still, if Eddy plays for the QO this year, we will still have 1 year for both sides to get a better understanding of each other's perspective and for cooler heads to prevail before we would lose Eddy for nothing. If Eddy is able to play and play well this year, then we're still in a position to offer him more money than anyone else next summer. And this is still Eddy's home town. I can't see why Eddy would want to turn down his biggest potential payday of next summer, to stay in his hometown and play w/ his teammates, this early. Whatever bad blood there is right now can likely still be resolved over the course of the season IMO.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



ScottMay said:


> Well, yeah, the heart stuff is pretty isolated (again, it won't be if Eddy is forced to take this test and all NBA players have to have genetic testing). However, the brinksmanship, the negotiating in poor faith, the ill will, the acrimony, and the zero-sum style of management aren't isolated at all. That's all been going on since 1985.


here is the kicker for me. 

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/241sd9.htm



> Curry could accept the one-year offer, then refuse to submit to DNA tests. Such a move could prompt the Bulls to release Curry from his contractual obligation, in which case he would become an unrestricted free agent.
> 
> In case that's what Curry has in mind, a team source cautioned against it.
> 
> Asked whether it *would be in the best interests of the Bulls to pay Curry not to play, the source said, "In this case, it may very well be."*


The Evil Empire hasn't thought this one out very well. They thought Curry would just roll over. Boy, JR's business style is just like "playing chicken". Well, you are going to crash sometimes if you never turn away (i.e. compromise).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*

The irony in this situation is...

One uses the same muscles to pick up the phone or to eat a chalupa.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Philomath said:


> Pax's "I think he understands" makes it sound like things aren't in all out warfare, but that last sentence - whoa. Say it ain't so Milstein!
> 
> Do we take the quote from the thread title at face value? Does Pax? Man. Even if the health issue magically goes away, now we have to wonder if it's possible to mend fences. This gets worse and worse. Lines are being drawn all over the place. If it's really like this behind closed doors, if it's irredeemable, there is no use of dragging this out another year. Sign and trade with ATL or NY for what you can get, I guess, before they take the QO.
> 
> Or... is that what Milstein is trying to force? Hmmm...



Here is the quote from the Suntimes:



> ''It's a shame because Eddy is a young talent who is going to be a great player in this league -- and apparently with a team other than the Bulls after this season,'' Milstein said.


It's not a guarantee, it's a threat, which may or may not be realized.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



kukoc4ever said:


> Wow.
> 
> I fail to see how anyone that has to work in this country and is not a super-soldier would support Paxson in what he's trying to do.
> 
> ...


Whatever they are offering Eddy Curry is more than enough to put food on the table. Who are you Latrell Spreewell. Let's just face it, here is an overweight center who has never shown competitive fire and may have a heart condition asking for big money. Would you give it to him? Is that a good investment?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



T.Shock said:


> Let's just face it, here is an overweight center who has never shown competitive fire and may have a heart condition asking for big money.


Curry is only asking to play w/o taking a DNA test.

And if Curry is so replacable, why don't the Bulls offer to recind the QO?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



johnston797 said:


> Curry is only asking to play w/o taking a DNA test.
> 
> And if Curry is so replacable, why don't the Bulls offer to recind the QO?


1) Curry is asking to get paid w/o taking a DNA test. Big difference. And in fact, he will get paid over 5 million dollars next year, perhaps not to play, by not taking the test. 

2) Every player is replaceable. Paxson's stated position is that Eddy Curry is a good player that he would like to have playing on the team. He will not trade Eddy Curry for garbage or even cap space. Check out his quotes. On the other hand, Paxson will risk losing him to another team if Eddy does not do what he needs to do regarding this test. 

For better or for worse, Paxson sees Eddy as an important part of the team. And his actions seem to be pretty consistently based on that belief. He does not see Eddy as more important than the team, however. He stands by what he believes is best for the team. "He feels in his heart" that it is best for Eddy, too. Eddy doesn't agree (nor most of you, apparently). 

I don't know whether Pax is right. Scott May has stated unequivocally (whether the facts are unequivocal is another matter) that Eddy was cleared to play, pure and simple. Somehow, if that were true, I've got to believe that Pax would have heard that message. 

Pax has clearly staked his position on two realities. First, the recommendation of Dr. Maron, whom everyone recognizes as the leading expert in this field. This recommendation has not been rescinded. Second, the wording of the new CBA, which gives Teams the right to demand that players undergo testing related to the player's ability to perform. If Pax didn't have the outstanding recommendation, no insistence on the test. Even if Pax had the recommendation, he couldn't insist on the test if he had no legal leg to stand on. He thinks he does. 

He is and has to be the face of the team and the representative of the team's interests. He's identified them in this case. It is the right of the team to determine the physical condition of their players so that they can take the appropriate action. The assumption of most is: predisposition+manifestation=lowball offer. I think you'll find Pax has things a little different in his mind, like predisposition + manifestation = contract that respects Eddy and the Bulls, and proper facilities to help Eddy play in the safest possible manner. 

The story about demanding a test from the parents is a crock, by the way.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Good Hope said:


> 1) Curry is asking to get paid w/o taking a DNA test. Big difference. And in fact, he will get paid over 5 million dollars next year, perhaps not to play, by not taking the test.


Play and Paid are interchangable IMHO. Curry wants both. He is not asking the Bulls for charity. He will take them to arbitration if the Bulls pay him and try to prevent him from playing. Take it to the bank.



Good Hope said:


> 2) Every player is replaceable.


If this is the case, then why should posters even state this. I did find out that some posters feel that:

Replaceble = "Using $10M in cap space and landing the best big who changes teams next summer"

That's nuts.



Good Hope said:


> Even if Pax had the recommendation, he couldn't insist on the test if he had no legal leg to stand on. He thinks he does.


Really? According to Mike McGraw's column, the Bulls know at a minimum that are stretching big-time. They know this will go to arbitration if Curry doesn't back down. Personally, and this is 100% opinion, I think they know they don't have a legal leg if gets to that point.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



johnston797 said:


> Play and Paid are interchangable IMHO. Curry wants both. He is not asking the Bulls for charity. He will take them to arbitration if the Bulls pay him and try to prevent him from playing. Take it to the bank.


For the simple and understandable (I guess) reason that not playing will hurt his bargaining stance next year. There are two ways that he can do that. One is to take the test. The other is to go to arbitration. He has ruled out the test, as a matter of principle? I think that there has been a significant indication on Eddy's part that he still doesn't get the pay for performance idea. It's a reasonable question to ask exactly what principle Eddy is fighting for here. I think he and his team are convinced they can find a buyer who will be willing to accept the "no further questions" stance they have taken, and give Eddy (and them) the dream contract they've been looking for. But he needs to play to have a shot at that. 




> If this is the case, then why should posters even state this. I did find out that some posters feel that:
> 
> Replaceble = "Using $10M in cap space and landing the best big who changes teams next summer"
> 
> That's nuts.


Let's put it this way: Is Eddy Curry essential for the Bulls to make it to the playoffs next year? Is Eddy Curry essential for the Bulls to make it to the championship and win it? The answer to those questions is clearly, no. There are some who even wonder, can the Bulls ever get that far by putting their biggest egg in Eddy Curry's basket? 

I find myself pretty close to Pax's position. I liked what Eddy was doing before the arrhythmia surfaced. I think that he can be an integral part of a very good basketball team. But he needs a lot of support. He ain't never going to be the guy that wills his team to the top. 





> Really? According to Mike McGraw's column, the Bulls know at a minimum that are stretching big-time. They know this will go to arbitration if Curry doesn't back down. Personally, and this is 100% opinion, I think they know they don't have a legal leg if gets to that point.


I think that Paxson is starting from the operating reality. The contract language is pretty clear. He could say, "the contract says this, but I guess it's unconstitutional or indefensible, so, I won't rely on it." Those issues are less clear. If the contract is indefensible, or the league doesn't want that language to be tested, then they will put their foot down, and Paxson will probably have to back off. He's being very reasonable in working from the contract language that is directly applicable in the situation, instead of hypotheticals on whether it will stand in the courts. 

I'm no lawyer, and one gathers that there are a few around here, but I can't agree with you that the Bulls don't think they have a leg to stand on. They are necessarily more vague about what happens if the language of the contract is tested, because it is further on down the road. I think they think they are right, and whether or not an arbitrator backs them, they will pursue the course they think is right as far as they can.


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

*Don't be so sure Eddy will be playing somewhere else next year.*

The issue comes down to indemnification for the team he plays for. Insurance provides that. If no insurer will cover him, who is going to take that chance? Okay, maybe Isiah, but I'd be very interested to see the legal language of that contract, if that happens. Eddy can sit out the season, but the he's right back at square one next year. The most lenient of the Insurance companies want a year of play with no problems before they will reconsider. Sitting out doesn't solve this problem. It merely postpones this for a year. Eddy's camp is asking the team to take the risk. The DNA test provides some indemnification for the team if something bad happens this year. The defense in the inevitable lawsuit if something bad happens to Eddy will be that the team did everything possible to assure there was no problem and that they therefore can't be liable. The comments by Eddy's lawyer that he will not take the test no matter what raise the concern that they may have taken the test privately and know what the result is. Which is likely to hurt Eddy's prospects even more.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm going to repeat myself.

I don't understand something about John Paxson's position here. If he is discovering that Eddy will not take a DNA test, and that means he's probably not going to play this season and thus will not help the Bulls at all, why isn't Paxson willing to lose a trade and get some value for Eddy next year? 

Lorenzen Wright, for example, is not better than Curry, but he is better than a Curry glued to the bench. What is the purpose of keeping Curry for a year and not playing him? If this is a likely outcome, Paxson really should be cold calling other teams.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

* "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for the Bulls this season and then for someone else," he said.*

that sounds like something an agent would say, not a lawyer specializing in insurance and bioethics issues. is this really his place to make this type of threatening statement? i wonder how long he has been in the employ of team curry? methinks not long. 

privacy issues are a huge concern. and he should read up on the CBA as there is a clause that specifically states that no medical information can be released by a team without the players consent. does he really think the bulls would do that? i don't for a minute.

SECTION XXII - part e:



> (e) A player or his immediate family (where appropriate) shall have the right to approve the terms and timing of any public release of medical information relating to any injuries or illnesses suffered by that player that are potentially life- or career-threatening, or that do not arise from the player’s participation in NBA games or practices.


the information obtained in the test will remain private. they are bound by the CBA to do so.

Pax just wants to know that all his bases are covered in the event of the unthinkable. 

to me, there is something about the lawyers' statement that smacks of caring about a big payday over the health of his client. 

bottom line indeed.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm going to repeat myself.
> 
> I don't understand something about John Paxson's position here. If he is discovering that Eddy will not take a DNA test, and that means he's probably not going to play this season and thus will not help the Bulls at all, why isn't Paxson willing to lose a trade and get some value for Eddy next year?
> 
> Lorenzen Wright, for example, is not better than Curry, but he is better than a Curry glued to the bench. What is the purpose of keeping Curry for a year and not playing him? If this is a likely outcome, Paxson really should be cold calling other teams.


I gotta believe that Paxson doesn't think it will come to that. 

How does he know? Don't know. Clearly, however, Paxson is approaching this as "I want a healthy Eddy Curry on our team," and not from the position, "I had better get something for Eddy." 

Maybe, he's living in a dream world, and he's not reading the writing on the wall. But I don't get any sense of panic, or feeling from Pax that he feels Eddy is a lost cause. On the contrary, he's willing to put up with the distraction of having a "distracted" Eddy around, in pursuit of what he thinks is right. That's a big risk. And he knows its a risk.

What he seems to be really sensitive about is when others question his motives. And I guess you could say that makes him a little pollyanna-ish. But it seems that he's counting on Eddy understanding in the end that Pax really had his best interests at heart, and that the trouble brewing now is a misunderstanding, not an irreconciliable difference.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm going to repeat myself.
> 
> I don't understand something about John Paxson's position here. If he is discovering that Eddy will not take a DNA test, and that means he's probably not going to play this season and thus will not help the Bulls at all, why isn't Paxson willing to lose a trade and get some value for Eddy next year?
> 
> Lorenzen Wright, for example, is not better than Curry, but he is better than a Curry glued to the bench. What is the purpose of keeping Curry for a year and not playing him? If this is a likely outcome, Paxson really should be cold calling other teams.


I think this is all boiling down to a liability issue. If I'm guessing, I think the Bulls want an arbitrator to rule that Curry does or does not have to take the test and that he's fit to play. The arbitrators ruling would be binding and I would think it would absolutely absolve the Bulls of any further legal issues should something happen to Curry while playing basketball. I think this is the final thing that the Bulls want in order to play Curry. They could run him into the ground and if he should die or otherwise have to stop playing - it won't be on them.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



mizenkay said:


> to me, there is something about the lawyers' statement that smacks of caring about a big payday over the health of his client.
> 
> bottom line indeed.


What do you think Eddy wants?
He wants the payday.
Thus they are representing the interests of their client. What right do they have to tell Eddy he can't play and be paid for it, if that is what Eddy wants? At the end of the day it is Eddy Curry's call on whether he wants to play given the information he has been given on his own body. Does John Paxson know Eddy Curry's body better than Eddy does?

So far a bunch of doctors have told Eddy that he is okay to play. And the one that doesn't doesn't say Eddy is going to die, only that he wants to do a DNA test.

The only person who should have any say on whether or not he takes a DNA test is Eddy, and Eddy is the only person who should be privy to the information contained in the test.

At the end of the day it comes down to Eddy wants to play, and he wants to be paid--John Paxson doesn't want either, so he should renounce Eddy's rights, or trade them, because it does nobody any good to continue this circus.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



futuristxen said:


> The only person who should have any say on whether or not he takes a DNA test is Eddy, and Eddy is the only person who should be privy to the information contained in the test.


You are right that this is the crux of the matter. Certainly the team has the right to the results of medical exams that relate to his ability to play for them. That language is in the contract, which the NBLPA agreed to. But, is DNA testing crossing the line from pertinent medical information to peering at personal information that has the potential for abuse? As someone has pointed out, it is in the Bulls' interests to find out as much as they can. They are bound legally to keep that information private. Maybe that's not good enough and the case goes against them, in which case they will have to back down. As flash pointed out, they need to push it as far as they can.



> At the end of the day it comes down to Eddy wants to play, and he wants to be paid--John Paxson doesn't want either, so he should renounce Eddy's rights, or trade them, because it does nobody any good to continue this circus.


Here, I think you are just wrong. Pax does want Eddy to play. And he wants to pay Eddy, within the limits determined largely by this medical condition that Eddy may have. There has been no indication that Paxson doesn't want these two things to happen. These kinds of statements lead to all kinds of crazy conclusions about Paxson that just aren't true.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



futuristxen said:


> At the end of the day it comes down to Eddy wants to play, and he wants to be paid--John Paxson doesn't want either, so he should renounce Eddy's rights, or trade them, because it does nobody any good to continue this circus.


and i think at the end of the day eddy wants to get paid first, then play. paxson wants him to play. and he is obligated to pay him under the QO. but the bottom line for pax is that he wants a healthy eddy in uniform. he has been consistent with this position all summer and has not waivered. 

has there been a single quote all summer from anyone involved with curry that states they are concerned with his health and well-being first and foremost above all else? none springs to mind immediately, but i may have missed something. 

of course eddy wants to be paid. pax put a multi-year deal on the table that contained incentives that was rejected by eddy. leon and company proposed a crap deal with the knicks and that was rejected by pax. 

and here we are.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



mizenkay said:


> and i think at the end of the day eddy wants to get paid first, then play. paxson wants him to play. and he is obligated to pay him under the QO. but the bottom line for pax is that he wants a healthy eddy in uniform. he has been consistent with this position all summer and has not waivered.
> 
> has there been a single quote all summer from anyone involved with curry that states they are concerned with his health and well-being first and foremost above all else? none springs to mind immediately, but i may have missed something.
> 
> ...


Well if all of Eddys reps are going off of his doctors diagnosis that Eddy is healthy and can play why would they keep talking about his health as if he has been diagnosed with some type of disease.

This quote seems to sum it and seemingly goes ignored when people mentions Eddys reps intentions .



> “The facts are there was one incident at one (pregame warmup),” he said. “The Bulls sent Eddy to see the doctor in Minnesota. That doctor did not say Eddy had the disease. He said he could not rule it out. Dr. Cannom did rule it out. He said Eddy did not have that disease and is in no more danger than anyone else. That should have ended it. No one has ever said Eddy has this disease.”


Eddys reps seems to believe IMO that unless there is more proof and it seems they dont count a dna that cannot be guaranteed as accurate as proof that Eddy is healthy enough to resume playing basketball and that he doesnt have the condition .

It seems that the Bulls have offered Eddy a contract under certain terms Eddy has declined those terms the logical thing to do would be to allow Eddy to go on his way and continue on with business.I think Paxs willingness to continue to push this will ultimately hurt the Bulls.

Its starting to look more and more like Pax is more worried about Eddy going to another team for nothing and playing well than Eddy actually dying on the court .


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*

Eddy Curry is more trouble than he is worth right now. They're taking this bigtime for a guy who is our 4th best player at best, and we might not even have a top 30 player in the league. Just goes to show Eddy isn't that important from a basketball standpoint. Unfortunetly, I'm pretty sure every other general manager would be just as concerned as Paxson is, and therefore Paxson wouldn't be able to deal him away.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



T.Shock said:


> Whatever they are offering Eddy Curry is more than enough to put food on the table. Who are you Latrell Spreewell. Let's just face it, here is an overweight center who has never shown competitive fire and may have a heart condition asking for big money. Would you give it to him? Is that a good investment?


Its not the money at this point that bothers me primarily. Its about the Bulls requiring a DNA test to let Curry work. Sure, they are obligated to offer him a QO contract, but they also seem like they are willing to stash him on the bench for the entire season, which would go a long way to destroying the man's career. Keep in mind the Knicks seem willing to pay and play him this season.

Overweight center? No competitive fire?










Maybe this was a one time occurrence. The only time I've seen this team play well for extended stretches and actually look like a legitimate NBA squad is when Eddy Curry has been healthy and productive. He's been a HUGE part, IMO. I respect all the +/- stats, but end of 2002 and last year before the Deng/Curry incidents are it. He's a key part of the team, IMO, and one of our most important building blocks. #2 in PER on our team last year. #3 in EFF. 

Deciding whether to make an investment is a risk/reward analysis. It seems like the results of this test, based on what I understand right now, will do little to limit the risk on the Bulls' side. Most doctors have cleared him. Other teams are willing to trade for him. We're talking about a player that has been cleared by the majority, is currently supposedly working out at Hoops the Gym without incident and can impact a NBA game in a positive way. Yeah, based on what I know now, I think a 3 year, 8-10 mil a year deal is the way to go. 

I also don't understand why the topic of signing a waiver of some type is not being discussed. I'm not sure if this would limit the Bulls' liability... maybe the lawyers do.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



mizenkay said:


> and i think at the end of the day eddy wants to get paid first, then play. paxson wants him to play. and he is obligated to pay him under the QO. but the bottom line for pax is that he wants a healthy eddy in uniform. he has been consistent with this position all summer and has not waivered.


How has he been consistent? 

After the Cannom diagnosis: Eddy has been cleared to play without any physical restrictions. We -- meaning the Bulls and Eddy (how else can this possibly be interpreted?) -- are proceeding with and following Dr. Cannom's recommendations.

This weekend: Eddy (and possibly his parents) has to take the DNA test to play. 

Doesn't seem that consistent to me.



> has there been a single quote all summer from anyone involved with curry that states they are concerned with his health and well-being first and foremost above all else? none springs to mind immediately, but i may have missed something.


Nope. Not one. This is a function of two things -- one, Curry's camp has been laudably low-key all summer, or perhaps busy being saddled with a lot of the work one would normally expect the team to do, like finding specialists for Eddy, and searching for insurance, and trying to find trades. Two, Eddy and Eddy's camp know he is in excellent health. I'm not sure what good it would do for them to fret over it. He's been cleared by multiple world-class experts, some or all of whom have probably explained to him why a DNA test is a highly unusual request and isn't necessary in their minds.



> of course eddy wants to be paid.


I know . . . the _horror![/] It's unimaginable. It is going to be so refreshing when Kirk's deal is up for negotiation, because I know he'll probably accept the league minimum.




and here we are.

Click to expand...

Yup . . . thanks to a dithering GM whose dislike and distrust of Eddy is only surpassed by his weird inability to let him go._


----------



## FreeSpeech101 (Jul 30, 2004)

Trade him for a big body. We can't sign everyone, so lets get rid of the lazy one.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



ScottMay said:


> How has he been consistent?
> 
> After the Cannom diagnosis: Eddy has been cleared to play without any physical restrictions. We -- meaning the Bulls and Eddy (how else can this possibly be interpreted?) -- are proceeding with and following Dr. Cannom's recommendations.
> 
> ...


boy, this line of argument hasn't been whipped raw, has it? 

It's a willful misinterpretation. The Bulls were no longer Eddy's employer at the time the first statement was made. Other statements made at the time indicated the Bulls were going to take Cannom's recommendations under advisement. We know well that they did. This leads to the second statement, which now has to do with entering into a new contract. 





> Nope. Not one. This is a function of two things -- one, Curry's camp has been laudably low-key all summer, or perhaps busy being saddled with a lot of the work one would normally expect the team to do, like finding specialists for Eddy, and searching for insurance, and trying to find trades. Two, Eddy and Eddy's camp know he is in excellent health. I'm not sure what good it would do for them to fret over it. He's been cleared by multiple world-class experts, some or all of whom have probably explained to him why a DNA test is a highly unusual request and isn't necessary in their minds.


Perhaps you are mistaking Eddy's team for Tyson's team?

And you know about Eddy's health how?






> I know . . . the _horror![/] It's unimaginable. It is going to be so refreshing when Kirk's deal is up for negotiation, because I know he'll probably accept the league minimum._


_

Willful misinterpretation of Miz's statement. 





Yup . . . thanks to a dithering GM whose dislike and distrust of Eddy is only surpassed by his weird inability to let him go.

Click to expand...

Whoa! It's not Paxson's responsibility to get out of the box you've made for him. You refuse to acknowledge anybody's position but your own as having any value. So you end up making incredibly presumptuous and demeaning statements about others. 

I know, I know, that's what makes a message board fun...._


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Good Hope said:


> boy, this line of argument hasn't been whipped raw, has it?
> 
> It's a willful misinterpretation. The Bulls were no longer Eddy's employer at the time the first statement was made. Other statements made at the time indicated the Bulls were going to take Cannom's recommendations under advisement. We know well that they did. This leads to the second statement, which now has to do with entering into a new contract.


The extending of the QO made the Bulls Eddy's defacto employer until he signed another team's offer sheet. Paxson's "we" -- i.e., the Bulls and Eddy -- makes this perfectly clear.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Your interpretation, to me, is just spin that defies logic. And any theory that requires me to ignore the definition of the word "we" is just not one that I'm going to believe easily.



> Perhaps you are mistaking Eddy's team for Tyson's team?


Feel free to look for links to articles where Eddy's camp was agitating in the press before Paxson's recent DNA line in the sand. You won't find any. The standard closing line for just about every article written about Curry this summer was "Calls to Leon Rose's office were not returned."



> And you know about Eddy's health how?


I have a great amount of faith in the doctors who've cleared him -- world-class experts on arrythmias and athlete's heart and cardiomyopathy. I have even more faith given that the doctors who want the DNA test have arrived at the exact same clinical diagnosis as the clearing doctors, and I find the American College of Cardiology, which doesn't recommend DNA testing in the absence of clinical HCM, to be a credible, unbiased body.



> Willful misinterpretation of Miz's statement.


Not really. Players pay in the NBA to get paid. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and to bash Eddy with threadbare insults like "he wants to get paid first, play second" is just to distract from the much more important issues.



> Whoa! It's not Paxson's responsibility to get out of the box you've made for him. You refuse to acknowledge anybody's position but your own as having any value. So you end up making incredibly presumptuous and demeaning statements about others.


I haven't made any statements even close to some of what was written in my direction this April, when I predicted (correctly) that the Bulls might use Eddy's health concerns as a wedge against him in contract negotiations. I also haven't made any statements that demean posters, just some of their arguments. So feel free to hop down from the high horse.



> I know, I know, that's what makes a message board fun....


Not lately.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



mizenkay said:


> the information obtained in the test will remain private. they are bound by the CBA to do so.


I don't think you really thought this through. It definetely does NOT say the Bulls can gain medical information and keep it from other teams. At a minimum, this info would need to be shared in terms of trades, etc. 

If Paxson was most concerned with Eddy having the most information, he would tell Curry that Curry just needs to get the test results and have Curry's doctor confirm that the test have been run. But Pax is most concened about the Bulls finances, so Pax wants to see the results before he gives him a big contract this summer or next.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Good Hope said:


> You are right that this is the crux of the matter. Certainly the team has the right to the results of medical exams that relate to his ability to play for them. That language is in the contract, which the NBLPA agreed to. But, is DNA testing crossing the line from pertinent medical information to peering at personal information that has the potential for abuse? As someone has pointed out, it is in the Bulls' interests to find out as much as they can. They are bound legally to keep that information private. Maybe that's not good enough and the case goes against them, in which case they will have to back down. As flash pointed out, they need to push it as far as they can.


Why do they need to push it as far as they can? That's the insanity of it all. They don't need to, and they appear to me to be burning themselves terribly by doing so.

1. The test result, I think, will not change anything contractually. Everyone's already (if they have any sense) operating under the assumption he tests positive. The Bulls and everyone else's contracts appear to be in line with this and a negative result wouldn't change things either, since it would still leave the cause of the actual arrhythmia as indeterminant.

2. The test result, I think, will not change anything medically. Eddy's pretty conclusively, from what I understand, not got HCM, and even if his genes make him predisposed to get it, the likelihood appears very low he would develop it now if he hasn't already.

3. The Bulls have badly damaged their relationship with a player they clearly wanted to keep.

4. The Bulls have badly damaged their ability to do anything else with said player, by publically stating falsehoods like "the DNA test could have saved Reggie Lewis" nonsense.

5. The Bulls have opened up a legal can of worms that, in my opinion based on seeing the statutes involved, they're likely to lose on. At considerable expense.

6. In doing going through a big, unfriendly court battle that gets the players association and potentially the league involved, they aren't making friends with anyone.

7. The Bulls are going down the Richard Nixon road of gathering information, something that, whether the information is legitimate or not, and while probably not "evil", is also definitely not what I'd call "playing the right way".

So add all of that up, and I see a whole lot of reasons they should have dealt with this in a different manner than they have. They could have traded Eddy and got something. They could simply have him sign a waiver and put the responsibility for Eddy's health where it belongs - with Eddy - instead of being a bunch of paternalistic prats. They could have just said no, we're rescinding the QO, or they could have taken a strong position all along, instead of with the sudden, disingenous media blitz. They could have just accepted the word of a couple of renowned experts in the field who - explicitly unlike the Reggie Lewis situation! - gave Eddy clearance. They could have done a lot of things, and they appear to me to have been immenently more sensible than pushing this bad idea to its bitter end.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Mikedc said:


> I see a whole lot of reasons they should have dealt with this in a different manner than they have. They could have traded Eddy and got something. They could simply have him sign a waiver and put the responsibility for Eddy's health where it belongs - with Eddy - instead of being a bunch of paternalistic prats. They could have just said no, we're rescinding the QO, or they could have taken a strong position all along, instead of with the sudden, disingenous media blitz. They could have just accepted the word of a couple of renowned experts in the field who - explicitly unlike the Reggie Lewis situation! - gave Eddy clearance. They could have done a lot of things, and they appear to me to have been immenently more sensible than pushing this bad idea to its bitter end.


Great post. So many routes to take that would have been OK. Yet, Pax seems to have gone out of his way to go the only route that left him in such a jam. Especially wierd after signing Songailia and Allen that can partially offset the loss of Curry. Especially wierd given he has the most cap room to play with next year, has a pretty good team, and has a lot to lose by bad PR.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

However if we 

1. Had of traded Eddy it would have been for dog poop and everyone would have been pissed

2. Who says the waiver hasn't been offered and rejected by Camp Curry?

3. I agree they could have rescinded the QO a couple of weeks ago..but that would have been a bit morally loose seeing as though that Eddy can't get as much gteed from anyone else than what the Bulls have offered - so this is not really doing him a service

4. I believe the media silence as to the DNA requirement was to protect everybody if you think about it rationally and as I have explained in detail ( as to why ) previously


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



ScottMay said:


> The extending of the QO made the Bulls Eddy's defacto employer until he signed another team's offer sheet. Paxson's "we" -- i.e., the Bulls and Eddy -- makes this perfectly clear.
> 
> I guess we can agree to disagree. Your interpretation, to me, is just spin that defies logic. And any theory that requires me to ignore the definition of the word "we" is just not one that I'm going to believe easily.


Does "defacto" mean, in this case, "liable"? I don't think so. He was no longer under contract. The QO is not the same as employment...it's holding the right to match any offer made to Eddy. Until he signs it, it means nothing as far as the Bulls' responsibilities to him, or his to the Bulls, for that matter.





> Feel free to look for links to articles where Eddy's camp was agitating in the press before Paxson's recent DNA line in the sand. You won't find any. The standard closing line for just about every article written about Curry this summer was "Calls to Leon Rose's office were not returned."


Rose has certainly been more professional than those who were in Eddy's employ before. But the model of quietness and efficiency was Tyson and his camp. Not Eddy's camp. Your portrayal of Eddy's camp was merely a little over the top in guessing at all the useful, busy tasks they were doing, in a set up for the eventual slam you wanted to make against Paxson. 



> I have a great amount of faith in the doctors who've cleared him -- world-class experts on arrythmias and athlete's heart and cardiomyopathy. I have even more faith given that the doctors who want the DNA test have arrived at the exact same clinical diagnosis as the clearing doctors, and I find the American College of Cardiology, which doesn't recommend DNA testing in the absence of clinical HCM, to be a credible, unbiased body.


Good. I'm glad you have faith in them. Obviously, the "non-clearing" doctors need more faith. Apparently, the test they've recommended will help them believe a little more strongly. 





> Not really. Players pay in the NBA to get paid. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and to bash Eddy with threadbare insults like "he wants to get paid first, play second" is just to distract from the much more important issues.


Everybody who has a job knows that those who are best at their jobs do what they do because they really like it and it's rewarding to them of its own accord. It is not unrealistic or insulting to expect that the best basketball players, and the ones who will get paid like the best, will display such an attitude toward their job. 

So, Miz's comment is not "a distraction". It's a relevant comment related to what Eddy is really all about in this process. Especially when people are poised to distrust everything related to Pax's or Reinsdorf's motives. And it's central to the question of just how much he should get paid, or have guaranteed. 

And, it wasn't an insult, it was a statement of concern. You took it out of context in order to bash.





> I haven't made any statements even close to some of what was written in my direction this April, when I predicted (correctly) that the Bulls might use Eddy's health concerns as a wedge against him in contract negotiations. I also haven't made any statements that demean posters, just some of their arguments. So feel free to hop down from the high horse.


I'm not referring to statements made about other posters. I'm referring to statements made about Paxson. Paxson has access to more information that is directly related to this casethan any of us. And yet, Paxson doesn't see the situation the same way you do, therefore, he is a dithering, blathering, belly-button staring, lily-livered, yellow-bellied gm with a weird obsession of holding on to Eddy while the same time, loathing him. Of course, that's the only logical conclusion...

And please forgive my high horse. I just needed something to stand on to reach up to your level.




> Not lately.


At least, until the team starts playing well again. But, how could it, with such a lame gm?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Mikedc said:


> So add all of that up, and I see a whole lot of reasons they should have dealt with this in a different manner than they have. They could have traded Eddy and got something. They could simply have him sign a waiver and put the responsibility for Eddy's health where it belongs - with Eddy - instead of being a bunch of paternalistic prats. They could have just said no, we're rescinding the QO, or they could have taken a strong position all along, instead of with the sudden, disingenous media blitz. They could have just accepted the word of a couple of renowned experts in the field who - explicitly unlike the Reggie Lewis situation! - gave Eddy clearance. They could have done a lot of things, and they appear to me to have been immenently more sensible than pushing this bad idea to its bitter end.


Well now, this is another issue. And it may be more to the point. Maybe, John Paxson has too much faith in his ability to "help Eddy", and is being paternalistic. He certainly has repeated that basic idea that he's trying to do what's best for Eddy a number of times. And maybe he has trapped himself into a foolish venture by being true to that desire in dealing with Eddy. Like you say, maybe, he should have just cut his losses when he realized that Eddy wasn't likely to give in.

But we don't know what has gone on up until now in these negotiations. 

I think that Paxson felt there was a chance for some compromise contract to be signed until only recently. The language of that contract would perhaps have provided some of the assurances and waivers or whatever other options that the Bulls needed to let Eddy back on to the court. 

With the break of the story about the Knicks, it became clear that Eddy wasn't going to take it or anything close to it. So, the QO becomes a reality. Now, how do the Bulls deal with this? 

Look, I'm guessing. But your meticulous listing of missed opportunities by Paxson misses the basic fact that we don't know a tenth of what went on during negotiations. 

I don't think Paxson likes where this has gone, anymore than we do. I can imagine, however, that Eddy and his camp are at least as responsible if not more for it coming to this place. 

I mean, people were ready to rip Pax apart for how he dealt with Skiles, but it turns out, Glass was kind of an unstable jerk. 

Could Pax have avoided some of these things by being less paternalistic? Perhaps he could have. But I think the jury is still way out on whether his "paternalistic" instincts are a help or a hindrance.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

If EC doesnt take the test he will be sitting on the bench next year and pax will not only not play him but he will not be allowed to practice. If pax approves EC playing and something happens they are f-ed and will be sued from now until kingdom come.

the bulls cardiologist Dr. Barry Maron, UMinn cards superstar, has not cleared him to play. That as they say is that. The bulls cant put EC at risk. Until Maron signs off on EC he will be sitting on the bench next year and after missing over one year, gaining what 100 pounds, his career wil be toast.

No team is going to extend a contact to him if he may be decleared unable to play or worse dies.

Bottom line is what pax is doing is the right thing for the bulls and EC and all this other stuff is bs. You can not but an employee at risk at his job, period. The bulls and in my opinion no other team will do so and that is why no one offered him a contact. All this ec is fine and cleared to play? Ok then what cant he get insurence? Thank about that.

david


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*

If the Bulls refuse to play Eddy when Eddy has been cleared by other doctors, pending a DNA test, then they will go to arbitration, and most likely be forced to renounce his rights, ala Wesley Person and the Heat last year. You can't put a healthy player on the bench, and that is what Eddy is right now until someone offers a diagnosis to the contrary. Maron may not have cleared Eddy, but he certainly hasn't diagnosed Eddy with anything either. So why is he sitting? Because the Bulls doctor knows nothing?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



futuristxen said:


> If the Bulls refuse to play Eddy when Eddy has been cleared by other doctors, pending a DNA test, then they will go to arbitration, and most likely be forced to renounce his rights, ala Wesley Person and the Heat last year. You can't put a healthy player on the bench, and that is what Eddy is right now until someone offers a diagnosis to the contrary. Maron may not have cleared Eddy, but he certainly hasn't diagnosed Eddy with anything either. So why is he sitting? Because the Bulls doctor knows nothing?


This should be pretty interesting. It's curious from the perspective of the NBA, though. It's the NBA's own affiliated insurance company that won't insure his heart. So in that sense the NBA has already been unwilling to deem him fully healthy.

I do wish Paxson hadn't barked up this tree. I see howmuch this has alienated Curry and his associates, as clarified to some extent by his lawyer Milstein. I see no multiyear contract as a possibility with Curry and the Bulls anymore. Therefore, I would have rathered that we would have traded Eddy for expiring contracts who might be able to help us this year. That way we could have at least avoided possible media, league, and player backlash. Paxson seems to be to close to the situation to see how bad his demand looks.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Good Hope said:


> I don't think Paxson likes where this has gone, anymore than we do. I can imagine, however, that Eddy and his camp are at least as responsible if not more for it coming to this place.


And yet, only one of those sides is at this point responsible for making the best decision possible for the Chicago Bulls.

The most obvious issue here being that anyone with a cluebird of what's going on is operating under the assumption Curry took the test and simply won't reveal a negative result. Aside from the liability concerns, which can be addressed in other, less contentious ways, this logically deduced knowledge leaves little legit reason to push for a test the way the Bulls are doing.



> I mean, people were ready to rip Pax apart for how he dealt with Skiles, but it turns out, Glass was kind of an unstable jerk.


That seems rather speculative to me. It sounds, in fact, like exactly the sort of guff agents take in order to keep fans feeling good about their clients and their teams' management. Of course, if I were getting the kind of commish agents typically get, I'd happily be a convenient scapegoat myself.




Weanie Boy of Waukegan (J/K!) said:


> However if we
> 
> 1. Had of traded Eddy it would have been for dog poop and everyone would have been pissed


Huh? There's plenty of guys here who seem to want Curry gone at any cost. Even those, like myself, skeptical of whether it'd be worth it would, I think (at least speaking for myself) prefer something to nothing at all. Which is what we're getting now. So I have a pretty hard time seeing as how anyone could be more pissed.



> 2. Who says the waiver hasn't been offered and rejected by Camp Curry?


If so, it certainly would have behooved Paxson to mention this as evidence the Bulls sought a middle ground that would avoid treating Curry's privacy as something with which to wipe an ***. 



> 3. I agree they could have rescinded the QO a couple of weeks ago..but that would have been a bit morally loose seeing as though that Eddy can't get as much gteed from anyone else than what the Bulls have offered - so this is not really doing him a service


They could always have offered him some sort of buyout deal as a PR move the way they did with JWill. Signed him to new deal then immediately bought him out.



> 4. I believe the media silence as to the DNA requirement was to protect everybody if you think about it rationally and as I have explained in detail ( as to why ) previously


You've also said you think Pax was just throwing out misinformation with all his Reggie Lewis tripe. That seems a rather abrupt change in policy. I don't really agree with the "keeping quiet" like of thought, since 1) the Bulls didn't keep their desire quiet and 2) I don't see why it would take until the week before camp to reach this sort of breaking point. It shouldn't take 2 months to be clear about this.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Mikedc said:


> And yet, only one of those sides is at this point responsible for making the best decision possible for the Chicago Bulls.
> 
> The most obvious issue here being that anyone with a cluebird of what's going on is operating under the assumption Curry took the test and simply won't reveal a negative result. Aside from the liability concerns, which can be addressed in other, less contentious ways, this logically deduced knowledge leaves little legit reason to push for a test the way the Bulls are doing.


Well, see, you're more sophisticated than I am (You had read the Iliad when I had only watched the movie!). I think Paxson is not willing to assume anything about Eddy's condition. And I am not 100% convinced that Eddy would take the test. This stuff about resisting the test started long before Rose came along. I really think Eddy just didn't want to take it. Of course, Ron Cey agrees with you. You could be right. It comes back to Paxson not being willing to assume anything.

You know, if he were more Machiavellian, Pax might have gone about this a little more surgically. He really does want to help Eddy, I firmly believe it. However, it's hard to convince someone of this when they have reduced dollar signs in their eyes. Has he misjudged the value of his own sincerity in dealing with Eddy? Like I said in the last post, this could be a valid criticism. But nothing is decided, yet. So, we'll wait and see.





> That seems rather speculative to me. It sounds, in fact, like exactly the sort of guff agents take in order to keep fans feeling good about their clients and their teams' management. Of course, if I were getting the kind of commish agents typically get, I'd happily be a convenient scapegoat myself.


See, I happened to be driving through Chicago, and heard that interview with Glass on the Score (I guess it was Friday), and then I got lucky and could hear North's interview with Skiles at my home, Monday, just before the signing. It is not speculation that Glass is an unstable jerk. Maybe he was just reflecting Skiles' jerkiness, of which he has his fair share. But he seemed to be talking from his heart, so to speak.

And I brought up those events as a reminder that things can literally "change in the blink of an eye."


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



ScottMay said:


> Isn't it pretty easy to understand why he wouldn't take the test? When a negative result doesn't totally rule out his not having HCM, and a positive one doesn't mean he'll get HCM, now or ever, *what's the point?* His heart will have to be monitored extremely carefully for the entirety of his athletic career in either case. From a personal standpoint, nothing really changes, either. There's nothing he can do to stave off HCM -- if it develops, it develops. Fortunately, *he can rest easy knowing that a large percentage of people who carry the gene never develop HCM, or develop it later in life when its symptoms are very manageable with medication or a pacemaker.*


ScottMay, I have to take issue with your argument here. First of all, I've been trying my best to keep up with the hundreds of posts, including yours, about this whole Curry situation. Sorry if you've given this explanation already, but I need some clarification on your viewpoint.

Even if what you are saying turns out to be correct, how can you disregard the opinion of Dr. Maron? If I remember correctly, one of the things that you point out about Paxson is that he downplays the opinion of other doctors such as Dr. Cannom. In the same light, how can Paxson or you downplay the opinion of Dr. Maron? Wouldn't he be belittling Dr. Maron's advice by following Dr. Cannom's advice instead? My point is that you can't fault Paxson for following one doctor over another. Considering that Dr. Maron is the original doctor of choice, he becomes the default selection. Regardless of what you believe Paxson's motives to be in terms of doing what's best for the Bulls and/or for Curry, why doesn't it make sense for Paxson to simply listen and follow through on recommendations made by someone that is an expert in HCM? I don't understand the fault in following the advice of someone that is clearly more knowledgable on a certain topic.


I have a feeling that what it comes down to, for you, is that you already have a stance on Paxson's intentions, and are therefore concluding that for Paxson to want to follow the recommendation of the doctor that they originally referred to is a way for Paxson to fulfill his real intention of taking advantage of Curry.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



johnston797 said:


> Really? According to Mike McGraw's column, the Bulls know at a minimum that are stretching big-time. They know this will go to arbitration if Curry doesn't back down. Personally, and this is 100% opinion, I think they know they don't have a legal leg if gets to that point.


This is silly. The language of the CBA undoubtedly supports the Bulls' position. The only significant legal questions, as I see it, is whether the ADA applies and, if it does, whether it trumps the CBA. 

The fact that the Bulls recognize that the matter will likely be arbitrated does not mean they consider their position weak, it simply means they consider their position to be opposed. And it is opposed. 

I read about a lawsuit that was recently filed wherein a lady was hit in the back of the head by a *wild bird * flying through an *OUTDOOR store*. She actually sued the store and that lawsuit is still pending. The fact that the store recognizes the existence of the lawsuit doesn't mean they recognize that it has merit or that they are worried about the outcome.

As to your equation (that no one but you seems to be using) regarding what constitutes "replaceable", its amazing to me that you don't consider the existence of capspace to be a significant *part* of the analysis of whether or not Curry is replaceable. If he were on the Knicks, he'd be far less easy to replace than he would be for the Bulls due to cap restraints. Thats just basic common sense.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



fl_flash said:


> I think this is all boiling down to a liability issue. If I'm guessing, I think the Bulls want an arbitrator to rule that Curry does or does not have to take the test and that he's fit to play. The arbitrators ruling would be binding and I would think it would absolutely absolve the Bulls of any further legal issues should something happen to Curry while playing basketball. I think this is the final thing that the Bulls want in order to play Curry. They could run him into the ground and if he should die or otherwise have to stop playing - it won't be on them.


Although I don't quite agree with that last sentence, Paxson's most recent quotes have made it obvious to me that he is regurgitating what the team's lawyers are telling him to say. This has become, without question, a liability driven issue. 

I still believe that in Paxson's mind this is all justifiable as in Eddy's best interests, but from the team's perspective this smells like legal CYA. And, under these groundbreaking circumstances, there is nothing wrong with that.

I think at this point both sides are simply doing what they feel they need to do to protect there interests. I can't interpret the severity and polarity of their respective positions any other way. If this were purely a negotiating ploy on the part of the Bulls, the all or nothing stance is nonsensical.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Ron Cey said:


> This is silly. The language of the CBA undoubtedly supports the Bulls' position. The only significant legal questions, as I see it, is whether the ADA applies and, if it does, whether it trumps the CBA.
> 
> The fact that the Bulls recognize that the matter will likely be arbitrated does not mean they consider their position weak, it simply means they consider their position to be opposed. And it is opposed.
> 
> I read about a lawsuit that was recently filed wherein a lady was hit in the back of the head by a *wild bird *flying through an *OUTDOOR store*. She actually sued the store and that lawsuit is still pending. The fact that the store recognizes the existence of the lawsuit doesn't mean they recognize that it has merit or that they are worried about the outcome.


Something completely different to argue about. 

Do you find that case to be without merit?

Having to take such things seriously is largely why I gave up law for economics but depending on the particulars of the case I can easily imagine it having merit or the plaintiff winning. Suppose the bird had established a nest close to the store, and was a known to swoop and peck at store clients.

If that's the case, whether it's an open air store or not, it doesn't matter. The storekeeper had notice to the danger and didn't do anything about it.



> As to your equation (that no one but you seems to be using) regarding what constitutes "replaceable", its amazing to me that you don't consider the existence of capspace to be a significant *part* of the analysis of whether or not Curry is replaceable. If he were on the Knicks, he'd be far less easy to replace than he would be for the Bulls due to cap restraints. Thats just basic common sense.


This is true, of course, but using cap space to replace Curry seems iffy to me, given 
1) the dearth of good bigs (makes them both few in quantity and highly sought)
2) the fact a significant portion of them are RFAs and
3) the fact that even the UFA's get a significant advantage by resigning with their current teams

A player we sign with cap space will be a player another team has decided is not worth what we're going to pay.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Mikedc said:


> Something completely different to argue about.
> 
> Do you find that case to be without merit?
> 
> ...


As for the lawsuit, the notice and history issues are not present as alleged and as reported. Those are good points, though. Not that this matters at all to the larger discussion, but I thought this lawsuit was so funny that I did some independent research. According to what I found, no jurisdiction in the U.S. has ever upheld a verdict allowing damages for the conduct of a wild animal in an outdoor store. It has been expressly rejected 7-8 times in different states. 

As for the second point, those are all valid risks and considerations except for the 3rd one. That only applies if we are talking about *maxing out* the likes of Al Harrington. There just aren't any UFA bigs next summer where this will come into play.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



HINrichPolice said:


> ScottMay, I have to take issue with your argument here. First of all, I've been trying my best to keep up with the hundreds of posts, including yours, about this whole Curry situation. Sorry if you've given this explanation already, but I need some clarification on your viewpoint.
> 
> Even if what you are saying turns out to be correct, how can you disregard the opinion of Dr. Maron? If I remember correctly, one of the things that you point out about Paxson is that he downplays the opinion of other doctors such as Dr. Cannom. In the same light, how can Paxson or you downplay the opinion of Dr. Maron? Wouldn't he be belittling Dr. Maron's advice by following Dr. Cannom's advice instead? My point is that you can't fault Paxson for following one doctor over another. Considering that Dr. Maron is the original doctor of choice, he becomes the default selection. Regardless of what you believe Paxson's motives to be in terms of doing what's best for the Bulls and/or for Curry, why doesn't it make sense for Paxson to simply listen and follow through on recommendations made by someone that is an expert in HCM? I don't understand the fault in following the advice of someone that is clearly more knowledgable on a certain topic.


If you're implying that Maron is "clearly more knowledgeable" than the other doctors, that is highly questionable. The three doctors who've examined Curry that we know by name -- Cannom, Estes, and Maron -- are some of the very top doctors in this field. 

The important thing to me, as I've said dozens of times now, is that Curry has not been diagnosed by ANY of the doctors as having clinical -- actual -- HCM. We know this from the media reports, and it's augmented by McGraw's email to the miz saying that "no doctor is saying Eddy will never play again". If Eddy had clinical HCM, that would be the end of it. But he doesn't, and the DNA test offers no reasonable prediction of when or even IF he would develop clinical symptoms.

Almost as important to me is the fact that Dr. Mark Estes -- who, by the way, was the first specialist to whom the Bulls sent Curry, NOT Maron -- has cleared Eddy. Estes was a member of the "Dream Team" of cardiology specialists the Celtics assembled to examine Reggie Lewis. It seems illogical to me that a doctor who saw what happened to Lewis would clear Curry if that doctor had even the smallest shadow of a doubt. 

Then you consider Cannom's diagnosis, and the diagnosis of the other unnamed doctors who've cleared Curry, and the identical clinical diagnosis of the "dissenting" physicians. You consider that it is not at all conventional medical practice to DNA test in the absence of clinical HCM. As I recounted here before, I discussed Curry's dilemma with a colleague of my wife's at a social function (much to her chagrin), an attending cardiologist at a very highly regarded New York teaching hospital. His reaction was much the same as the Northwestern doctor the Sun-Times interviewed back when the DNA issue initially came to light -- "it doesn't make any sense," "we wouldn't test the president even if he asked us to," etc. 

I have a theory as to why Maron wants the DNA test, and it relates to family history. Curry's mother had a heart attack a few years back. We don't know to what extent she was tested afterwards. The odds overwhelmingly point to coronary artery disease as the source, but perhaps Maron thinks it was HCM. This would also lend some credence to the Giangreco report that Paxson wants/is demanding Eddy's parents take the test as well.

Bottom line: assuming we know all of the pertinent details here, Paxson's logic on the medical front strikes me as perverse. I think he is assigning the DNA test a lot more importance that it warrants. In the absence of clinical HCM, Maron's prognosis for Eddy would be exactly the same whether he passed or "failed" the DNA test -- probably a monthly echocardiogram, and beyond that, play basketball and have fun.



> I have a feeling that what it comes down to, for you, is that you already have a stance on Paxson's intentions, and are therefore concluding that for Paxson to want to follow the recommendation of the doctor that they originally referred to is a way for Paxson to fulfill his real intention of taking advantage of Curry.


Not true. I was hopeful that Paxson was going to do the right thing for most of the summer -- especially after the Cannom diagnosis when Paxson announced the Bulls and Curry had a plan of action that they were going to pursue jointly. Now I do doubt Paxson's intentions, but my doubt is based on my interpretation of events -- the medical stuff, the Curry/Lewis smearing, the heel-dragging on the ultimatum, the failure to mention what kind of contract Curry would get if he took and passed a DNA test -- nothing preconceived.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Ron Cey said:


> As for the lawsuit, the notice and history issues are not present as alleged and as reported. Those are good points, though. Not that this matters at all to the larger discussion, but I thought this lawsuit was so funny that I did some independent research. According to what I found, no jurisdiction in the U.S. has ever upheld a verdict allowing damages for the conduct of a wild animal in an outdoor store. It has been expressly rejected 7-8 times in different states.


Heh. Incidentally, did your research say anything about indoor birds? The local mall always seems to have a nest or two in it.



> As for the second point, those are all valid risks and considerations except for the 3rd one. That only applies if we are talking about *maxing out* the likes of Al Harrington. There just aren't any UFA bigs next summer where this will come into play.


I don't think it takes maxing out. Even if you don't max out a guy, the Bulls can only give a player from team X 8% raises for 5 years whereas Team X can give a guy 10.5% raises for 6 years. The Bulls can, of course, compensate by giving more up front in salary, but doing so cuts into our cap room a bit more.

Suppose we think a guy is worth a $5M starting salary. We could offer him a 5 year, $29M contract. His current team could offer him the same starting salary in a 6 year, $37.9M contract. If I were the player, I'd certainly give my existing team an opportunity to match the starting dollar amounts in a more favorable deal.

And I'd tell the Bulls to up their offer until it was something my current team would no longer match.

It's not a big difference, I'll concede, but even little differences can end up being important.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



> I was hopeful that Paxson was going to do the right thing for most of the summer -- especially after the Cannom diagnosis when Paxson announced the Bulls and Curry had a plan of action that they were going to pursue jointly. Now I do doubt Paxson's intentions, but my doubt is based on my interpretation of events -- *the medical stuff*,


Which is contested among the leading experts in the field. Your rejection of one in favor of the others just coincidentally fits into your multi-year campaign against Paxson, I'm sure.



> the Curry/Lewis smearing,


Is "smearing" an objective term? 



> the heel-dragging on the ultimatum


Which is a pure invention of yours that is obviously based on your preconceptions. Like so many of your theories, it is based on a speculative foundation that fits your larger point. Like I said in another thread over a week ago, now that Curry's camp is talking, they would certainly publicly point out this allegedly "11th hour" change in expectations if that is in fact what happened. 



> the failure to mention what kind of contract Curry would get if he took and passed a DNA test


I love the "guilt by failure to specify to the press" argument. Are you aware of whether or not he was even asked that question? Also, it seems to me that the reported $19-26 million guaranteed deal was probably contingent on a DNA test considering they are going to arbitrate whether or not he can even practice.



> nothing preconceived.


Clearly.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Mikedc said:


> Heh. Incidentally, did your research say anything about indoor birds? The local mall always seems to have a nest or two in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had forgotten about that part of the CBA. Thanks, its a valid point. (My research did not yield results regarding indoor birds. Sorry.)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Ron Cey said:


> Which is contested among the leading experts in the field. Your rejection of one in favor of the others just coincidentally fits into your multi-year campaign against Paxson, I'm sure.


For the millionth time:

-- more nationally recognized experts side with Curry than do not
-- the doctors who want the DNA test have arrived at the same clinical diagnosis
-- it is unconventional and atypical to test for DNA in a patient of Curry's age and clinically healthy heart



> Is "smearing" an objective term?


Taking great pains to compare Curry's situation to Lewis's as often as possible when there is only a flimsy connection between the two* is smearing in my book, yes. His campaign has been effective as the Bulls' beat writers use the connection with unexamined impunity.

* Lewis's cocaine-damaged heart muscle caused his heart to experience a fatal episode of sustained ventricular tachycardia. Curry's arrythmia in Charlotte was a non-sustained ventricular tachycardia. In a healthy heart like Eddy's, this type of arrythmia is benign and can be caused by dehydration, caffeine, stress, diet, and other things -- for more, read the transcript of Eddy's press conference where the Bulls' team doctors explained it.



> Which is a pure invention of yours that is obviously based on your preconceptions. Like so many of your theories, it is based on a speculative foundation that fits your larger point. Like I said in another thread over a week ago, now that Curry's camp is talking, they would certainly publicly point out this allegedly "11th hour" change in expectations if that is in fact what happened.


There is far more evidence to suggest that at some point *recently* the "request" to take a DNA test became a "demand." Knowing how easily other information relating to this case has leaked from the Bulls organization, I find it implausible that "John's not going to let Eddy play until he takes the DNA test" wouldn't have surfaced as soon as it was issued. We also know for a fact that Paxson wasn't demanding the test at the time of the Cannom diagnosis -- that's incontrovertible, unless you're of a mind that the word "we" means something other than "we."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



ScottMay said:


> We also know for a fact that Paxson wasn't demanding the test at the time of the Cannom diagnosis -- that's incontrovertible, unless you're of a mind that the word "we" means something other than "we."


False spin and speculation further illustrative of the concern raised in HINrichpolice's post. Paxson wasn't demanding the test to permit (hollowly, since the team had no authority either way) Curry to "resume activity".

Resuming activity is not the same as offering a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract to play NBA basketball. You have no idea whatsoever what Paxson's demands were at that time with regard to the execution of a contract to play for the Bulls.

These liberties you take with what is reported (and even with what *isn't reported * as evidenced through your previous post), and the severe and definitive condemnations you attach to your speculative conclusions, can be staggering. Why do that? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know what it does to further any discussion other than to embitter and polarize it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Ron Cey said:


> False spin and speculation further illustrative of the concern raised in HINrichpolice's post. Paxson wasn't demanding the test to permit (hollowly, since the team had no authority either way) Curry to "resume activity".
> 
> Resuming activity is not the same as offering a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract to play NBA basketball. You have no idea whatsoever what Paxson's demands were at that time with regard to the execution of a contract to play for the Bulls.


What is ignoring a direct quote from Paxson if not "false spin and speculation?"



> These liberties you take with what is reported (and even with what *isn't reported * as evidenced through your previous post), and the severe and definitive condemnations you attach to your speculative conclusions, can be staggering. Why do that? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know what it does to further any discussion other than to embitter and polarize it.


Give me a break, Ron. Your viewpoint involves far more massaging of words and manipulation of the facts than mine does. Speculation indeed.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Ron Cey said:


> This is silly. The language of the CBA undoubtedly supports the Bulls' position. The only significant legal questions, as I see it, is whether the ADA applies and, if it does, whether it trumps the CBA.


Well, looks like you position has changed considering when I said this was illegal a week or two ago, you said it wasn't, right? It will be good for a laugh for me when Bulls lose in arbitration.



Ron Cey said:


> As to your equation (that no one but you seems to be using) regarding what constitutes "replaceable", its amazing to me that you don't consider the existence of capspace to be a significant *part* of the analysis of whether or not Curry is replaceable. If he were on the Knicks, he'd be far less easy to replace than he would be for the Bulls due to cap restraints. Thats just basic common sense.


Your definition of "replacable" is a huge stretch IMHO. Clearly, by MikeDC's and Scott May's posts, I am not alone. The whole window of opportunity with the cap space is next summer. Curious, as a Paxson apostole, is Paxson a failure if he doesn't land a big man to replace Curry by the end of next summer?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



ScottMay said:


> What is ignoring a direct quote from Paxson if not "false spin and speculation?"
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, Ron. Your viewpoint involves far more massaging of words and manipulation of the facts than mine does. Speculation indeed.


You've got to be kidding. You said its a "fact" that the Bulls weren't demanding a DNA test for a contract based on their hollow approval to allow him to "resume activity" per Cannom's instructions.

You can't know that. You can't say its a fact. But you do anyway because it furthers what you've been preaching for who knows how long.

I had a similar debate weeks ago about this. It is ridiculous to equate "resuming activity" with a long term contract. 

All I'm saying is that it is, at best, an unknown and that Curry's camp certainly hasn't cried foul, even though the gloves are off. Your definitive stance and the venemous inferences you draw as to motive as a result are premature. 

Give it some time. See what we find out. Surely you agree that if the Bulls have actually sprung this at the last minute that Camp Curry will note that publicly. If it happened, it will come out.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



ScottMay said:


> If you're implying that Maron is "clearly more knowledgeable" than the other doctors, that is highly questionable. The three doctors who've examined Curry that we know by name -- Cannom, Estes, and Maron -- are some of the very top doctors in this field.
> 
> The important thing to me, as I've said dozens of times now, is that Curry has not been diagnosed by ANY of the doctors as having clinical -- actual -- HCM. We know this from the media reports, and it's augmented by McGraw's email to the miz saying that "no doctor is saying Eddy will never play again". If Eddy had clinical HCM, that would be the end of it. But he doesn't, and the DNA test offers no reasonable prediction of when or even IF he would develop clinical symptoms.
> 
> ...



First off, I am by no means implying that any doctor is more credible than another doctor. I'm not in position to claim those things, nor are you. However, that is actually part of my point. Who is Paxson supposed to listen to?

Scott, what you've done is explained with much thought and effort why you believe the *chances *are in Curry's favor that he will be fine playing basketball. However, don't you think it's a little easy to make decisions (based on *chances*) on these things from a fan's perspective considering that life and well-being of one Eddy Curry is in question? Sure, you care about Eddy Curry's health and success. You probably (still) also care about the Bulls success. But just think for one second what kind of weight Paxson, as the general manager, has on his decision regarding Eddy's *well-being*. Paxson may not be a relative of Eddy's, but I honestly believe that he cares about Eddy as a person. Can you honestly fault Paxson for wanting to take every single precaution, regardless of whether every single precaution (DNA test) would only improve knowledge of the situation by 5% or .5%? If it wasn't Eddy's LIFE in question, then that little improvement wouldn't matter. Are you saying that the DNA would in fact have a 0% improvement on understanding the situation? If you are, then you're obviously disregarding the opinion of one doctor. So you say it's only ONE doctor. If it was your own relative's future at stake, would you say, "Well, only 1 out of the 5 suggested we do something. It's not going to matter whether we follow that 1 doctor's advice or not." As a relative, wouldn't you hate the idea that if something were to actually happen, you could regret having "not done everything you could've done to understand the situation"?

Is it just a matter of giving Paxson too much or too little credit by way of how much he cares for Eddy's well-being? And I'll say it again, is that something that you've already taken a stance with as a result of a biased stance on Paxson's motives in dealing with Eddy Curry? I'm just throwing some questions out there. I don't want to make you feel like you have to keep defending yourself (since you've already done a lot of that recently). These are just the questions that I and others wonder about as we read your posts. And you've explained yourself plenty, so no need to respond.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Ron Cey said:


> You've got to be kidding. You said its a "fact" that the Bulls weren't demanding a DNA test for a contract based on their hollow approval to allow him to "resume activity" per Cannom's instructions.
> 
> You can't know that. You can't say its a fact. But you do anyway because it furthers what you've been preaching for who knows how long.


"We're going to follow Dr. Cannom's guidelines . . . "

That's a fact I do know. That statement alone makes the insistence on a DNA test disingenuous, contract or no contract, CBA or no CBA. 



> Curry's camp certainly hasn't cried foul, even though the gloves are off.


How a sentient person could make this statement is beyond explanation. Curry's camp hasn't cried foul about the DNA test? Wow. 



> If it happened, it will come out.


This is the entire basis of my theory that the ultimatum wasn't offered until recently. But I'll hold out hope that this is all recapped neatly one of these days.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



> Well, looks like you position has changed considering when I said this was illegal a week or two ago, you said it wasn't, right?


You are going to have to explain this a little bit more for me. I wrote a detailed analysis recently addressing the CBA, ScottMay's helpful citation to Illinois' Genetic Information Privacy Act, and the ADA and came to the conclusion that it was a "can or worms" with no clear answers.

The language of the CBA clearly supports the Bulls position. But there are other, novel considerations that might apply. I don't know what you said was "illegal" because I don't remember. But I suspect it preceded the excruciately detailed discussion had more recently on this board.



> It will be good for a laugh for me when Bulls lose in arbitration.


Yeah, that'll be hilarious. What fun! Will it be equally funny if Curry loses? Because, honestly, I won't find either result to be very entertaining. 



> Your definition of "replacable" is a huge stretch IMHO. Clearly, by MikeDC's and Scott May's posts, I am not alone. The whole window of opportunity with the cap space is next summer. Curious, as a Paxson apostole, is Paxson a failure *if he doesn't land a big man to replace Curry* by the end of next summer?


You mean if "he doesn't assemble a collective team that is equal or superior to what he would have assembled with Curry and without the additional capspace and roster spot Curry's absence affords"? 

Yes, any GM (that is not tearing down and rebuilding a team, which the Bulls are now past) who shuns one option and elects another that harms the success of the team gets a failing mark as to that move.

The problem I see here is that you will look at the acquired big, say Harrington, and then say "Harrington isn't as good as Curry, Paxson failed". But ALL additions that could not have been effectuated WITH Curry must be considered and then the *team's* success or failure rate must be evaluated. GM's build teams.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



johnston797 said:


> Well, looks like you position has changed considering when I said this was illegal a week or two ago, you said it wasn't, right? It will be good for a laugh for me when Bulls lose in arbitration.
> 
> 
> 
> Your definition of "replacable" is a huge stretch IMHO. Clearly, by MikeDC's and Scott May's posts, I am not alone. The whole window of opportunity with the cap space is next summer. Curious, as a Paxson apostole, is Paxson a failure if he doesn't land a big man to replace Curry by the end of next summer?


Apostle is reserved for people who have the initials JC.

Sycophant is a better term, IMO.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



ScottMay said:


> How a sentient person could make this statement is beyond explanation. Curry's camp hasn't cried foul about the DNA test? Wow.


The *timing* of the demand that the DNA test is a requirement to contract, Scott. Good grief, thats what we're talking about here. 

Yeah, I'm saying Curry's Camp is totally on board with the DNA test and they haven't compained a bit. You got me. I love John Paxson that much.  

You are saying it is recent as a matter of fact and you are condemning the Bulls for that supposed recency. If the team did just spring this on Curry as a requirement to contract, as you speculate, Curry's camp would be or will be crying foul about the *TIMING*. They aren't. Yet.

But why wait when you can spec-u-late?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



DaBullz said:


> Apostle is reserved for people who have the initials JC.
> 
> Sycophant is a better term, IMO.


Nice. Why don't you call me a troll again while you're at it? No sense in only insulting me once when you can go for two.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



Ron Cey said:


> Nice. Why don't you call me a troll again while you're at it? No sense in only insulting me once when you can go for two.


Who has the initials JC? (Hint: Jamal Crawford)


Get a sense of humor.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



DaBullz said:


> Who has the initials JC? (Hint: Jamal Crawford)
> 
> 
> Get a sense of humor.


I'm not going to get drawn into this with you. Get back on topic. I'm done with it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



HINrichPolice said:


> Are you saying that the DNA would in fact have a 0% improvement on understanding the situation?


No, but the improvement it would have on everyone's *understanding* of the situation would be very imperfect. More importantly, the test would, in fact, leave the *medical reality* of Eddy's situation virtually unchanged.

Eddy could "pass" the DNA test and get HCM tomorrow. He could "fail" the DNA test and not develop clinical HCM at any point during his life. The test practically begs as many questions as it answers. Curry's not having clinical HCM is all that matters -- in either case, he will require close monitoring for the rest of his career.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*“The facts are there was one incident at one (pregame warmup),” he said. “The Bulls sent Eddy to see the doctor in Minnesota. That doctor did not say Eddy had the disease. He said he could not rule it out. Dr. Cannom did rule it out. He said Eddy did not have that disease and is in no more danger than anyone else. That should have ended it. No one has ever said Eddy has this disease.”*

this quote from eddy's attorney, as reported in the daily herald on saturday seems disingenous to me. my opinion, don't sue me. yes, dr. cannom, after reviewing the results of the tests the other doctors *actually performed on eddy, but he himself did not,* cleared eddy to resume physical activity ie; working out, with guidelines provided by him that the bulls said they would follow, and that i am assuming mr. grover is following. i recall that eddy did not even meet with dr. cannom in person until after this clearance occured. 

i guess the question is, did dr. cannom, to the *complete satisfaction of the bulls* clear eddy to resume full court "all-out" nba basketball. if someone could provide that quote, it would be helpful, and would certainly back up the eddy side of the debate.

it has been pointed out numerous times (maybe even a million times) that eddy, being 22 would likely have passed the point of possibly developing HCM, as it usually presents itself in adolescence. however, this article (hey kids, you can google HCM too!) which was written by *Dr. Barry Maron* and published in Dec. 2004 seems to suggest that the condition can present itself well into adulthood.

science direct abstract 



> Screening families with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) presents a common clinical problem to practicing cardiologists, internists, and pediatricians. The traditional recommended strategy for screening relatives in most HCM families calls for such evaluations with echocardiography (and electrocardiogram [ECG]) on a 12- to 18-month basis, usually beginning at about age 12 years. If such tests show no evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy, i.e., without one or more segments of abnormally increased wall thickness by the time full growth and maturation is achieved (at the age of about 18 to 21 years), it has been customary practice to conclude that HCM is probably absent and reassure family members accordingly that further echocardiographic testing is unnecessary. *However, novel developments in the definition of the genetic causes of HCM have defined both substantial molecular diversity and heterogeneity of the disease expression including (in some relatives) incomplete phenotypic penetrance and delayed, late-onset left ventricular hypertrophy well into adulthood. These observations have unavoidably reshaped the customary practice of genetic counseling and established a new proposed paradigm for clinical family screening of HCM families.* Therefore, in the absence of genetic testing, strong consideration should be given to extending diagnostic serial echocardiography past adolescence and into mid-life for those family members with a normal echocardiogram and ECG. *Of note, recent developments in laboratory DNA-based diagnosis for HCM could potentially avoid the necessity for serial echocardiography in many such relatives.*



so i guess that is a contradiction? or is it a recent medical advancement into understanding the potential development of the disease? i say the latter. after all, medicine and the study of disease is not static. it is evolving all the time. 

the fact that eddy's mother did suffer a heart attack would be cause for concern in any case. HCM or corornary heart disease is not to be messed with. i think the bulls are erring on the extreme side of caution here, and rightfully so. as the king of sausage has pointed out (not quite a million times) there is the very valid issue of liability on their part. pax feels it would be negligent not to complete the clearance without all the diagnostic tools available to the bulls. it is his right.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally Posted by *HINrichPolice*
> 
> Are you saying that the DNA would in fact have a 0% improvement on understanding the situation?


Understanding the situation? No. Dealing with the situation? Yes.

If Curry took the test and tested positive, this would, help us understand that, at some point, Curry is more likely to get HCM, and thus we need to check him early and often for this problem.

However, I don't see that it tells us anything at all about how to deal with the situation. HCM typically develops, if it's going to, by now. Or it could develop, as it might have in the case of Wilt Chamberlain, much later in life. The test can't tell us when it might happen, or even if it will happen. 

In short, it's not the sort of thing you can point to and say "look, this guy shouldn't play ball again". Or even "he's likely to have his career cut short". I think the chance his career is cut short based on being predisposed to HCM is obviously higher than if he isn't predisposed to it, but I'm not sure by how much. Given that if he's not he still has an unknown heart condition, I don't think identifying the predisposition raises the risk all that much. maybe from 5% to 10% or something like that, but based on what I've read, its pretty small.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> *“The facts are there was one incident at one (pregame warmup),” he said. “The Bulls sent Eddy to see the doctor in Minnesota. That doctor did not say Eddy had the disease. He said he could not rule it out. Dr. Cannom did rule it out. He said Eddy did not have that disease and is in no more danger than anyone else. That should have ended it. No one has ever said Eddy has this disease.”*
> 
> this quote from eddy's attorney, as reported in the daily herald on saturday seems disingenous to me. my opinion, don't sue me. yes, dr. cannom, after reviewing the results of the tests the other doctors *actually performed on eddy, but he himself did not,* cleared eddy to resume physical activity ie; working out, with guidelines provided by him that the bulls said they would follow, and that i am assuming mr. grover is following. i recall that eddy did not even meet with dr. cannom in person until after this clearance occured.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure this article totally dovetails with Eddy's particular situation, though.

He's talking primarily about diagnosing teen athletes with HCM as opposed to athlete's heart or a temporary thickening that may accompany "normal" heart growth. And he's also talking about patients with a proven history of HCM in a first-degree relative.

Yeah, heart stuff is scary, and I don't think anyone has denied that HCM can manifest itself past the age range in which so many high school and college athletes die. But the DNA test -- assuming it is accurate to begin with -- won't tell us if or when a patient will even develop clinical symptoms, and there is a very, very scant history of 22-year-old + athletes dying from HCM. And Eddy will be submitted to "serial echocardiography" whether he takes the DNA test or not.

Edit: this was originally published in July 2003 (and made available on the Web 12/04. There definitely may have been further refinements in DNA testing between now and then, although the lab that processes Maron's tests still purports to spot pathogenic mutations in 55-70% of the tests it processes from patients with clinical HCM.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> [/size]
> 
> Understanding the situation? No. Dealing with the situation? Yes.
> 
> ...


Well, I'll try one more time to express my one original idea and contribution to this debate. 

Mike, you make the statement the test results will have 0 impact on dealing with the situation. Clinically, you are right. A doctor treating Eddy Curry has no additional tools at his disposal for treating Eddy after receiving the test results back compared to before (as we understand it).

But this ignores the role of the patient himself. If the patient doesn't acknowledge that there is a problem, then he is likely to engage in activities that put himself at risk, or to ignore treatment or other precautions which could help him. 

When one person close to me was diagnosed with a form of persistent (atrial) tachycardia, the doctor said very plainly to me, "the patient's best hope is because he has you, since you can understand the risks and take the condition seriously and will follow through faithfully on the treatments." I'm paraphrasing, as you might guess. The doctor's message was clear: We have good treatment for this condition. But without people committed to applying it, it doesn't do any good.

What concerns me, and I believe what concerns Paxson, is that there is no indication on Eddy's part (or really, even in Eddy's camp) that he should take what happened to him seriously. 

The test has value if it can convince Eddy that he is at risk, and needs to modify his behavior and expectations. He won't listen to Pax, because Pax is the guy holding the money. He won't trust him. 

And I guess that the people in Eddy's employ are more or less telling him what he wants to hear, taking advantage of the truly indeterminate value that the test has clinically, but also ignoring the impact not helping Eddy face up to the real risks might have in the future. I mean, it's their "job" to downplay the risks, as much as the Pax dislikers feel it's been his "job" to play up the risks (with Rove-like persistence). 

In class, bad test results can make students realize they should stop drinking so much and start paying attention (best case scenario). Or, they can convince them to find someone else who isn't going to push them so hard (worse, and all too often, most common case scenario). Eddy is in such a dilemma. 

I think Pax isn't backing off, because he cares about Eddy, maybe to the detriment of the team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> *“The facts are there was one incident at one (pregame warmup),” he said. “The Bulls sent Eddy to see the doctor in Minnesota. That doctor did not say Eddy had the disease. He said he could not rule it out. Dr. Cannom did rule it out. He said Eddy did not have that disease and is in no more danger than anyone else. That should have ended it. No one has ever said Eddy has this disease.”*
> 
> this quote from eddy's attorney, as reported in the daily herald on saturday seems disingenous to me. my opinion, don't sue me. yes, dr. cannom, after reviewing the results of the tests the other doctors *actually performed on eddy, but he himself did not,* cleared eddy to resume physical activity ie; working out, with guidelines provided by him that the bulls said they would follow, and that i am assuming mr. grover is following. i recall that eddy did not even meet with dr. cannom in person until after this clearance occured.


The part you bolded doesn't have any relevance. The performance of the test doesn't mean anything. Examining the results of the test means everything. What you're saying is that, if a guy gets an X-Ray, the guy who actually gave the X-Ray is more qualified than some other doctor to look at the results. That's not the case.



> it has been pointed out numerous times (maybe even a million times) that eddy, being 22 would likely have passed the point of possibly developing HCM, as it usually presents itself in adolescence. however, this article (hey kids, you can google HCM too!) which was written by *Dr. Barry Maron* and published in Dec. 2004 seems to suggest that the condition can present itself well into adulthood.
> 
> so i guess that is a contradiction? or is it a recent medical advancement into understanding the potential development of the disease? i say the latter. after all, medicine and the study of disease is not static. it is evolving all the time.


It's clear it can develop into adulthood, I think all that's been said is that it's much more likely to develop in adolescence.

Regarding the DNA test in lieu of the EKG, that appears to be one of those interesting sets of alternatives that doctors and insurers suggest to patients without a lot of regard to their effects.

On one hand, you can take an EKG every month, which becomes quite expensive.
On the other hand, you can take a DNA test once, and then be treated as if you have the disease if you show a predisposition. That means no athletics, no stressful work, potentially no sex.

Even for a normal person, such an approach can easily lead to dramatic reductions in quality of life. However, it's a much cheaper approach for insurers and a veritable litigation prophyllactic for doctors (since they can just tell the patient to never do anything worth doing again and the patient can't sue because they inevitably don't follow those orders).

In any practical terms it becomes a real nasty mess.



> the fact that eddy's mother did suffer a heart attack would be cause for concern in any case. HCM or corornary heart disease is not to be messed with. i think the bulls are erring on the extreme side of caution here, and rightfully so. as the king of sausage has pointed out (not quite a million times) there is the very valid issue of liability on their part. pax feels it would be negligent not to complete the clearance without all the diagnostic tools available to the bulls. it is his right.


Perhaps someone can explain this in more detail. Under what theory of liability could Curry or his family recover if the Bulls allow him to play without taking the DNA test and he dies or is incapacitated?

Is forcing the DNA test the only way to prevent such liability, or does it even provide more shield against it than other, less intrusive methods?

For example, what is the logic behind a DNA test vs. the Bulls asking for a memorandum of understanding in which both parties recite the Bulls desire for a DNA test, Curry's explicit refusal (on solid legal grounds) to provide it, and an explicit waiver of liability on those grounds?

Of course, it's possible Curry could refuse to waive liability here, but it seems to me this would put the ball in his court and absolve the Bulls of pretty much every dilemma they're facing.

Less importantly, it would pretty effectively shield them from criticism. I can't think of a single person here or anywhere who would say the Bulls should sign Curry if it appeared likely he would sue them in the event things went bad.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Well, I'll try one more time to express my one original idea and contribution to this debate.
> 
> Mike, you make the statement the test results will have 0 impact on dealing with the situation. Clinically, you are right. A doctor treating Eddy Curry has no additional tools at his disposal for treating Eddy after receiving the test results back compared to before (as we understand it).
> 
> ...


I see where you're going with this, and I think it's a completely valid point, but it doesn't really jibe to me with what we're actually seeing happen. 

First and foremost, if the Bulls were really willing to take a hit to watch out for Eddy's safety, they could easily do it by offering him a more favorable deal and then making the DNA test an issue only after a contract is signed. It sounded a couple weeks ago as if Leon Rose has submitted some offers that "shared the risk", though we can only speculate exactly what that means. But if the Bulls accepted that offer and got Curry signed, they would seem to hold a much more convincing moral high ground from which to ask for the DNA test.

Beyond that, as I wrote in my last post, I think there are some other ways the Bulls could go here, with respect to asking for a waiver, the effect of which seems to me to say "ok, we'll deal with you, but we want to make clear we think you're running an unnecessary risk, and we don't want to be held responsible if things go poorly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> The test has value if it can convince Eddy that he is at risk, and needs to *modify his behavior* and expectations.


How does Eddy need to modify his behavior, with or without the genetic predisposition to HCM? Have you read something that suggests HCM is preventable in people with the predisposition for it? I sure haven't.

The only modification Eddy is going to need to make -- with or without the DNA test -- is submitting to frequent echocardiograms. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I see where you're going with this, and I think it's a completely valid point, but it doesn't really jibe to me with what we're actually seeing happen.
> 
> First and foremost, if the Bulls were really willing to take a hit to watch out for Eddy's safety, they could easily do it by offering him a more favorable deal and then making the DNA test an issue only after a contract is signed. It sounded a couple weeks ago as if Leon Rose has submitted some offers that "shared the risk", though we can only speculate exactly what that means. But if the Bulls accepted that offer and got Curry signed, they would seem to hold a much more convincing moral high ground from which to ask for the DNA test.
> 
> Beyond that, as I wrote in my last post, I think there are some other ways the Bulls could go here, with respect to asking for a waiver, the effect of which seems to me to say "ok, we'll deal with you, but we want to make clear we think you're running an unnecessary risk, and we don't want to be held responsible if things go poorly.


But, to me, this is Pax's agony. (His words). I mean, Pax submitted offers, too, which obviously "share" the risk (as best we can tell). How far can he go and should he go to, first, show he cares for Eddy, and then, help Eddy face up to the reality of his condition. The bargaining process itself is a part of the "facing up", along with the process of looking for other offers, etc. It's an imperfect instrument, clearly. But it is one of the few out there.

I don't know. At the least, I think if you look at the sum of the events that are going on, it is a mistake to ignore the human element in the relationship between Pax and Eddy. Pax's motives are not pure self-interest, nor are Eddy's. 

But then all the know-it-all's and professionals jump in, and muck it all up


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> How does Eddy need to modify his behavior, with or without the genetic predisposition to HCM? Have you read something that suggests HCM is preventable in people with the predisposition for it? I sure haven't.
> 
> The only modification Eddy is going to need to make -- with or without the DNA test -- is submitting to frequent echocardiograms. Can you elaborate?


That is a modification of behavior. Seemingly simple, but strangely, not always acted upon, if the person at risk thinks it's no risk. 

I mean, even when the condition is far more risky to oneself and to others (and I won't go into details) simple behavior modification isn't always so straightforward. 

I am not a doctor, haven't done the research, so can't say beyond that what specific actions he should take. There was mention of an excercise program, etc. 

Other modifications often involve how they expect others will treat them. Eddy with an identifiable risk of HCM and a recorded case of V-Tach is going to be seen by others differently than Eddy with no such record or identified risk. And that can be frustrating. It requires understanding and accepting that reality, as much as someone who is missing a limb, or deformed, or has a tick, engaged in some criminal activity or whatever, must go through. In a perfect world, I suppose, all such things should be understood in terms of calculable relative risks. But identifiable risks or differences carry 10 x more weight.

Every indication we have seen tells me that Eddy wants others to see him as "well". And that will govern his expectations about the contract, about a lot of things. It's an understandable expectation and desire. But is it warranted or realistic? 

I'm suggesting that Paxson has a (perhaps overly paternalistic) desire to help Eddy see what those too close to him are not letting him see and deal with. And that desire happens to align with his desire (and his boss' desire) to see him accept a contract that acknowledges the true nature of that risk. It's a messy, and therefore agonizing situation for Pax, and frustrating situation for Eddy.

Fire away!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> The part you bolded doesn't have any relevance. The performance of the test doesn't mean anything. Examining the results of the test means everything. What you're saying is that, if a guy gets an X-Ray, the guy who actually gave the X-Ray is more qualified than some other doctor to look at the results. That's not the case.


in this case it's not a bunch of lab technicians we are talking about. heck, i could read an x-ray and say someone has a broken bone. but i digress. 

dr. cannom cleared eddy without even meeting him face to face. from the moment that was reported back in june it gave me pause, whether or not i actually articulated that here in a post, doesn't matter.

it still gives me pause.

why then, after all was apparently said and done, with the recommendations of the doctors who actually saw and tested eddy, to all the doctors who examined his test results, did eddy fail to get insurance coverage? from trustmark, the league carrier to the insurance firms that rose contacted. nobody wants to insure eddy because there is a higher than normal risk involved, no?

this continues to give me pause.

and i do hope that eddy continues to have regular heart monitoring done, though we haven't heard anything about him or his actual physical condition all summer save for the one story written back in july when eddy resumed his workouts and declared himself "feeling fine". from the quotes by the attorney over the weekend, it seemed to me to be very dismissive of the first incident in the first place that landed eddy in the hospital for over a week. but then again, he probably wasn't retained at that point.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> That is a modification of behavior. Seemingly simple, but strangely, not always acted upon, if the person at risk thinks it's no risk.
> 
> I mean, even when the condition is far more risky to oneself and to others (and I won't go into details) simple behavior modification isn't always so straightforward.
> 
> ...


No matter how anyone tries to approach this issue -- philosophically, legally, commercially, psychologically -- to me, the bedrock of it all is the medical specifics.

Knowing what I think I know about the way medicine works, and given the very high caliber of doctors who've examined him, I believe it is impossible that Curry hasn't been given a lot of extremely accurate information about his condition. This information would have been presented by the doctors themselves directly to Curry, not intermediaries, and the doctors would have taken great pains to explain their diagnoses in real-world language that Curry could understand. So Curry has heard directly from Maron why Maron wants him to take the DNA test, Curry has heard directly from Cannom as to why Cannom feels the DNA test is superfluous, etc. 

If Paxson's fear is that Curry hasn't been given good medical advice, I don't think that's a logical fear. World-class, well-respected doctors, including the first specialist the Bulls sent him see, have told Eddy that there is no risk in his continuing to play NBA basketball. Paxson surely knows that much.

If Paxson thinks Eddy's too stupid to understand what's happening to him (as the word paternalistic implies), then that's another issue entirely, but it wouldn't change the doctors' diagnoses, nor is the "behavior modification" in this instance something that would be unduly difficult to enforce. Eddy would be under the direct medical supervision of the Bulls for 9-10 months out of the year, and something could be added to his contract about getting an echocardiogram or two during the offseason.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> in this case it's not a bunch of lab technicians we are talking about. heck, i could read an x-ray and say someone has a broken bone. but i digress.
> 
> dr. cannom cleared eddy without even meeting him face to face. from the moment that was reported back in june it gave me pause, whether or not i actually articulated that here in a post, doesn't matter.
> 
> it still gives me pause.


OK, let's try this a bit differently. What medical information would a doctor gather by seeing Eddy in person that he wouldn't get by looking at test results?

Also, Dr. Cannom did meet Eddy face to face, didn't he? Didn't we have the whole big deal about Pax insisting that Eddy fly out there and meet him? And IIRC, Eddy did.



> why then, after all was apparently said and done, with the recommendations of the doctors who actually saw and tested eddy, to all the doctors who examined his test results, did eddy fail to get insurance coverage? from trustmark, the league carrier to the insurance firms that rose contacted. nobody wants to insure eddy because there is a higher than normal risk involved, no?


Err, yeah, I think we've been through that discussion a few times. At issue though, is whether the DNA test does anything. If he tests positive, he likely never gets insurance no matter whether he ever gets HCM. If he tests negative, he's still a higher than normal risk due to his demonstrated history of unspecified ventricular arrhythmia.

Apparently Trustmark can simply refuse X number of conditions as part of its contract with the league. It's quite possible - especially if, as it appears - Trustmark has some sort of standard deal negotiated with the league, that they can't negotiate premiums. Thus, the only way they can minimize risk is to use their exclusions as much as possible. With Curry having an indeterminant condition either with or without the DNA test, I have a hard time seeing him get insured by Trustmark.

Other insurers might offer him insurance, but the cost could quickly become prohibitive.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



futuristxen said:


> If the Bulls refuse to play Eddy when Eddy has been cleared by other doctors, pending a DNA test, then they will go to arbitration, and most likely be forced to renounce his rights, ala Wesley Person and the Heat last year. You can't put a healthy player on the bench, and that is what Eddy is right now until someone offers a diagnosis to the contrary. Maron may not have cleared Eddy, but he certainly hasn't diagnosed Eddy with anything either. So why is he sitting? Because the Bulls doctor knows nothing?


You can sit a player on the IL if they haven't passed their physical

To pass a physical there is an open ended generality of a number of tests that the team can direct you to take at their discretion 

Are these tests "reasonable" given the medical history of the player is the question that will be decided at arbitration

I also expect it to come out that Camp Curry were offered the opportuntities of liability waiver which were refused , which to an extent , forced the team's hand

Curry is being badly advised ..the odds are against him if he goes to arbitration 

He will sit and refuse to have the test but the Bulls will be under no obligation to release him under Johnston's incorrectly referenced Wesley Person case. Totally different circumstances.

Eddy is well within his rights to refuse the test 

The Bulls are well within their rights to ask for it in the connectivity to the medical history of the player ( don't start Scott ..I'm talking about a medical directive that he have the test taken given by one of the Bulls consulting specilaists )

Both parties have their rights 

Eddy will sit 

The Bulls won't play him 

We don't need to go through all of the BS for that when there is no a better course of action to take for EVERYBODY"S sake

Its different now ..irretrievable IMO

The best thing to do for everybody is to have him go 

1. Go in a sign and trade .. even if it is for Mike Sweetney and a late 1st round pick

or

2. 

Give him the QO then release him .. a nice $5M going away present to salvage some goodwill when you come out and give your view that it is hugely unfortunate that Eddy has had some question marks ..but we can't get covered to the degree that we would like in addressing our risk and therefore we have to part company but God Speed Eddy and we wish you the best

Accept the zero sum game that this legal quagmire has turned this into..turn your back on an unwinnable and irretrievable situation and walk away 

And its not skirting the big issues and being gutless.. its about let someone else be the guinea pig and the strong propensity for a bunch if issues of a singular player screwing this team further (unnecessarily )

Eddy Curry was never the lynchpin of this team..let's not make him one know where everyone else gets dragged down by this 

If it is a crappy S and T with a low first round draft pick or a an outright release with the QO as a bon voyage present...just walk away

Now.

Pax, I think seems wound up to go through the process of all this - and for that ( if he does ) I think he's a bloody fool


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> If Paxson thinks Eddy's too stupid to understand what's happening to him *(as the word paternalistic implies)*, then that's another issue entirely, but it wouldn't change the doctors' diagnoses, nor is the "behavior modification" in this instance something that would be unduly difficult to enforce. Eddy would be under the direct medical supervision of the Bulls for 9-10 months out of the year, and something could be added to his contract about getting an echocardiogram or two during the offseason.


Paternalistic doesn't imply stupidity, it implies immaturity. There's a difference you know. Some very intelligent people are also immature, and even, sometimes foolish in the choices they make, even if they have all the information. Consider "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev.

Anyway, I don't quite think you got my point. Probably my fault. But I appreciate the measured response. Not to mention the well-informed discussions about the medical specifics. Thanks, and I think we'll get a lot better picture of what has really happened in no time at all.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Paternalistic doesn't imply stupidity, it implies immaturity. There's a difference you know. Some very intelligent people are also immature, and even, sometimes foolish in the choices they make, even if they have all the information. Consider "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev.
> 
> Anyway, I don't quite think you got my point. Probably my fault. But I appreciate the measured response. Not to mention the well-informed discussions about the medical specifics. Thanks, and I think we'll get a lot better picture of what has really happened in no time at all.


I'd be happy to think that it was your fault that I didn't get your point, but I'd be happier if you'd explain the point again, or show me where you believe my understanding is lacking.

I don't see Paxson as protecting Curry from sinister outside forces, and all outward appearances are that Curry is more than willing to have his contract reflect any added risk, real or imaginary, his condition presents to himself and the team. The Rose counterproposal that let insurance be the judge of whether or not Curry's contract was fully guaranteed was a stroke of genius, imo.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> Now.
> 
> Pax, I think seems wound up to go through the process of all this - and for that ( if he does ) I think he's a bloody fool


So, then, what wound him up, if you are right about this? Interesting speculation and analysis, FJMHSKOC

I don't know. Pax has a way of pushing things to the limit, and then letting them break and see how the cookie crumbles. I keep thinking back to Skiles' negotiations. It was way, way beyond the point of no return. Glass even said so. :sfight: Then, boom, it's alright. :cheers: 

At the time, we wondered is this the way it will be for all the negotiations? There does seem to be some history now. I just have a feeling that things will break in a way a lot more favorably then we could imagine, and fast.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I've tended to avoid this subject, and I know I can not shed any light on the medical issues. I tend, however, to share Pax's view on the subject based on limiting liability. 

Heart subject aside, I'm not sure that signing Big Ed to the QO isn't EXACTLY what we should do, knowing that we will allow him to go elsewhere next year. What are the benefits?

*1* Low risk. If Ed's heart isn't what it needs to be, your financial risk is negligable.

*2* Contrary to what some people express, losing Ed next season gives us a lot of cap to use to get someone else in here next year. Ultimately, we NEED Big Ed this year -- we have no one else in the post. If we know he's not coming back, though, we explore all low post options for next year.

*3* Ed has always had initiative issues. Some still make him out to be the next Shaq, but there are at least 10 big men I'd rather have as a low post threat/rebounder/defender. Othella seemed to be just as effective, and he is no better than a journeyman big. If we are going to have to pay MAX dollars for the services of Mr. Curry -- heart trouble or no, then we will be paying too much.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'd be happy to think that it was your fault that I didn't get your point, but I'd be happier if you'd explain the point again, or show me where you believe my understanding is lacking.
> 
> I don't see Paxson as protecting Curry from *sinister outside forces*, and all outward appearances are that Curry is more than willing to have his contract reflect any added risk, real or imaginary, his condition presents to himself and the team. The Rose counterproposal that let insurance be the judge of whether or not Curry's contract was fully guaranteed was a stroke of genius, imo.


Nothing sinister about this. That's my point.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Good Hope said:


> So, then, what wound him up, if you are right about this? Interesting speculation and analysis, FJMHSKOC
> 
> I don't know. Pax has a way of pushing things to the limit, and then letting them break and see how the cookie crumbles. I keep thinking back to Skiles' negotiations. It was way, way beyond the point of no return. Glass even said so. :sfight: Then, boom, it's alright. :cheers:
> 
> At the time, we wondered is this the way it will be for all the negotiations? There does seem to be some history now. I just have a feeling that things will break in a way a lot more favorably then we could imagine, and fast.



I agree GoodHope

But the Glass-Skiles v Bulls negotiations were just sooky boys who were picking up their ball and bat and going home because they didn't get what they want 

The Skiles negotiations did not have the capacity for "watershed /pro sports precedent setting " where you can end up losing a lot more even if you win 

No. I'm not being a drama queen about it but I am convinced its over for both parties 

Rather than it turn into a War of the Roses thing but parties can still salvage something for themselves in the bigger picture if they agree to part company now

A crappy sign and trade with a Western Conference team like the Lakers would be the best result if their reported interest is still real


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Good Hope said:


> So, then, what wound him up, if you are right about this? Interesting speculation and analysis, FJMHSKOC.


Because one of the man's prime drivers is principle 

And he is no quick fix merchant 

He has proven he is prepared to go backwards and sacrifice short term goals for the bigger picture which is based on "right way" and "principle"

The man is the Dudley Do Right of GM's

That's fine 

But sometimes... ever so occasionally this can get in the way of the "right thing" to be done 

Right thing, IMO , being completely and totally defined in a commercial sense 

Sometimes the overt principled where there is nothing to be won or lost ( except for the irrelevance of your "positioning" ) is not what the commercial dictates call for


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> Because one of the man's prime drivers is principle
> 
> And he is no quick fix merchant
> 
> ...


Well, your manner of expression doesn't match mine...but I think I would agree that this is a possibility. However, I'll stick with my feeling about things changing in the blink of an eye. :smile:


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

This whole process is so depressing. I think at this point, barring some 11th hour miracle, we're going to end up dealing Eddy for way less than his real value. I know we've grown accustomed to late season scoring binges from Eddy, but I really felt this past year he was developing a more complete game near the end of the season. Say what you will about his defense and rebounding (and I'm of the mind that his defense really wasn't that bad at all), he consistently drew double teams and created space for our midget back court to get off shots. In turn he was surrounded by fiery types who got the best out of him. It's hard to get lazy around guys like AD, Skiles, Nocc, Tyson etc...

I don't know what we're going to get in a deal for him. We won't get a true center and we already have 5 power forwards. 

(and one more decidedly non jibby observation - you know you'll miss the backdoor spin move Kirk-Eddy alley oops)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Mikedc said:


> Also, Dr. Cannom did meet Eddy face to face, didn't he? Didn't we have the whole big deal about Pax insisting that Eddy fly out there and meet him? And IIRC, Eddy did.


I really would like to re-read that article again. My understanding at the time was that this was the last step for Pax to clear Curry.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Ron Cey said:


> Although I don't quite agree with that last sentence, Paxson's most recent quotes have made it obvious to me that he is regurgitating what the team's lawyers are telling him to say. This has become, without question, a liability driven issue.
> 
> I still believe that in Paxson's mind this is all justifiable as in Eddy's best interests, but from the team's perspective this smells like legal CYA. And, under these groundbreaking circumstances, there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I think at this point both sides are simply doing what they feel they need to do to protect there interests. I can't interpret the severity and polarity of their respective positions any other way. If this were purely a negotiating ploy on the part of the Bulls, the all or nothing stance is nonsensical.


I thought this was interesting the other day and I was wondering if you could elaborate.

Under what theory of liability could Curry or his family recover if the Bulls allow him to play without taking the DNA test and he dies or is incapacitated?

Is forcing the DNA test the only way to prevent such liability, or does it even provide more shield against it than other, less intrusive methods?

For example, what is the logic behind a DNA test vs. the Bulls asking for a memorandum of understanding in which both parties recite the Bulls desire for a DNA test, Curry's explicit refusal (on solid legal grounds) to provide it, and an explicit waiver of liability on those grounds?

Of course, it's possible Curry could refuse to waive liability here, but it seems to me this would put the ball in his court and absolve the Bulls of pretty much every legal dilemma they're facing.

Less importantly, it would pretty effectively shield them from criticism. I can't think of a single person here or anywhere who would say the Bulls should sign Curry if it appeared likely he would sue them in the event things went bad.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Mikedc said:


> Is forcing the DNA test the only way to prevent such liability, or does it even provide more shield against it than other, less intrusive methods?
> 
> For example, what is the logic behind a DNA test vs. the Bulls asking for a memorandum of understanding in which both parties recite the Bulls desire for a DNA test, Curry's explicit refusal (on solid legal grounds) to provide it, and an explicit waiver of liability on those grounds?


Actually, IMHO, a waiver would protect them much, much more than they would be if they force Curry to undergo any special testing and them let him play.

The waiver would state that Curry is relying on his own doctors. Alternatively, the Bulls' additional testing would create a situation where the Bulls are the one's certifying Curry's health. 

Seems clear to this layman which could be more damaging in court.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*

If a waiver is so simple, why hasn't it been done? Perhaps Curry's camp won't do such a thing? Ah, but then that would place some fault for this process in Curry's Kamp, and we can't have that, eh?

I think both sides want this to go to arbitration. That's where you'll get your binding, legal position. If the arbitrator states Curry doesn't have to take the test, I would think that ruling would be sufficient to cover the Bulls on the QO. I don't believe a waiver would do much and I highly doubt Curry's Kamp would sign it anyway. An arbitrators ruling would be far better than any waiver, IMO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



fl_flash said:


> If a waiver is so simple, why hasn't it been done? Perhaps Curry's camp won't do such a thing? Ah, but then that would place some fault for this process in Curry's Kamp, and we can't have that, eh?


Err... pretty clearly I think we can, or I wouldn't have said "I can't think of a single person here or anywhere who would say the Bulls should sign Curry if it appeared likely he would sue them in the event things went bad."

The entire point was that the Bulls would be better off going down that road and putting the ball in his court rather than embarking on the whole DNA test boondoggle they chose.

But hey, I understand that actually being arsed to read the post would take away from your ability to make snide remarks


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



Mikedc said:


> Err... pretty clearly I think we can, or I wouldn't have said "I can't think of a single person here or anywhere who would say the Bulls should sign Curry if it appeared likely he would sue them in the event things went bad."
> 
> The entire point was that the Bulls would be better off going down that road and putting the ball in his court rather than embarking on the whole DNA test boondoggle they chose.
> 
> But hey, I understand that actually being arsed to read the post would take away from your ability to make snide remarks


Touchy, touchy! I was responding to Johnston's post - not yours. I wouldn't want to infringe on your cornering of the market on snide comments. I'll leave that to you and your cohorts.

My position is that Pax should just give this all up. No good will come of it. Sign Curry to the QO, trade him or whatever, but this whole DNA testing thing is nothing but a pandora's box. I still think they want this arbitrated and will abide by whatever ruling comes out of it. To me, that's the ultimate way they cover their asses on this one, but whatever.

As for this:


> "I can't think of a single person here or anywhere who would say the Bulls should sign Curry if it appeared likely he would sue them in the event things went bad."


I don't even know how to approach your group anymore. C'mon. Enter the real world for a second. In the event that Curry should happen to drop dead from playing basketball, do you honestly think that Mama Curry is just going to say "Oh well... that's life" and move on? I just don't understand you. You're advoacting that Curry doesn't need to take the test and the Bulls should sign him to the QO. You're the one bleating that the Bulls forcing Curry to take this damn DNA test is wrong. Yet, it's one of the few ways the Bulls can absolve themselves of liability. Finally, how do you know that the Bulls haven't approached Curry's Camp regarding a waiver or some other form of liability release? I would tend to think they have; Curry refused (within his right to do so) and so Pax was left with little other choice but to force the issue to arbitration. Isnt' that possible?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



fl_flash said:


> Yet, [the DNA test is ]one of the few ways the Bulls can absolve themselves of liability.


This hasn't been conclusively proven at all.

Given the high false negative rate that Cannom alluded to in the Trib article today -- screening identifies pathogenic mutation in as little as 55-70% of patients who already have clinical HCM -- I could actually see a *passed* DNA test as possibly representing the worst-case scenario for the Bulls in terms of liability.

Let's say the Bulls force Eddy to take the test. He passes. The team physicians decide it's okay to scale back Eddy's monitoring. The DNA test missed Eddy's genetic predisposition to HCM. He develops clinical manifestations of the disease and . . . 

That settlement would make whatever Northwestern's giving to the estate of Rashidi Wheeler look like the dish of change I keep on top of my dresser.

This brings up a related question I wanted to add on to Mike's post for Ron Cey -- I can see how asking for the test is a good CYA move by the Bulls, but doesn't it matter that the test they're asking him to take is so imprecise?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



fl_flash said:


> I don't even know how to approach your group anymore.


Err... maybe by not lumping everyone together in a group for starters.



> C'mon. Enter the real world for a second. In the event that Curry should happen to drop dead from playing basketball, do you honestly think that Mama Curry is just going to say "Oh well... that's life" and move on? I just don't understand you. You're advoacting that Curry doesn't need to take the test and the Bulls should sign him to the QO. You're the one bleating that the Bulls forcing Curry to take this damn DNA test is wrong. Yet, it's one of the few ways the Bulls can absolve themselves of liability.


There are right ways and wrong ways to do things. Accomplishing a goal by an invasion of privacy that can be accomplished with a consensual agreement strikes me as a wrong way of doing things.




> Finally, how do you know that the Bulls haven't approached Curry's Camp regarding a waiver or some other form of liability release? I would tend to think they have; Curry refused (within his right to do so) and so Pax was left with little other choice but to force the issue to arbitration. Isnt' that possible?


Of course it's possible. But it appears highly unlikely, because it would be a much safer stance for the Bulls to simply try and publicly force the issue on the waiver rather than to publicly force the issue of the DNA test, which as you've said, is a veritable Pandora's box. Asking for a waiver is simple and straight forward, and puts the onus on "doing the right thing" squarely on Eddy.

It's really simple. Fighting to invade Curry's privacy and force a DNA test is "the wrong way". Either saying nothing and doing it or at least publiclly arguing for a guy to do the "right" thing is "the right way".


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



ScottMay said:


> This hasn't been conclusively proven at all.
> 
> Given the high false negative rate that Cannom alluded to in the Trib article today -- screening identifies pathogenic mutation in as little as 55-70% of patients who already have clinical HCM -- I could actually see a *passed* DNA test as possibly representing the worst-case scenario for the Bulls in terms of liability.
> 
> ...



I'm not talking about the validity of the test itself. I think there is universal agreement that all the test can accomplish is whether Eddy has the potential to develope HCM. Even Pax said as much in that radio interview a while back. And even the results of the test are sketchy at best. No beef there from me.

I'm just looking at this from a strictly liability standpoint. Curry has some docs who have said he's A-OK. Great. Good for him. There is one doc, Maron, who wants this test. The other docs say the test is not necessary. Maron is an expert in the field, as are the docs who cleared Eddy. If the Bulls were to sign Eddy without heeding the advice of one of their experts and something unfortunate should happen to Eddy; then, Uncle Jerry might as well bend over and just hand the Curry Estate a blank check because the Bulls didn't excercise due dillegence in clearing him. I don't think it will matter if Curry refused the test, that's not a defense from the Bulls standpoint. If he refuses the test, the Bulls should not play him. Again, I'm only looking at this from a liability standpoint of the Bulls.

That's the only reason I can envision why the Bulls are pushing so hard for this test. I can't see any other reason why Pax and the Bulls would want to force this issue. They WANT this to go to arbitration. That way whatever the arbitrator decides is binding. I'd guess that they (the Bulls) want to lose too. To me that would be an almost iron-clad position that after that, if something unfortunate should happen to Curry, the Bulls can cite the arbitrators ruling and state that they exercised their due dillegence and the arbitrator overruled their wishes.

As for your final question there - no - the test doesn't matter. As far as I can tell the only thing that matters, from a liability standpoint, is that the test has been requested by an expert in the field. I've got to believe that if Maron had never stipulated for the test, Eddy would be a Bull for at least the next three years, or he'd have gotten a decent offer somewhere.

That's it. If you or anyone else can come up with some other reasoning as to why the Bulls are pushing this, at this time in the game, I'd love to hear it. It makes no sense to me other than as a major CYA by the Bulls. One in which they really have no other choice because of Curry's refusal to take the test (his right) and I can only assume becuase Curry's Camp won't relinquish responsibility in this matter.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*

8 pages and still no response to my post... so I'll try it again.

* Pax wants Curry to "take" the DNA test. He never said Curry has to actually "pass" the test. 

* Dr. Maron has never said he would clear Eddy one way or another based purely on this one test. He specifically said he wanted to take the results of the DNA test and COMBINE that info with all the other numerous tests Eddy has taken so far. 

* Dr. Maron could still "clear" Eddy to play even with an inconclusive or poor DNA result. 

* IMHO, I think Pax would allow Curry to play this year for the QO no matter the results of the test, just as long as the test is taken.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



SALO said:


> 8 pages and still no response to my post... so I'll try it again.
> 
> * Pax wants Curry to "take" the DNA test. He never said Curry has to actually "pass" the test.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. Too many threads.

other curry thread


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



SALO said:


> 8 pages and still no response to my post... so I'll try it again.
> 
> * Pax wants Curry to "take" the DNA test. He never said Curry has to actually "pass" the test.
> 
> ...


Good questions. It's all speculation, however.... We just don't have that much information. Each one could be swung around. Example:

* Pax wants Curry to "take" the DNA test. *He never said Curry could play if he "failed" the test. *

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

Bottom line IMHO: If Pax only wants Curry to have he information, why doesn't he offer that as an option?

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

A different way of looking at it - If Curry has decided he is going to play given his heart is healthy, how does taking the test help?

Still no insurance. Still no completely guarenteed $60M contract.

He is running full-court. If he feels normal (and why wouldn't he?), why not just play the year out, have a nice year, and go get that $60M guarenteed.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next year*



johnston797 said:


> Bottom line IMHO: If Pax only wants Curry to have he information, why doesn't he offer that as an option?


Curry having the information for himself is only one of the reasons. IMO the main reason is this, from the Suntimes...



> Paxson believes letting Curry play without the test would be *negligent*.
> 
> ''The bottom line is *if* Eddy had not had any incident and *a doctor hadn't suggested it*, *we wouldn't be asking for it*.''





johnston797 said:


> A different way of looking at it - If Curry has decided he is going to play given his heart is healthy, how does taking the test help?


Because if he takes the test and passes, Pax would allow him to play, no more questions asked. If he takes the test and "fails" he can argue that the test isn't 100% accurate anyway. Again, even if the results were poor, I still think Pax would let him play anyway... because at that point Pax would feel he did everything that *all* of the doctors suggested to him.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



ScottMay said:


> This hasn't been conclusively proven at all.
> 
> Given the high false negative rate that Cannom alluded to in the Trib article today -- screening identifies pathogenic mutation in as little as 55-70% of patients who already have clinical HCM -- I could actually see a *passed* DNA test as possibly representing the worst-case scenario for the Bulls in terms of liability.
> 
> ...



I disagree. If Curry passes the DNA test and then he develops the disease, it is the hospital that administers the test and the doctor (or more precisely their insurance company) who will likely have to pay up, assuming the Bulls can show they did all they could to determine his true medical condition.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



jnrjr79 said:


> I disagree. If Curry passes the DNA test and then he develops the disease, it is the hospital that administers the test and the doctor (or more precisely their insurance company) who will likely have to pay up, assuming the Bulls can show they did all they could to determine his true medical condition.


But the people who administer the test are very upfront about the fact that even under perfect conditions, they are wrong 3 times out of 10, and under a worst-case scenario, they get it wrong 45% of the time. And this is in people who have clinical signs of the disease (they don't offer odds for people who don't have clinical disease, presumably because they never take the test, but it stands to reason that the detection rate is either the same or worse).

With that sort of transparent admission that the test is hardly precise, I can't imagine the lab or hospital itself being liable, but rather the entities that presume their results to be ironclad. I think this one would end up in the Bulls' lap.

(This is probably all academic anyway -- test or no test, good result or bad result, Curry's going to get lots of echocardiograms over the remainder of his playing days).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



ScottMay said:


> But the people who administer the test are very upfront about the fact that even under perfect conditions, they are wrong 3 times out of 10, and under a worst-case scenario, they get it wrong 45% of the time. And this is in people who have clinical signs of the disease (they don't offer odds for people who don't have clinical disease, presumably because they never take the test, but it stands to reason that the detection rate is either the same or worse).
> 
> With that sort of transparent admission that the test is hardly precise, I can't imagine the lab or hospital itself being liable, but rather the entities that presume their results to be ironclad. I think this one would end up in the Bulls' lap.
> 
> (This is probably all academic anyway -- test or no test, good result or bad result, Curry's going to get lots of echocardiograms over the remainder of his playing days).



Yeah, I agree that Curry will likely be carefully monitored and therefore this is all mostly moot.

Sure, if a hospital gives you that kind of a disclaimer, then a clearance based on that test would be essentially meaningless. 

I still don't see though that getting the test would make the Bulls _more_ likely to be held liable. The only way is if it would have been negligent to rely on the test to the point that they never should have let Eddy play regardless of the outcome of the test. If that's where you think it's at, then Eddy's career logically should be over now no matter what.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*

Why not just take the test?

ScottMay and plenty of others are smart enough to figure out that even a "yes, Eddy has a genetic disposition to HCM" test result means very little, surely there are a few GMs in the league who have also figured it out? Wouldn't one of them jump at the chance to steal Eddy away from the misinformed Pax, no matter what the test says?

While I have truly enjoyed all the banter this summer as much as I thought I would, I'm also very, very happy that we are only ~72 hours away from the Eddy contract thing being over (for now)- after that, Eddy has either signed the QO or he has signed an extension with the Bulls (who may trade him as a condition of his signing the deal).


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

Scruples question for you:

If you are sitting Eddy for Eddy's benefit, can you sign-and-trade him to another team that will immediately play him and still have a clean conscience(sp?)?

Another thing I haven't figured out:

Can someone answer me exactly what question or questions arbitration would be deciding? Is it
A) can the Bulls sit Eddy (without DNA test) after he's signed?
B) can the Bulls sign Eddy to a new contract that requires a DNA test?
C) something else?

I'm so confused...


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Cyanobacteria said:


> Scruples question for you:
> 
> If you are sitting Eddy for Eddy's benefit, can you sign-and-trade him to another team that will immediately play him and still have a clean conscience(sp?)?


Yes..if that other team does not require a medical tests that may require a DNA Test in order for him to pass his physical 



> Can someone answer me exactly what question or questions arbitration would be deciding? Is it
> A) can the Bulls sit Eddy (without DNA test) after he's signed?


I believe they can but only upon the deeming of "reasonability" in the tests they require him to take to clear his physical givem his medical history 

For example it it would likely be deemed unreasonable for the Doc to white glove Eddy's arse and have a grope under the guise of a rectal exam



> B) can the Bulls sign Eddy to a new contract that requires a DNA test?


Absolutely not . They can sign him to a contract and then sit him until they can have the tests done to satisfy themselves..this is one of the principal issues that will be arbitrated 

The fundamental question is whether it is "reasonable" given the medical history for the Bulls not to play him until he has a test . Has nothing to do with him signing a contract however

The thing is if Eddy sits for the year on the QO and doesn't play , in theory , it would be interesting to see if he could prove damage as to his future earning potential caused by the Bulls 

But in the absence of a market ( which he never really had or at least one that wasn't properly determined ) good luck with proving loss 

I keep saying.. the right thing to do right now ( commercially and morally ) is for everybody is walk away from each other


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Trib: "The bottom line is that Eddy Curry will be playing for someone else next y*



bullsville said:


> Why not just take the test?


Why take the test? It sets a dangerous precedent, he doesn't have to take it, and it will prove nothing. The Bulls cannot require him to take the test, or that is what will be decided soon I guess in court.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

Regardless of the answers to my questions A and B, I was actually wondering what exactly is being arbitrated. Is it the sitting of Eddy without the test, or the requirement of a test pre-signing, or the inclusion of a DNA test in the contract?

As for the scruples question:
To my way of thinking, if you send Eddy somewhere else knowing he'll play there, then you weren't actually keeping Eddy off the court for his benefit. You were keeping him off the court to cover yourself (which unfortunately you have to do in this day and age). If you try to keep him off any court, you look like a schmo, especially if he isn't under contract and you have no sayso in the matter anyway. Therin Pax is a schmo, even though I don't fault him entirely (just enough to make him a schmo, even though I like him as a GM).

OT: I traveled to New Zealand in November and they were in the midst of their country's first giant class-action, take down the tobacco (or some otherwise 'big') establishment, fight-the-power-type lawsuit there. We stayed in a Bed & Breakfast there and told our hosts about the coffee-spiller over McDonalds victory here and how you can't have really hot coffee in the US anymore and that there's warnings all over your cup of luke-warm coffee. They were horrified because they love a hot cup o' tea.


----------

