# The Official Eddy Curry Update Thread



## SecretAgentGuy

Just wanted to save people the time. 

"Pax is so dumb!"
"Eddy's gonna show us!"
"Now who's going to score for us?"

Please add more as you see fit.


----------



## nanokooshball

Curry and his boo Jamal are going to be shown up the bulls again by madison square gordon...

last play... gordon crosses over J craw.. uh oh curry is in the middle defending the paint... wait his eye catches the glint of a glint of a glazed doughnut... curry turns away from gordon.... gordon then goes in for the dunk!!!!!!!!!

BULLS WIN
BULLS WIN


----------



## SDBullsFan

Eddy Curry's career is over.

Larry Brown's will be as well at the conclusion of this coming season.


----------



## futuristxen

SDBullsFan said:


> Larry Brown's will be as well at the conclusion of this coming season.


I hope so. I despise that man. I hope Crawford and Curry make his brain go *pop*.


----------



## remlover

I am curious what Larry Brown is thinking Isiah adding another guy who is clueless on D. 

Sure hte Knicks can score points, but they sure as hell can't defend. 

With school i thought i wouldnt have enough free time to make getting League Pass worth it..However, i might have to MAKE time so i can see the New York Knicks. (Notice that there is no D in New York?)


----------



## johnston797

remlover said:


> I am curious what Larry Brown is thinking Isiah adding another guy who is clueless on D.


Well, they sure subtracted guys that were *MORE* clueless on D.


----------



## Ben7Gordon

what is the official trade??

eddie curry for jamal crawford

thats it? no draft picks? nothing?


----------



## ScottMay

I am really curious as to where all the stuff about Larry Brown and Curry is coming from. Is it just people rationalizing the loss of Eddy?

Say whatever you want about Larry Brown -- he's a backstabber, he is absolutely insufferably arrogant, etc. -- but realize that he is the best coach in the history of the sport in terms of arriving in a city, assessing their personnel, and then making them better. His track record speaks for itself.

I'm sure that Brown will make the Knicks and Curry as good as they possibly can be. He will probably have to take a different approach than he did with the Pistons and Sixers, but it'd be dumb to bet against him finding a way to make them competitive.


----------



## remlover

johnston797 said:


> Well, they sure subtracted guys that were *MORE* clueless on D.


If you think Sweetney is clueless on D you didnt watch too many Knicks games. Sure Sweetney is no defensive stud, but he is lost out there where hehh will give up countless offensive rebounds.


----------



## kukoc4ever

ScottMay said:


> Is it just people rationalizing the loss of Eddy?


Yes.


----------



## remlover

ScottMay said:


> I'm sure that Brown will make the Knicks and Curry as good as they possibly can be. He will probably have to take a different approach than he did with the Pistons and Sixers, but it'd be dumb to bet against him finding a way to make them competitive.


Skiles busted his butt to get Eddy to produce the numbers he did...Will Brown have the same patience?

i swear i have visions of Malik rose coming down the scorers bench and coming in for Curry countless times.


----------



## MikeDC

remlover said:


> I am curious what Larry Brown is thinking Isiah adding another guy who is clueless on D.


My guess is he's considerably happier than John Paxson appeared tonight after he'd just "subtracted another guy who is clueless on D."


----------



## ScottMay

remlover said:


> Skiles busted his butt to get Eddy to produce the numbers he did...


How so? Or maybe I'm confused -- so many of the anti-Curry mob claim that he never improved from year to year, and if he couldn't put up more than 16.1 and 5.4 in a contract year, when would he ever be good?


----------



## johnston797

remlover said:


> If you think Sweetney is clueless on D you didnt watch too many Knicks games. Sure Sweetney is no defensive stud, but he is lost out there where hehh will give up countless offensive rebounds.


So his bad D is because he is fat, slow and short, not clueless?


----------



## remlover

johnston797 said:


> So his bad D is because he is fat, slow and short, not clueless?


Sorry i reread my message and it made absolutely no sense. 

Rep points to you for reading that mess which was suppose to be English.


----------



## Rhyder

If this turns out to be anything like the Jamal Crawford thread, I'll stop reading now... :boohoo:


----------



## lgtwins

ScottMay said:


> I am really curious as to where all the stuff about Larry Brown and Curry is coming from. Is it just people rationalizing the loss of Eddy?
> 
> Say whatever you want about Larry Brown -- he's a backstabber, he is absolutely insufferably arrogant, etc. -- but realize that he is the best coach in the history of the sport in terms of arriving in a city, assessing their personnel, and then making them better. His track record speaks for itself.
> 
> I'm sure that Brown will make the Knicks and Curry as good as they possibly can be. He will probably have to take a different approach than he did with the Pistons and Sixers, but it'd be dumb to bet against him finding a way to make them competitive.


Don't forget Brown is really good at burning the bridge with players and management. Also he tend to bash his player directly through the media instead of face-to-face. Anyway, with all the talk about him being one of the greatest coach or whatever, I never liked him even when he was with Pacers.


----------



## lgtwins

Rhyder said:


> If this turns out to be anything like the Jamal Crawford thread, I'll stop reading now... :boohoo:


You'd better stop reading RIGHT NOW. Another thousands of pages of posts coming right up.


----------



## L.O.B

This looks like a good place to post this thought. Baby Shaq could learn this from Shaq, Shaq unhappy w/ last years performance gained 15 pounds of muscle this off season. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/trainingcamp05/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2180593

The key to being a superstar is never being satisfied. 



> "I was an earthling last season," Shaq said, in reference to his strength level. "I had to go back to my alien roots."


So Curry is the next Shaq? Where's he going to gain 3 inches and 65 pounds?


----------



## NYKBaller

eddy can finally be an allstar, ny fans voting, it'll happen. wait shaq? damn, we'll coaches will make it happen


----------



## Bull_Market

*The Official eddy curry update*

knicks and eddy are playing their first preseason game tonight. they'll play nj.


----------



## mizenkay

merged.


----------



## BG7

Eddy had 16 points and led the Knicks to victory in their preseason opener against the Nets. Stephon Marbury among an array of other players did not play.


----------



## Da Grinch

game over knicks win.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2005101517



> BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) -- Larry Brown and Eddy Curry made successful debuts with the New York Knicks in a 93-84 exhibition victory over the New Jersey Nets on Saturday night.
> 
> Brown made his debut on the Knicks' bench. He has coached in the NBA with Denver, New Jersey, San Antonio, Los Angeles (Clippers), Indiana, Philadelphia and Detroit, where he guided the Pistons to the 2003-04 NBA title and the Finals last season.
> 
> Curry led the Knicks with 16 points and four rebounds in 13 minutes. He missed all last season with a heart arrhythmia and was traded from Chicago to New York in the offseason.
> 
> Curry scored the game's first basket with a tip-in. Trevor Ariza added 13 points for the Knicks.


----------



## futuristxen

16 and 4 in 13 minutes is kind of sick. Someone get that man's DNA!

That's like, what--64 and 16 over 48 minutes right?


----------



## bullsville

At least Larry Brown is on board with the Paxson/Skiles way...

Brown said. "We tried to do things the right way..."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2005101517


----------



## RSP83

EDDYYYYYY WHYYYYY DO YOU PLAY FOR THE KNICCKKSSS !!!!!

ARGGHHHH...

Looks like we're going to have a new Bulls vs. Knicks rivalry. The rivalry is good, but I'm really sad to see Eddy is on the other side.

Let's move on guys...


----------



## babybulls23

Da Grinch said:


> BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) -- Larry Brown and Eddy Curry made successful debuts with the New York Knicks in a 93-84 exhibition victory over the New Jersey Nets on Saturday night.
> 
> Brown made his debut on the Knicks' bench. He has coached in the NBA with Denver, New Jersey, San Antonio, Los Angeles (Clippers), Indiana, Philadelphia and Detroit, where he guided the Pistons to the 2003-04 NBA title and the Finals last season.
> 
> Curry led the Knicks with 16 points and four rebounds in 13 minutes. He missed all last season with a heart arrhythmia and was traded from Chicago to New York in the offseason.
> 
> Curry scored the game's first basket with a tip-in. Trevor Ariza added 13 points for the Knicks.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I saw EC out there in a Bulls' uniform just about every night until the end of the season...Great job AP!!


----------



## Hustle

babybulls23 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I saw EC out there in a Bulls' uniform just about every night until the end of the season...Great job AP!!


Sports journalism, never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## mizenkay




----------



## MikeDC

mizenkay said:


>


----------



## BG7

mizenkay said:


>


He looks in pretty good shape, and the Knicks jersey actually looks pretty good on him.

I know we are going to hear a lot of Sweetney's stats better than Eddy's like that thread floating around, well if Sweetney can draw 15 foulshots every 3 games, I'd be happy, no one is expecting him to be as good as Curry, thats just stupid. The only way the Bulls win is with Sweetney playing like Eddy did last year, which has been evident thus far in the preseason, at least until now. Sweetney drawing all those fouls showed that he can have an effect on the game similiar to Eddy's effect, unfortunately it won't be every game. New York should be good this year, I think we shouldn't have made the trade still, we picked the wrong guy to keep out of the two, Eddy should have been numero uno on the Bulls list of offseason priorities, we could have traded someone else for Sweetney, but oh well.


----------



## Ron Cey

futuristxen said:


> 16 and 4 in 13 minutes is kind of sick. Someone get that man's DNA!
> 
> That's like, what--64 and 16 over 48 minutes right?


Its also like, what -- 12 fouls, 8 turnovers, and no assists. I'm not trying to bag on Curry's debut, and I didn't see the game to provide me with any ability to meaningfully evaluate what he did. But statistically, it looks like he did what he does. He's a terrific scorer. Not a big surprise there.

But three fouls, 2 turnovers, and 0 assists in 13 minutes also appears to be consistent with "what he does".


----------



## BG7

Those 2 turnovers were probaly offensive fouls I bet. At least one of them.


----------



## Soulful Sides

> Late last week, say sources, the Knicks intensified their full court press to pry Theo Ratliff from the Blazers.
> -- New York Post


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/scorecard/10/14/truth.rumors.nba/


----------



## futuristxen

Soulful Sides said:


> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/scorecard/10/14/truth.rumors.nba/


Probably Larry wants to play Theo and Eddy as his starting frontline. Probably doesn't want to play Jerome James at all. Or Channing Frye.


----------



## Ron Cey

sloth said:


> Those 2 turnovers were probaly offensive fouls I bet. At least one of them.


Maybe. And?


----------



## yodurk

Ron Cey said:


> Its also like, what -- 12 fouls, 8 turnovers, and no assists. I'm not trying to bag on Curry's debut, and I didn't see the game to provide me with any ability to meaningfully evaluate what he did. But statistically, it looks like he did what he does. He's a terrific scorer. Not a big surprise there.
> 
> But three fouls, 2 turnovers, and 0 assists in 13 minutes also appears to be consistent with "what he does".


I'm with you, Ron Cey. 

I'm also holding judgement on Curry (and Sweetney for that matter) until about a month or 2 of regular season has been played. All too frequently I see teams and players get off to huge starts only to fizzle after 10-15 games. It's also hard to say if either team/coach will use each player to their best ability. Or if the players around each guy will fit.

Curry will score this year, I'm expecting that much. What I'm keeping an eye out for is how many points his team is yielding, how much he turns the ball over, how well his team is rebounding in relation to the opponents, etc etc. Those are the things to see if the Knicks really improved or simply moved laterally. Curry will never see an opportunity like this to lead his team in rebounding...there's not a big guy on the Knicks' roster capable of being a top 30 rebounder; the only player on the team who IS a good rebounder is Richardson. And with lots of guys who love to haul up deep shots, something is seriously wrong if Eddy doesn't average at least 7-8 rebounds, IMO.


----------



## futuristxen

Larry Brown doesn't think Eddy's in shape yet. He just said so on MSG TV. He thought Eddy played well, but he's not in shape yet.


----------



## NYKBaller

about to watch him in a knick uny live, cant wait.


----------



## futuristxen

yodurk said:


> I'm with you, Ron Cey.
> 
> I'm also holding judgement on Curry (and Sweetney for that matter) until about a month or 2 of regular season has been played. All too frequently I see teams and players get off to huge starts only to fizzle after 10-15 games. It's also hard to say if either team/coach will use each player to their best ability. Or if the players around each guy will fit.
> 
> Curry will score this year, I'm expecting that much. What I'm keeping an eye out for is how many points his team is yielding, how much he turns the ball over, how well his team is rebounding in relation to the opponents, etc etc. Those are the things to see if the Knicks really improved or simply moved laterally. Curry will never see an opportunity like this to lead his team in rebounding...there's not a big guy on the Knicks' roster capable of being a top 30 rebounder; the only player on the team who IS a good rebounder is Richardson. And with lots of guys who love to haul up deep shots, something is seriously wrong if Eddy doesn't average at least 7-8 rebounds, IMO.


Malik Rose is a good rebounder. If the Knicks can't get Theo Ratliff, they'll probably start Rose next to Curry just for the added rebounding. Or that's my theory. I've always liked Rose. I think he's a poor man's Barkley, but he has never really been given a fair chance to succeed.


----------



## lorgg

ScottMay said:


> I am really curious as to where all the stuff about Larry Brown and Curry is coming from. Is it just people rationalizing the loss of Eddy?
> 
> Say whatever you want about Larry Brown -- he's a backstabber, he is absolutely insufferably arrogant, etc. -- but realize that he is the best coach in the history of the sport in terms of arriving in a city, assessing their personnel, and then making them better. His track record speaks for itself.
> 
> I'm sure that Brown will make the Knicks and Curry as good as they possibly can be. He will probably have to take a different approach than he did with the Pistons and Sixers, but it'd be dumb to bet against him finding a way to make them competitive.


What exactly makes him the best coach in history..it's certainly not championships. Which I believe should be the main measuring stick. He may be the best teacher, but I doubt that , also.


----------



## futuristxen

lorgg said:


> What exactly makes him the best coach in history..it's certainly not championships. Which I believe should be the main measuring stick. He may be the best teacher, but I doubt that , also.


Why should championships be the main measuring stick? Championships are more when a good coach meets a great team. Dynasties are when a great coach meets a great team.

Eddy is definitely still out of shape. Not as bad as Sweetney, but still pretty bad. He's also committing a lot of fouls right now. He nearly got a foul on the opening tip.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Malik Rose isn't a good rebounder. If he is, then Michael Sweetney is a great rebounder, because Sweetney is better at rebounding than Rose, but neither are above average at it. 

Knicks will definitely have trouble rebounding the ball next year. Will they have anyone above 7 boards per game?


----------



## truebluefan

Vs Mavs today in exhibition. So far Mavs are winning (44-36) Eddy in 9 minutes has 3 pts 2 rebounds. Jamal has not scored in 9 minutes and has 1 assist.


----------



## nanokooshball

Sir Patchwork said:


> Malik Rose isn't a good rebounder. If he is, then Michael Sweetney is a great rebounder, because Sweetney is better at rebounding than Rose, but neither are above average at it.
> 
> Knicks will definitely have trouble rebounding the ball next year. Will they have anyone above 7 boards per game?


sweetney is one of the better rebounders in the game and one of the best offesnive board rebounders


----------



## Da Grinch

Sir Patchwork said:


> Malik Rose isn't a good rebounder. If he is, then Michael Sweetney is a great rebounder, because Sweetney is better at rebounding than Rose, but neither are above average at it.
> 
> Knicks will definitely have trouble rebounding the ball next year. Will they have anyone above 7 boards per game?


if you dont think sweetney is an above average rebounder , i seriously question whether you know a good rebounder when you see one.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

I see why Pax wanted David lee.The kid can play and is gonna be good player for a long time .Hes smart and skilled and is a tough defender


----------



## Machinehead

AD being kept by the Knicks and being made to play actually makes some sense for them basketball wise 

Eddy and AD are a proven starting combo for a team with the 3rd best record in the East last year 

I think they do need big rebounding help beyond AD and Rose

Mo Taylor is a reserve scorer and Jerome James may help some but is not a noted rebounder 

Theo Ratliff does make a lot of sense for the Knicks if they want to try and contend now .. their backcourt is offensively inefficient and their will be a bunch of offensive rebounding opportunity 

I would not be surprised to see Hardaway moved for Theo Ratliff and Ruben Patterson in Trade #1 

And I also would not be surprised to see Crawford and Lee moved for Wally Sczcerbiak and a conditional first round pick from the Wolves 
Knicks 

*

Curry
Ratliff
Sczcerbiak
Richardson
Marbury

bench

James
Davis
Ariza
Patterson
Robinson 

Reserves 

Frye
Rose
Taylor
Brewer

*

Wolves

*

Olowokandi
Lee
Garnett
Crawford
Jaric

bench

Madsen
Griffin
Hassell
McCants
Hudson

*


----------



## Ron Cey

truebluefan said:


> Vs Mavs today in exhibition. So far Mavs are winning (44-36) Eddy in 9 minutes has 3 pts 2 rebounds. Jamal has not scored in 9 minutes and has 1 assist.


I'm watching that game too. Crawford looks like crap. His defense is so freakin' pathetic it borders on sad. He isn't even trying. He has absolutely no footwork or lateral quickness on defense. If he does, he's hiding it quite well. Also, he's still skinny as a rail in his 6th year in the league. That says a lot about his offseason regimen. 

Curry looks like crap too, but Curry is on a new team and very obviously isn't conditioned well, as one would expect after the summer he's had. Not fair to judge his play at this early stage in the season.


----------



## ChiBron

EC's really struggling in this game. Obviously, he's in poor shape but u can't excuse mental mistakes. Frazier is really getting frustrated with his play right now.

I liked the EC-trade from the moment I found out who we got back....and I'm liking it even more now.


----------



## Ron Cey

SPMJ said:


> EC's really struggling in this game. Obviously, he's in poor shape but u can't excuse mental mistakes. Frazier is really getting frustrated with his play right now.
> 
> I liked the EC-trade from the moment I found out who we got back....and I'm liking it even more now.


He does look like crap out there. After I typed my last post, he got the ball stolen twice and then committed two blatant offensive fouls in about 4 minutes. But he clearly isn't comfortable with the offensive sets yet and that can cause all manner of mental mistakes that may go away with familiarity and increased confidence. For example, I've seen him run to the wrong spot, crowd a Knick player who was in the right spot, and then have to correct and jog over to where he was supposed to be several times already in the second half. 

That stuff should go away. He is VERY and I mean VERY under-conditioned, which as I said is understandable given his circumstances. I wouldn't expect him to be in real game shape until mid-December just like last year. 

He's still not jumping for rebounds. He got a couple, but they weren't in traffic.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Da Grinch said:


> if you dont think sweetney is an above average rebounder , i seriously question whether you know a good rebounder when you see one.


He was 23rd in the league in rebounders per 48 minutes. If you're talking above average compared to all positions, obviously he is above average, but for a big man that is the epitome of average.


----------



## futuristxen

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I see why Pax wanted David lee.The kid can play and is gonna be good player for a long time .Hes smart and skilled and is a tough defender


Yeah no kidding. Isiah was right to stick to his guns about Lee. He would have been awesome in a Bulls uniform.


----------



## futuristxen

SPMJ said:


> EC's really struggling in this game. Obviously, he's in poor shape but u can't excuse mental mistakes. Frazier is really getting frustrated with his play right now.
> 
> I liked the EC-trade from the moment I found out who we got back....and I'm liking it even more now.


Nobody on the Knicks knows the offense they are running. And the defense is still a work in progress. Eddy looked about like you would expect him to given the summer he had, and the whole starting in with a new team.

This was part of why I wanted Eddy signed earlier in the summer if he were staying with us, because he really needed to be working with the team's guys this summer.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Ron Cey said:


> I'm watching that game too. Crawford looks like crap. His defense is so freakin' pathetic it borders on sad. He isn't even trying. He has absolutely no footwork or lateral quickness on defense. If he does, he's hiding it quite well. Also, he's still skinny as a rail in his 6th year in the league. That says a lot about his offseason regimen.
> 
> Curry looks like crap too, but Curry is on a new team and very obviously isn't conditioned well, as one would expect after the summer he's had. Not fair to judge his play at this early stage in the season.



Wow talking about hating ?How long have you watched Crawford ?

he applied pressure full court  

he fought over the top of screens 

he moved his feet and actually was up on his man 

Howard attempted to take him in top the post twice and both time he battled for position and won .  


lmao no one expects YOU to say anything positive but cmon Crawfords play was nothing like you said


----------



## truebluefan

it will take a while for Eddy to get into shape. I expected him to not be ready. Its understandable. 

From the picture I saw of him in here, he looks good, physically.


----------



## lougehrig

Curry v. Mavs: 18 minutes, 7 points, 2-4 FG, 4 PF, 4 TOs, 5 Boards, Dampier who he was guarding was 4-4 FG, 7 Boards in 22 minutes

Crawford v. Mavs: 25 minutes, 2 points, 1-6 FG, 2 assists, Christie who he was guarding 4-5 FG

I'm not sure how we are going to replace this level of production. What are we going to do?


----------



## MikeDC

EDDY PACT SET TO BE INSURED 



> _October 17, 2005_ -- <!--start bodytext-->The Bulls claimed last month they did not believe they'd be able to get insurance on a new contract for Eddy Curry — another supposed factor in their decision to trade the 6-11 center instead of re-signing the restricted free agent. Apparently, the Bulls didn't try hard enough.
> 
> 
> The Post has learned the Knicks were making strong headway in getting Curry's six-year, $60 million contract insured. The normal NBA contract is insured 80 percent against a career-ending ailment, minus a half-season deductible.
> 
> Dr. David Cannom, an L.A. heart specialist from Good Samaritan Hospital who examined Curry on behalf of the Bulls in August, spoke with the Knicks Tuesday.
> 
> "My understanding is they were very close to getting insurance," Dr. Cannom told The Post. Dr. Cannom and cardiologists from Cornell and Tufts examined Curry in August and gave him a clean bill of health. The Knicks consulted with Dr. Cannom six weeks ago when they were researching the Curry case.
> 
> After the Knicks made the trade Oct. 3, six more doctors reviewed Curry's latest round of heart tests. The Knicks officially declined comment but indicated Cannom's claim was accurate


Guh.


----------



## ScottMay

Mikedc said:


> EDDY PACT SET TO BE INSURED
> 
> 
> 
> Guh.


:laugh:

(It's either that or throw a heavy chair across my office.)


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

> October 17, 2005 -- The Bulls claimed last month they did not believe they'd be able to get insurance on a new contract for Eddy Curry — another supposed factor in their decision to trade the 6-11 center instead of re-signing the restricted free agent. Apparently, the Bulls didn't try hard enough.
> 
> 
> The Post has learned the Knicks were making strong headway in getting Curry's six-year, $60 million contract insured. The normal NBA contract is insured 80 percent against a career-ending ailment, minus a half-season deductible.
> 
> Dr. David Cannom, an L.A. heart specialist from Good Samaritan Hospital who examined Curry on behalf of the Bulls in August, spoke with the Knicks Tuesday.
> 
> "My understanding is they were very close to getting insurance," Dr. Cannom told The Post. Dr. Cannom and cardiologists from Cornell and Tufts examined Curry in August and gave him a clean bill of health. The Knicks consulted with Dr. Cannom six weeks ago when they were researching the Curry case.
> 
> After the Knicks made the trade Oct. 3, six more doctors reviewed Curry's latest round of heart tests. The Knicks officially declined comment but indicated Cannom's claim was accurate



All the paxson cult members are looking more and more like complete fools for basically following this guy without what seems like moment of independent thought.Yes he has done some good things but wow are the Bulls starting to look like its run by a bunch of incompetents .

Now Currys gonna get insurance !! There are just soo many expletives that should be used right now but ill use a smily instead :curse:


----------



## Ron Cey

The possibility, or perhaps eventuality, that the Knicks get insurance for Eddy Curry has no impact whatsoever on my opinion of the merit of trading Eddy Curry. I realize that it might have impacted PaxDorf's position, but not mine.

Personally, I've been basing my opinion of the reasonableness of the Bulls' position on the existence of the opinion of Dr. Maron. The refusal of Trustmark to insure Eddy's heart, and the previous inability of Curry/Rose to find supplemental insurance, did lend some additional credibility to the Bulls financial decision. But the bottom line for me has always been Dr. Maron. That coupled with the fact that I consider Curry to be more or less replacealbe, and therefore more or less inconsequential, to the future success of the team, still fuels my belief that the trade was the right thing to do.

When I saw Curry in a Knicks uniform last night (even before he proceeded to understandably struggle in that game), I didn't have even a passing sensation of regret or loss. I think he looks great in a Knicks' uniform.

I hope he gets insurance and I hope he stays healthy for the rest of his life. But I don't regret the trade one bit. Mindless Kool-Aid slurping drone than I am.


----------



## narek

Ron Cey said:


> I hope he gets insurance and I hope he stays healthy for the rest of his life. But I don't regret the trade one bit. Mindless Kool-Aid slurping drone than I am.


Me too.

The Knicks doctors may have come up with something better than Magnesium deficiency or at least a more convincing explanation of the incident. I mentioned the whole thing to a health underwriter and he whimpered and ran back to his cubicle to hide. He told me later he's had cases where they'll have two different doctors come up with two different explanations and both seem reasonable. He hates it, because it's an automatic rejection. We don't do high risk at all, we're not large enough to handle high risk claims.


----------



## MikeDC

Ron Cey said:


> The possibility, or perhaps eventuality, that the Knicks get insurance for Eddy Curry has no impact whatsoever on my opinion of the merit of trading Eddy Curry. I realize that it might have impacted PaxDorf's position, but not mine.


:angel: 

Does it affect your opinion of the Bulls' management if their position is significantly at odds with yours? 

Does it affect your opinion of the Bulls' management if they could have accomplished their goals (whether they're your goals or not) and didn't?


----------



## Ron Cey

Mikedc said:


> :angel:
> 
> Does it affect your opinion of the Bulls' management if their position is significantly at odds with yours?
> 
> Does it affect your opinion of the Bulls' management if they could have accomplished their goals (whether they're your goals or not) and didn't?


I stated, more than once, before Eddy was ever traded that it appeared as though John Paxson was overvalueing his importance. The only thing I disagree with Paxson about in Eddy-gate is his appearant belief that Eddy Curry was important to retain for the long term in the first place. Heart issue or no heart issue, I only wanted Eddy signed to a contract below the $60-70 million he appears to have been demanding. Had the heart issue not come up, I have no doubt the Bulls would have paid Eddy that, and I would have called it an overpayment. Because I defend most of the organization's moves (because I genuinely agree with them) appears to overshadow the times that I express disagreement. But that's how it goes.

As for hypotheticals about what could or could not have happened and whether or not those things are at odds with my opinion, my bottom line judgment of the organization's moves are based on what actually happens.

And for the record, I'm trying to be polite so as to avoid the crude, cursing responses I received last week. Are you now just going to deride me with angel faces when I try to keep an even tone?


----------



## Soulful Sides

An insured Eddy would probably have brought back more in the trade than the Bulls recieved. More suitors from which to seek a deal too.

Nevertheless, the Bulls made the call they did with the information they had at the time. I wonder what changed?

If things changed on the insurance companies side, then the organization can get a pass regardless of what happens. If the Bulls did not do their due diligence, then shame on Pax, and the organization should accordingly hold him responsible.


----------



## Ron Cey

Soulful Sides said:


> An insured Eddy would probably have brought back more in the trade than the Bulls recieved. More suitors from which to seek a deal too.


Now there is a good point.


----------



## DaBullz

As much as people want to bash the Curry trade, he did net us TWO players who can really play, plus draft picks. He still had _that_ much value.

If Curry were going to be traded, why not last season at the trade deadline when his value was surely much higher than as the "damaged goods" that Paxson portrayed him to be in the offseason?

We did have AD's soon to be expiring contract to make virtually any deal work, and without the BYC issues that really complicate things.

If Curry gets insurance, it makes Paxsons *entire* offseason stance on Curry look absurd, and transparently so. You can't wish that away, Pax.


----------



## mizenkay

> Dr. David Cannom, an L.A. heart specialist from Good Samaritan Hospital who examined Curry on behalf of the Bulls in August, spoke with the Knicks Tuesday.
> 
> "My understanding is they were very close to getting insurance," Dr. Cannom told The Post. Dr. Cannom and cardiologists from Cornell and Tufts examined Curry in August and gave him a clean bill of health. The Knicks consulted with Dr. Cannom six weeks ago when they were researching the Curry case




maybe the knicks are going back to trustmark - or another carrier - with the "magnesium deficiency" angle? 

one would think a clean bill of health from the esteemed doctors would have netted eddy insurance this summer when it was being pursued by the bulls, not to mention by leon and co. 

acting on the information they had at the time, insurance was unobtainable. and now it is? 

either way, *IMO*, dr. cannom is really beginning to sound like a paid schill.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> Now there is a good point.


But it's the WHOLE point. It's what some of us have been saying all along.

It appears that if the Bulls had tried just a tiny little bit harder, they could have had Curry with an NBA-sanctioned clean bill of health and a willing insurer months ago. 

Now, I know that everyone has a full-bore preseason woodrow for Mike Sweetney and that everyone believes Paxson will land a Hall of Famer with the Knicks' mid-to-late first round pick next year, but doesn't common sense dictate that we could have done better in a sign-and-trade if we weren't peddling such "damaged" goods? We could have made certain that Eddy ended up in the west, for example -- maybe even landed the saintly Nene.

It's hard for me to imagine Paxson botching this any worse even if he'd tried.


----------



## Ron Cey

DaBullz said:


> As much as people want to bash the Curry trade, he did net us TWO players who can really play, plus draft picks. He still had _that_ much value.
> 
> *If Curry were going to be traded, why not last season at the trade deadline when his value was surely much higher than as the "damaged goods" that Paxson portrayed him to be in the offseason?*
> 
> We did have AD's soon to be expiring contract to make virtually any deal work, and without the BYC issues that really complicate things.
> 
> If Curry gets insurance, it makes Paxsons *entire* offseason stance on Curry look absurd, and transparently so. You can't wish that away, Pax.


Because Paxson wanted to retain Curry. That is why he wasn't traded then. The trade dealine came and went about a month before the Charlotte episode. 

As for the insurance, what you write would only be true if Paxson's sole position all summer had been "We can't resign him because he doesn't have insurance. We won't let him practice at training camp without insurance, let alone have him play in games." When what Paxson's bottom line stance actually was "We won't let him on the court without a DNA test as recommended by Dr. Maron."

Now, if Dr. Barry Maron comes forward and says, "I cleared Eddy to play, I only suggested that he take the DNA test as an option. It was never my recommendation that he take it in order to be cleared to play" then THAT would make "Paxson's entire offseason stance on Curry look absurd, and transparently so."

Maybe that'll happen.


----------



## MikeDC

Ron Cey said:


> As for hypotheticals about what could or could not have happened and whether or not those things are at odds with my opinion, my bottom line judgment of the organization's moves are based on what actually happens.


So intent and belief don't matter at all, just results? I wasn't asking about whether something is at odds with your opinion, but with the organization's.

So by this logic Rod Thorn is the best GM ever because he drafted Michael Jordan, even though he didn't imagine MJ would turn out to be possibly the best player of all time?

Or if Amare Stoudemire gets hurt and never plays again a couple weeks after signing a max extension, that makes the Suns a bad organization?

That's not making a judgement about anyone's quality, that's making a judgement of how lucky they were. "Bottom lines" in the NBA always carry with them a significant amount of luck, both good and bad. I wouldn't, for example, say the organization had somehow failed if Chandler's back and Gordon's knees get blown out tomorrow, unless it comes out they didn't do some sort of due dilligence on them. It's just bad luck. It seems much fairer to me to judge people on what they accomplish in light of both their expectations and my own judgement of what's possible. If they desired to but failed to get insurance on a contract that proves insurable contract, then that's not really a hypothetical.



> And for the record, I'm trying to be polite so as to avoid the crude, cursing responses I received last week. Are you now just going to deride me with angel faces when I try to keep an even tone?


I was _trying_ to be polite and make clear I _was not_ deriding you, in contrast to the blanket derisive comment truthhurts threw out. If I wanted to deride you, I'd probably be using something like :clown:  or  or :laugh: or uker :nonono: or :rotf: or even . But :angel: was an indication I was trying to make nice. If you want to repeat the past, however, continually bringing it up is a good way to do it.


----------



## johnston797

mizenkay said:


> one would think a clean bill of health from the esteemed doctors would have netted eddy insurance this summer when it was being pursued by the bulls, not to mention by leon and co.


Bulls didn't purse insurance. They let Eddy try and get it. And the Bulls apparentely didn't think Curry was healthy without the DNA test. Why would they have been convincing talking to insurers? Knicks have no such bias.


----------



## DaBullz

johnston797 said:


> Bulls didn't purse insurance. They let Eddy try and get it. And the Bulls apparentely didn't think Curry was healthy without the DNA test. Why would they have been convincing talking to insurers? Knicks have no such bias.


Is that good negotiating on Pax's part, or is it the kind of thing that drives a wedge between players and the team? (I think the latter)


----------



## Ron Cey

> So intent and belief don't matter at all, just results? I wasn't asking about whether something is at odds with your opinion, but with the organization's.
> 
> So by this logic Rod Thorn is the best GM ever because he drafted Michael Jordan, even though he didn't imagine MJ would turn out to be possibly the best player of all time?
> 
> Or if Amare Stoudemire gets hurt and never plays again a couple weeks after signing a max extension, that makes the Suns a bad organization?
> 
> That's not making a judgement about anyone's quality, that's making a judgement of how lucky they were. "Bottom lines" in the NBA always carry with them a significant amount of luck, both good and bad. I wouldn't, for example, say the organization had somehow failed if Chandler's back and Gordon's knees get blown out tomorrow, unless it comes out they didn't do some sort of due dilligence on them. It's just bad luck. It seems much fairer to me to judge people on what they accomplish in light of both their expectations and my own judgement of what's possible. If they desired to but failed to get insurance on a contract that proves insurable contract, then that's not really a hypothetical.


That would all be true if I hadn't already expressed disagreement with Paxson's evaluation of Curry's importance. But its hard to be much more vocal than that when, in fact, Curry was not given the contract I feared. I'm certainly not going to start a "I can't believe Paxson almost retained Curry to what probably would have been more than I would have paid him, but he didn't, but I'm still outraged that it was ever a possiblity" thread. 

Intent and belief clearly matter, I agree. 



> I was _trying_ to be polite and make clear I _was not_ deriding you, in contrast to the blanket derisive comment truthhurts threw out.


Okay.


----------



## johnston797

DaBullz said:


> Is that good negotiating on Pax's part, or is it the kind of thing that drives a wedge between players and the team? (I think the latter)


There are some things that can't be negociated. But every day, it looks like the Bulls were further and futher on the fringes of both the legal and medical world as to what they were williing and not willing to do. Which makes it "mind boggling" as to why Paxson has cried like a little 2-year girl about Eddy post trade. Why should Curry thank an organization that so clearly had such an aggressive, increadibly conservative, minority view on how to deal with his health issues?


----------



## ScottMay

mizenkay said:


> either way, *IMO*, dr. cannom is really beginning to sound like a paid schill.


I think he's actually genuinely PO'd at Maron and the Bulls for pursuing an apparent medical phantasm that could have ended up with a perfectly healthy player being blackballed from the NBA. 

A raft of world-class doctors affiliated with some of the best teaching hospitals in the country arrived at the same conclusion as Cannom, backed up by state-of-the-art diagnostics and tried-and-true medical procedure. On the other hand, you've got Maron, Reinsdorf, Pax, and Lisa Salberg (who, by the way, I'm glad Pax could find time to chat with instead of "cold-calling" other NBA teams).

I know which camp I'd put my chips on . . . but then again, I guess I'm a brazen risk-taker that way.

In any case, I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the upcoming American College of Cardiology annual meeting in March!


----------



## narek

ScottMay said:


> It appears that if the Bulls had tried just a tiny little bit harder, they could have had Curry with an NBA-sanctioned clean bill of health and a willing insurer months ago.


To try harder they would have had to have Curry's co-operation. And that would lie with what was going on with Rose and Paxson. Was Rose holding out for more guaranteed money before agreeing to anything else? At one time Rose complained that the Bulls weren't willing to take a bigger risk (ie gaurantee more of the money).

If Trustmark changes it's mind, it'll because of the evidence of Curry's Knick's physical which came after the contract was agreed upon. What Rose presented to insurers didn't convince any of them, either.

We don't know what the reasons for the initial underwriting decision was, but it was based undoubtably based on all available information at the time.


----------



## MikeDC

DaBullz said:


> Is that good negotiating on Pax's part, or is it the kind of thing that drives a wedge between players and the team? (I think the latter)


I agree.

Beyond the obviousness that the "go do it yourself" approach doesn't exactly engender the feeling of "we're all in this together" or "lets find a solution", it always struck me as not making much sense from an interest perspective. That is, it's in both party's interest to find insurance and to do everything they could to do so. Going into what was obviously an unusual circumstance to begin with and then throwing up your arms and telling the other side to come up with something - thus making a negotiating point of it and shifting the burden of accomplishing something everybody wants to one party - seems like an approach that made something that should have been a point of agreement and made it a potential point of contention and miscommunication.


----------



## Soulful Sides

Opinions I'm leaning toward.

1. Skiles and Paxson carried severe doubts or had decided that Eddy Curry was not to be a longterm member of their team early last season or before.

2. The heart ailment and other physical events were extremely convenient.

3. Any 'respectable' GM in any sport would have handled this far differently.

4. Paxsons tears and hurt were an act or were motivated by realizing in retrospect how all this would reflect upon him. Also by gettiing at players that probably don't fit his longterm plan either.

Expect a big 4 or 5 page SI type expose on this. Maybe it will be in a newspaper, or in a book.

I just wonder who it will reflect more badly on: Paxson or his boss? I'm happy for the White Sox fans, but my stomach curled up seeing Reinsdorf celebrating last night. I feel he has a big hand behind the scenes in this. 

Another fact:

5. That motivation Eddy could never seem to find to play the game at the highest level? It would be really bad if all this helps him find it.


----------



## johnston797

Soulful Sides said:


> Expect a big 4 or 5 page SI type expose on this. Maybe it will be in a newspaper, or in a book.


I think that Paxson or Curry would have to go on to great success (Ala the Bulls teams of MJ, PJax and Krause) or a tragic event to occur for there to be a book written about this.


----------



## such sweet thunder

johnston797 said:


> There are some things that can't be negociated. But every day, it looks like the Bulls were further and futher on the fringes of both the legal and medical world as to what they were williing and not willing to do. Which makes it "mind boggling" as to why Paxson has cried like a little 2-year girl about Eddy post trade. Why should Curry thank an organization that so clearly had such an aggressive, increadibly conservative, minority view on how to deal with his health issues?


 I agree Johnston:

We may soon have an opinion from an impartial independent arbitrator that the Bulls' position was flawed. Before an underwriter layes down their millions they take a through look at all the medical data, and make an infromed decision. I'm still not ready to question Paxson's motivations, but his method was clearly a mistake.


----------



## rosenthall

The Knicks have played 2 preseason games, and this thread is now 6 pages long.......... :raised_ey


----------



## bullsville

I didn't read the entire Post article as I am not a member, but is this entire "Eddy about to get insured" based solely on what Cannom says? Because him saying "My understanding is they were very close to getting insurance" doesn't mean much of anything to me, unless Cannom has a night job writing insurance policies.

Plus, he made those statements last Tuesday, and here it is almost a week later and Eddy still doesn't have insurance. Of course I don't know for sure, but it seems as if insurance would have to be acquired *before* Eddy's contract was signed?


----------



## Cager

Eddy's gone and I wish him well but he looked physically worse than he did three years ago. Not only is he a lot heavier, the weight has shifted down on his body. It is going to take some time for him to get in shape. I know you don't want to get hurt in the summer of your contract year but he should have worked out more. At a minimum let's hope Eddy can get in shape without the stimulants ( caffeine, diet pills ) he needed last year so he won't have any heart issues.


----------



## yodurk

bullsville said:


> I didn't read the entire Post article as I am not a member, but is this entire "Eddy about to get insured" based solely on what Cannom says? Because him saying "My understanding is they were very close to getting insurance" doesn't mean much of anything to me, unless Cannom has a night job writing insurance policies.
> 
> Plus, he made those statements last Tuesday, and here it is almost a week later and Eddy still doesn't have insurance. Of course I don't know for sure, but it seems as if insurance would have to be acquired *before* Eddy's contract was signed?


You typed my thoughts word for word, bullsville.

From what MikeDC posted originally from the article, I don't see any definitive statements indicating Eddy Curry has an insured contract. Is there any way to know for sure? I sure as heck wouldn't know how to find out. In any case, I was under the impression that once a contract is inked it's not possible to go back and obtain insurance for said contract. Is this correct as well?

And I think mizenkay/narek are both right...if Trustmark is indeed reversing their stance on insuring Curry, it seems to be from a different approach (magnesium deficiency?) rooting from a different set of doctors (whomever the Knicks have consulted with). 

However, at the end of the day, I feel that we got a nice package for Eddy Curry whether he was insured or not. The team as a whole has merely moved laterally, IMO, with just as much potential to move into the league's upper echelon in another season or two. Skiles seems to really like Sweetney's game. Tim Thomas will be a competent 1-year contributer. And if the Knicks bomb as much as I think they could, then we're looking at a lottery pick next season (not a mid-to-late 1st rounder like some of you are trying to argue). Not to mention the swap rights and future 2nd rounders, as icing on the cake.


----------



## Tragedy

The way I see it, the Bulls were trying to control the market value of Eddy Curry.

As a restricted free agent teams usually let other teams set the price for players who are not guaranteed max contracts (unlike guys like Yao and Amare).

The whole health scare was used to _benefit_ the Bulls organization by keeping teams from throwing big money at Curry, who was very high risk at the time. That way the Bulls could offer Curry a significantly cheaper contract.

Whether you believe he deserves more or less is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, the market decides what he's worth, regardless if he's ACTUALLY worth that (see Erick Dampier/Adonal Foyle/etc)

The Bulls _organization_ gambled on Curry giving in, using health concerns to bait the player into signing and taking what was portrayed as a _safe_ choice.

The Bulls felt they had a luxury, and the Knicks were willing to take a chance.

Now it seems the Knicks and Curry won on the gamble. The Knicks paid less than market value for a player (sure Sweetney would have been cheaper than Curry, but when you are able to get a legit center and the chance of that player being dominant, over someone who hasn't really done much, or shown much _for the Knicks_, you take that chance) that would have gotten quite possibly the MAX.

The Bulls organization tried to use the 20mil over 50 years as a way to get the public behind them, and force Curry to give in. Nice ploy, but it didn't work.

Would anyone here actually have taken that deal? How would you feel afterwards (consider that now every doctor says Curry is fine and he will be insured.).

At the very least you will feel you are in a situation that doesn't really benefit you.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

rosenthall said:


> The Knicks have played 2 preseason games, and this thread is now 6 pages long.......... :raised_ey


Ill put the odds on it being 30 pages by the season opener .Even more if Pax pulls a Jim Baker moment and gives us some actual tears .


----------



## Bull_Market

*eddy curry "considering" lawsuit against bulls?*

this has just been reported on the sun-times.

(speechless)


----------



## Bull_Market

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-eddy17.html


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*

"Curry also told the New York Daily News that he and agent Leon Rose would consider taking legal action against the Bulls."

The article doesn't say Curry will file a lawsuit, just that he "would consider it," which I assume means he is considering it. This is no guarantee it's going to happen.

However, this is still not good news. I'm realizing that this was a big mistake by Paxson disclosing this information after the trade. However, I'm not really sure what Curry would have to gain from a big trial. I'm guessing nothing comes of it.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*

That's no new information than was reported yesterday. It's just Hanley passing on the NY Daily News tidbit without directly quoting anything.

Actually, I can't find anything in the NY Daily News about this. The only thing I see is that in the Post Curry was asked if he'd sue and said "If I do I'll let you know", which I took as a not too serious response. So I'm tenatively filing it as another attempt to inflame the situation. Let's hope everyone walks away.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> "Curry also told the New York Daily News that he and agent Leon Rose would consider taking legal action against the Bulls."
> 
> The article doesn't say Curry will file a lawsuit, just that he "would consider it," which I assume means he is considering it. This is no guarantee it's going to happen.
> 
> However, this is still not good news. I'm realizing that this was a big mistake by Paxson disclosing this information after the trade. However, I'm not really sure what Curry would have to gain from a big trial. I'm guessing nothing comes of it.


Following up on what I said before, I think if there is an actual point, it's not to actually sue but to get Paxson to STFU (like he should have had the sense to do in the first place!).


----------



## fenominon

*curry close to getting insurance?*

i saw this on the espn rumors page on monday. it said the knicks are close to getting eddy's 60 mil. deal insured. Now I was on Pax's side for a while but if this goes through, what the ****! I just don' t get why they would not have signed him. i know this topic is going to get old after a while and we are all going to have to move on, but if this was the main argument from the bulls than this is more ****ed up than we thought.


----------



## Qwst25

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*

I am so glad we got rid of this guy.


----------



## step

*Re: curry close to getting insurance?*

As it stood, no Curry wasn't insurable. The Knicks no doubt would be doing a bit of give and take during those negotiations with the Insurer.


> The normal NBA contract is insured 80 percent against a career-ending ailment, minus a half-season deductible.


----------



## step

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*



> I am so glad we got rid of this guy.


I don't see how you could put Curry to fault on this one, it's Paxson.
People need to get over it, I still don't get why Paxson is still talking about it... hopefully he won't be liek Shaq and talk about it for years to come.



> However, I'm not really sure what Curry would have to gain from a big trial. I'm guessing nothing comes of it.


It'll would basically go down to settlement, forcing both sides to be quiet on the situation.


----------



## Qwst25

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*



step said:


> I don't see how you could put Curry to fault on this one, it's Paxson.
> People need to get over it, I still don't get why Paxson is still talking about it... hopefully he won't be liek Shaq and talk about it for years to come.


Unfortunately this is the nature of todays society. Everybody one's to sue everybody else, and know one is able to take a step back and look at the whole picture. All Paxson did was let the truth out of the bag. Curry has medical problems. Thats it, Paxson just let the truth be known, the heart problem wasn't just a one time occurance. But the fact that Curry would even consider the idea of suing, just shows how immature he is. However that is also society for you, the mature are in the minority. Curry needs to learn to take responsibility for himself, as do most people. Sometimes the truth isn't always what you want to hear, well too bad, deal with it. Take responsiblity for yourself and stop blaming others.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*

I think the title of this thread should be changed, since it's not said anywhere that he's actually going to file a lawsuit.


----------



## rlucas4257

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*



Qwst25 said:


> Unfortunately this is the nature of todays society. Everybody one's to sue everybody else, and know one is able to take a step back and look at the whole picture. All Paxson did was let the truth out of the bag. Curry has medical problems. Thats it, Paxson just let the truth be known, the heart problem wasn't just a one time occurance. But the fact that Curry would even consider the idea of suing, just shows how immature he is. However that is also society for you, the mature are in the minority. Curry needs to learn to take responsibility for himself, as do most people. Sometimes the truth isn't always what you want to hear, well too bad, deal with it. Take responsiblity for yourself and stop blaming others.



Its not Paxs right to disclose info on Currys personal well being OR his MOTHERS PERSONAL WELL BEING. Truth or not truth, Pax doesnt have the right, legall, ethically or morally to being issuing these statements about someone who is no longer under his employ. Curry should sue, for no other reason, then to set a precedent that you cant mess with someones personal life.


----------



## ace20004u

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*



rlucas4257 said:


> Its not Paxs right to disclose info on Currys personal well being OR his MOTHERS PERSONAL WELL BEING. Truth or not truth, Pax doesnt have the right, legall, ethically or morally to being issuing these statements about someone who is no longer under his employ. Curry should sue, for no other reason, then to set a precedent that you cant mess with someones personal life.


Besides which Pax painted it as heart related and Curry claims it had nothing to do with his heart.


----------



## rlucas4257

*Re: eddy curry to file lawsuit against bulls*



ace20004u said:


> Besides which Pax painted it as heart related and Curry claims it had nothing to do with his heart.



Who knows what the truth is. What I am certain about is that it isnt within Paxsons legal right to be talking about Curry (or his mother for that matter) to the press. And the league should absolutely fine Pax and perhaps the Bulls for what is disclosure of personal items about someone elses player. Its tampering.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls!

*Re: eddy curry "considering" lawsuit against bulls*

I think in the medical field, these are known as HIPPA violations.....


----------



## mizenkay

merging ongoing.


----------



## ace20004u

What that curry "might" file a law suit? No biggie.


----------



## bullsville

*Re: eddy curry "considering" lawsuit against bulls*

I'm no lawyer, but I fail to see how Eddy has suffered any damages due to what Pax has said.

If Pax violated HIPPA regulations, he would be facing criminal charges filed by the government, not civil charges.

In order for Eddy to sue he would have to prove damages, and since he already got his big payday I fail to see how he has lost anything based on what Paxson has said after the fact.

That being said, hopefully Pax will just shut up about it, he has nothing to gain IMHO by discussing the case ever again.


----------



## MikeDC

If there's a violation, it appears to me a much stronger case the Pax violated the CBA than the federal HIPAA statutes. The CBA seems relatively clear that commenting on the specific health issues of players on other teams is out of bounds. Of course you can argue it either way, but the case against Pax looks pretty strong there.

Interpreting HIPAA's requirements on employers is basically a big ****ing mess. Here is a relatively readable overview. I'll confess I don't get the specifics, but the spirit is that employers shouldn't be disclosing health info and once you're an ex-emplyee you really shouldn't be and in fact shouldn't be keeping around the guys' info (a fact that would likely put the company at significant disadvantage were there a suit down the road).

In any case, I doubt Curry would have to show significant damage- as a regulatory scheme, he may well be entitled to something simply by showing a violation occurred. I dunno, just making a slightly educated guess based on general knowledge of how such things work.


----------



## DaBullz

Mikedc said:


> If there's a violation, it appears to me a much stronger case the Pax violated the CBA than the federal HIPAA statutes. The CBA seems relatively clear that commenting on the specific health issues of players on other teams is out of bounds. Of course you can argue it either way, but the case against Pax looks pretty strong there.
> 
> Interpreting HIPAA's requirements on employers is basically a big ****ing mess. Here is a relatively readable overview. I'll confess I don't get the specifics, but the spirit is that employers shouldn't be disclosing health info and once you're an ex-emplyee you really shouldn't be and in fact shouldn't be keeping around the guys' info (a fact that would likely put the company at significant disadvantage were there a suit down the road).
> 
> In any case, I doubt Curry would have to show significant damage- as a regulatory scheme, he may well be entitled to something simply by showing a violation occurred. I dunno, just making a slightly educated guess based on general knowledge of how such things work.


When I raised the question of Curry having a possible lawsuit, it was based upon real damages that could be measured. If Curry had to sign a $6M/season contract, he could argue (based upon Chandler's and Dalembert's contracts) that he was defamed by these kinds of remarks by Paxson to the point it cost him $4M/season or on the order of $24M in measurable damages.

But seeing how he got his big contract with the knicks, I don't see the damages along those lines.

But maybe Curry could get a restraining order to keep Paxson from talking about him in the press.


----------



## johnston797

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=425734&sid=f5c694be5ff9a67fbbd7169de078cc84

NYK fan breaking it down why NYKs are much more likely than the Bulls to get Insurance for Curry.




> Concerning Eddy Curry, you may know through yesterday’s newspapers that the Knicks are close to get Curry’s contract insured.
> It may come as a surprise for some but not for everyone.
> 
> Back to the NBA player disability insurance, under the agreement, each NBA team must insure its 5 highest paid players (it was six before the extension) and Trustmark have the right of exempting 14 body parts and six players for illnesses. Heart is one of the 14 body parts specified in the agreement. As Curry would have been one of the Bulls 5 highest paid players (if he resigned there for the same contract he signed with the Knicks), they had to insure his contract. That’s why they first asked Trustmark and when they were rebuffed they looked at their next option : asking Curry to take less money.
> As John Paxson and his medical staff asked Curry to take a DNA test and refused to play him until he did, the likely scenario was that Curry would take the qualifying offer and watch the season on TV.
> Problem is that Curry was injured before the end of last season and by January Curry would have reached the 41 consecutive games limit. So after January, insurance would have kicked in. With the Bulls, the odds of Eddy Curry being sidelined for more than 41 games were way too high.
> For the Knicks, it’s the opposite, Knicks medical staff gave Curry a clean bill of health and granted him the permission to play and Eddy already played two pre-season games. For the Knicks, as you can see, the odds of Eddy Curry sidelined for more than 41 games are way down. The risks for the insurance company are not the same.
> That’s why the Knicks will likely convince Trustmark and get Eddy’s contract insured


Interesting stuff. Clearly, as stated, each team's findings about Curry's health would dramatically effect the insurer's evaluation. So by Paxson being on the rightmost (lunatic?) fringe of convervative on Curry's heart, he defacto forced insurers to be conservative as well. 

p.s. The part above about the 5 top contracts being insured is news to me. I wonder if that just doesn't mean guarenteed.


----------



## yodurk

johnston797 said:


> http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=425734&sid=f5c694be5ff9a67fbbd7169de078cc84
> 
> NYK fan breaking it down why NYKs are much more likely than the Bulls to get Insurance for Curry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff. Clearly, as stated, each team's findings about Curry's health would dramatically effect the insurer's evaluation. * So by Paxson being on the rightmost (lunatic?) fringe of convervative on Curry's heart, he defacto forced insurers to be conservative as well. *
> 
> p.s. The part above about the 5 top contracts being insured is news to me. I wonder if that just doesn't mean guarenteed.


Seems to me that differences in medical opinion happen. And if what I bolded is true, then it would be utterly and entirely wrong of Paxson to paint a positive picture of Curry for the sole purpose of gaining insurance, when in fact the trusted opinions of the Bulls doctors, as well as Maron, were not so certain or optimistic. If the Knicks get insurance for Curry, good for them. I don't even care anymore now that it's over and done with. If their doctors have such a different medical angle to convince the insurers to sign off on Eddy Curry's contract, then that's out of our hands. It doesn't mean the Bulls didn't try their darndest to get insurance with the diagnosis of their doctors.

I'm nowhere close to joining the Fire Pax club, but I do think Paxson made a mistake by sending a statement to Sports Illustrated. For some reason, he felt the need to defend himself against bad press when I didn't really see a whole lot of national criticism. Many journalists were supportive of his insistence of the DNA test. And the result of having the last word is that the ugliness may have dragged on even longer.

Still, I'm wholly supportive of Paxson because he knows what he's doing on a basketball level, and he'll continue to keep the Bulls competitive and pointing in the right direction. That's all I really care about.


----------



## johnston797

yodurk said:


> it would be utterly and entirely wrong of Paxson to paint a positive picture of Curry for the sole purpose of gaining insurance, when in fact the trusted opinions of the Bulls doctors, as well as Maron, were not so certain or optimistic.


I don't disagree. *The point is that by casting his entire lot with Maron and the DNA testing, Paxson made it impossible for Curry to be insured as a Bull.*

All summer long, posters assumed that the insurance evaluation was seperate from Paxson's analysis. Or Insurance drove Paxson's decisions. Posters assumed a certain cause (no insurance) and effect (Pax must be very careful). This was wrong. Turns out there the real cause (Pax not clearing) and effect (no insurance) was flip-flop of what people thought.


----------



## Da Grinch

yodurk said:


> Seems to me that differences in medical opinion happen. And if what I bolded is true, then it would be utterly and entirely wrong of Paxson to paint a positive picture of Curry for the sole purpose of gaining insurance, when in fact the trusted opinions of the Bulls doctors, as well as Maron, were not so certain or optimistic. If the Knicks get insurance for Curry, good for them. I don't even care anymore now that it's over and done with. If their doctors have such a different medical angle to convince the insurers to sign off on Eddy Curry's contract, then that's out of our hands. *It doesn't mean the Bulls didn't try their darndest to get insurance with the diagnosis of their doctors.*


they didn't try their darndest at all , in fact didn't they tell Curry to find his own insurance?


----------



## The Krakken

Da Grinch said:


> they didn't try their darndest at all , in fact didn't they tell Curry to find his own insurance?


Giving you +reputaion is becoming a habit.


----------



## Tragedy

*Re: eddy curry "considering" lawsuit against bulls*



bullsville said:


> *I'm no lawyer, but I fail to see how Eddy has suffered any damages due to what Pax has said.*
> 
> If Pax violated HIPPA regulations, he would be facing criminal charges filed by the government, not civil charges.
> 
> *In order for Eddy to sue he would have to prove damages, and since he already got his big payday I fail to see how he has lost anything based on what Paxson has said after the fact.*
> 
> That being said, hopefully Pax will just shut up about it, he has nothing to gain IMHO by discussing the case ever again.



My post on page two touches on this a little. To save time here it is again



> The way I see it, the Bulls were trying to control the market value of Eddy Curry.
> 
> As a restricted free agent teams usually let other teams set the price for players who are not guaranteed max contracts (unlike guys like Yao and Amare).
> 
> The whole health scare was used to benefit the Bulls organization by keeping teams from throwing big money at Curry, who was very high risk at the time. That way the Bulls could offer Curry a significantly cheaper contract.
> 
> Whether you believe he deserves more or less is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, the market decides what he's worth, regardless if he's ACTUALLY worth that (see Erick Dampier/Adonal Foyle/etc)
> 
> The Bulls organization gambled on Curry giving in, using health concerns to bait the player into signing and taking what was portrayed as a safe choice.
> 
> The Bulls felt they had a luxury, and the Knicks were willing to take a chance.
> 
> Now it seems the Knicks and Curry won on the gamble. The Knicks paid less than market value for a player (sure Sweetney would have been cheaper than Curry, but when you are able to get a legit center and the chance of that player being dominant, over someone who hasn't really done much, or shown much for the Knicks, you take that chance) that would have gotten quite possibly the MAX.
> 
> The Bulls organization tried to use the 20mil over 50 years as a way to get the public behind them, and force Curry to give in. Nice ploy, but it didn't work.
> 
> Would anyone here actually have taken that deal? How would you feel afterwards (consider that now every doctor says Curry is fine and he will be insured.).
> 
> At the very least you will feel you are in a situation that doesn't really benefit you.


----------



## MikeDC

johnston797 said:


> http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=425734&sid=f5c694be5ff9a67fbbd7169de078cc84
> 
> NYK fan breaking it down why NYKs are much more likely than the Bulls to get Insurance for Curry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff. Clearly, as stated, each team's findings about Curry's health would dramatically effect the insurer's evaluation. So by Paxson being on the rightmost (lunatic?) fringe of convervative on Curry's heart, he defacto forced insurers to be conservative as well.
> 
> p.s. The part above about the 5 top contracts being insured is news to me. I wonder if that just doesn't mean guarenteed.


I can't believe this is entirely true though, because we have a direct statement from The Big Z's agent saying his deal wasn't insured. I think there's some fuzziness about that point that the guy missed.

Logically, the general picture the guy paints - that it was the Bulls' insistence on the DNA test that ment a claim was quite a bit more likely to be filed on Curry - makes sense, but that doesn't make it actually true. Still, an insurer, looking at the stand-off and the Bulls insistence that Curry do something, whether non-medically standard or not, before he's cleared to play undoubtably raises the odds they don't clear him and thus that a claim gets filed.

I still think its just as likely that a concerted effort on the part of the team (for the same reasons its easier to get insurance through your employer, not as an individual) combined with the decisiveness of the medical exams and clarification of the protocols that should be in place by a team of doctors is making a difference. These possibilities aren't all mutually exclusive, however; both could be and probably are making a difference (which, in the final analysis, largely renders the lack of insurance to be a problem of the Bulls' making and no one else's). We'll see if he actually gets insured though.


----------



## MikeDC

yodurk said:


> Still, I'm wholly supportive of Paxson because he knows what he's doing on a basketball level, and he'll continue to keep the Bulls competitive and pointing in the right direction. That's all I really care about.


This really gets to my evaluation of Pax as a GM so far. Good decisions on which basketball players to go after. Everything else, however, is still a big part of being a successful GM, and on that front I don't think the track record is all that great. He's done some good things that merit props, he's done some ok things, and he's done some things that look amateurish and bad. I'll also qualify that by saying that Reinsdorf is likely at least partially (and perhaps totally) responsible for some of those gaffes, so when I say "Pax", I really mean "Bulls management" and its impossible for us to tell where some of these issues lie.


----------



## johnston797

Mikedc said:


> We'll see if he actually gets insured though.


Trustmark may be incented at this point to wait until he actually plays in a game and completely reset the clock.


----------



## narek

As an Insurance Industry flunky, let me say yet again - underwriting decisions are based on the medical documents presented. They could care less about any GM says or doesn't say. Underwriters are professional risk accessors.

If Curry gets his deal approved, its because new evidence came up, or as someone posted on RealGm it might be because of the agreement between the NBA and TrustMark where TrustMark has to insure it because of the agreement the NBA has with TrustMark and that the Knicks and the Bulls are in different positions. This is from the RealGm Knicks board:



> Back to the NBA player disability insurance, under the agreement, each NBA team must insure its 5 highest paid players (it was six before the extension) and Trustmark have the right of exempting 14 body parts and six players for illnesses. Heart is one of the 14 body parts specified in the agreement. As Curry would have been one of the Bulls 5 highest paid players (if he resigned there for the same contract he signed with the Knicks), they had to insure his contract. That’s why they first asked Trustmark and when they were rebuffed they looked at their next option : asking Curry to take less money.
> As John Paxson and his medical staff asked Curry to take a DNA test and refused to play him until he did, the likely scenario was that Curry would take the qualifying offer and watch the season on TV.
> Problem is that Curry was injured before the end of last season and by January Curry would have reached the 41 consecutive games limit. So after January, insurance would have kicked in. With the Bulls, the odds of Eddy Curry being sidelined for more than 41 games were way too high.
> For the Knicks, it’s the opposite, Knicks medical staff gave Curry a clean bill of health and granted him the permission to play and Eddy already played two pre-season games. For the Knicks, as you can see, the odds of Eddy Curry sidelined for more than 41 games are way down. The risks for the insurance company are not the same.
> That’s why the Knicks will likely convince Trustmark and get Eddy’s contract insured


It's an interesting post - earlier it said TrustMark didn't want to renew the NBA deal because it wasn't very profitable for them, and I can believe that. It's disability insurance, but the odds on a player having to retire for medical reasons are higher the longer they stay in the league, and they're at their peak salaries at that time. I'm really curious as to what the premiums are. Normal disability premiums are fairly high, at least that was the trend the last time anyone around here was talking about them - we don't do disability, but we were shopping for a new insurer for our own when the subject came up in a meeting.


----------



## johnston797

narek said:


> As an Insurance Industry flunky, let me say yet again - underwriting decisions are based on the medical documents presented. They could care less about any GM says or doesn't say.


I couldn't disagree more. Underwriting decisions are based on risk. The risk is if Curry sits out more than 41 games or longer. Bulls had not cleared Curry so that was a big risk especially as he had sat out 20 games or so. NYKs have cleared Curry. Clearly, the risk is different. 



narek said:


> *Underwriters are professional risk accessors.*


Yes, precisely why this issue would come into consideration.


----------



## MikeDC

narek said:


> As an Insurance Industry flunky, let me say yet again - underwriting decisions are based on the medical documents presented. They could care less about any GM says or doesn't say. Underwriters are professional risk accessors.


But the crux of the matter here seems to be that what the GM says and doesn't say affects what medical information is presented for analysis by the professional risk assessors. 

One application for insurance appeares likely to have listed, in detail, every time you were ever out of breath as if it might be a heart related issue, and states that your employer is going to require you to take a test that may result in a claim being filed but also is non-standard, inconclusive, and has an unknown false positive rate in the given situation.

The other application appears to have submitted detailed information showing that Curry's heart was fine when he was out of breath, that there is a sound, non-structural reason for his arrythmia, and that he's been cleared by six doctors giving him a rigorous exam to the current medical standards.

If the Bulls go, saying we're going to require (non-standard) test X, bringing up past, non-heart related incidents as if they were, in fact, heart related, and making clear a legal conflict in which a claim was likely to be filed was looming, that's a pretty different set of evidence than the team and player going together, unanimously supported by six cardiologists applying the industry standard criteria to indicate there is no problem and providing supporting evidence in the form of a medical rationale to explain both the previous non-heart related incident in training camp and the arrythmia he suffered during the season.

I don't think any "new evidence" came up, it was just that it was fully and competently explained and a significant risk factor (a claim resulting from the Bulls declaring Curry medically unfit due to a refusal to take a non-standard test and resulting legal battle) was eliminated.


----------



## DaBullz

Underwriting decisions are indeed based upon risk.

What insurance company wouldn't insure Curry for $60M if it received $61M in payments from the team/league/player? There's no risk, and Curry gets his insurance.

It gets dicy if Curry's a 50% chance to get hurt and the payments are $30M.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Curry tonight.
15 points in 17 minutes.

Curry's "replacements" last night (Songolia, Sweetney, the Little Oh)
17 points in 61 minutes.


(gulp)


----------



## hps

In three preseason games, Curry has zero assists.


----------



## bullsville

Eddy has now played 48 minutes in his 3 games.

38 points
12 rebounds
ZERO assists
8 turnovers 
1 blocked shot
11 fouls

Sounds about right to me...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wow... 12 rebounds per 48 minutes is pretty good... that's impressive. 

Would have been top 40 in the league last year in the regular season. 

Maybe Brown is doing more than saying "jump?"

(lol... after years of bashing eddy for rebounding... now its on to assists early on... lol )


----------



## Qwst25

bullsville said:


> ZERO assists
> 8 turnovers
> 1 blocked shot
> 11 fouls



(gulp) :biggrin:


----------



## Qwst25

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow... 12 rebounds per 48 minutes is pretty good... that's impressive.
> 
> Would have been top 40 in the league last year in the regular season.
> 
> Maybe Brown is doing more than saying "jump?"


Or maybe he's bribing him with dohnuts.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Qwst25 said:


> (gulp) :biggrin:


Wow... hating like its mid-season in the preseason.

Chandler ... 1 assist in 84 minutes


Sweetney .... 2 assists in 103 minutes
Sweetney .... 1 block in 103 minutes
Sweetney .... 15 fouls in 103 minutes


----------



## kukoc4ever

Qwst25 said:


> Or maybe he's bribing him with dohnuts.


Are you talking about Skiles and Sweetney?


----------



## bullsville

Sweet's per48 so far:

21.8 points
13 rebounds
0.9 assists
5.6 turnovers
0.47 blocks
7.0 fouls


----------



## fl_flash

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry tonight.
> 15 points in 17 minutes.
> 
> Curry's "replacements" last night (Songolia, Sweetney, the Little Oh)
> 17 points in 61 minutes.
> 
> 
> (gulp)


4 fouls and two turnovers in those same 17 minutes. Zero Assists. Playing against such all-world centers as Steven Hunter and Deng Gai. So, he would have fouled out in around 23 mins. Sounds about right. Also, I believe the knicks got their asses handed to them by a Sixers team that was minus Iverson, Webber and Dalembert. John Freakin Salmons looked like Jordan out there. Hell, Nate Robinson, in just four more minutes, grabbed _twice_ as many boards as Curry. 

Yup. Eddy is the man alright. (Nice try K4E!)


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> *Wow... hating like its mid-season in the preseason.*
> 
> Chandler ... 1 assist in 84 minutes
> 
> 
> Sweetney .... 2 assists in 103 minutes
> Sweetney .... 1 block in 103 minutes
> Sweetney .... 15 fouls in 103 minutes


So I guess that's means you're "loving like it's mid-season in the preseason"? :biggrin: 

Well, I mean "loving" on Knicks' players and "hating" on Bulls' players, obviously.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Sweet's per48 so far:
> 
> 21.8 points
> 13 rebounds
> 0.9 assists
> 5.6 turnovers
> 0.47 blocks
> 7.0 fouls



Wow... its amazing that Curry's per 48 rebounding is only 1 rebound behind a great rebounder like Sweetney early on. 

Maybe it is a new Eddy.

Sweetney is sucking at assists and blocks as well I see... and fouling way too much... just like Curry. 

Chandler is also fouling way too much and has a whopping 1 assist in four games.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Well, I mean "loving" on Knicks' players and "hating" on Bulls' players, obviously.


lol.... chill out until I write a "I hate Sweetney" or "I hate Chandler" song.

Oh wait... Chandler and Sweetney are 2 of my 3 favorite Bulls!


----------



## Qwst25

kukoc4ever said:


> Are you talking about Skiles and Sweetney?


Whatever gets the job done is fine with me.


----------



## MikeDC

So far this thread has been relatively useful, so let me just ask, as a personal favor, that you two, Kukoc4Ever and Bullsville, resist the temptation (which always seems to be there for you two) to engage the debate at a completely meaningless and point-missingly pedantic level like shouting back and forth whichever statistics, at a given moment, seems to suit your purpose. It was boring last year and its already boring again.

There are decent debates to be had, but the inane back and forth over "my guy had a good game last night" isn't one of them. Ick. At least take it to a different thread instead of hijacking one where people were actually talking about something.


----------



## madox

The important thing here is that the Knicks are looking like one of the worst teams in the league, which means the Bulls should be getting a lottery pick. 

People actually thought Larry Brown was gonna get Curry, Crawford, Marbury to play defense? LMAO!!!

Guaranteed, Knicks will be bottom 5 in the NBA in FG% allowed = Lottery pick for the Bulls. 

As of now they're right about 50% in FGA... O man, it's gonna be hilarious listening to Knicks fans this year!!! 


... There's simply no helping these Crawford/Curry supporters until they hit bottom.


----------



## ace20004u

madox said:


> The important thing here is that the Knicks are looking like one of the worst teams in the league, which means the Bulls should be getting a lottery pick.
> 
> People actually thought Larry Brown was gonna get Curry, Crawford, Marbury to play defense? LMAO!!!
> 
> Guaranteed, Knicks will be bottom 5 in the NBA in FG% allowed = Lottery pick for the Bulls.
> 
> As of now they're right about 50% in FGA... O man, it's gonna be hilarious listening to Knicks fans this year!!!
> 
> 
> ... There's simply no helping these Crawford/Curry supporters until they hit bottom.



It's preseason I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Besides, I think the Knicks have a similar preseason record to teh Bulls so far...doesn't mean a thing...nada.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow... its amazing that Curry's per 48 rebounding is only 1 rebound behind a great rebounder like Sweetney early on.
> 
> Maybe it is a new Eddy.
> 
> Sweetney is sucking at assists and blocks as well I see... and fouling way too much... just like Curry.


Yeah, Sweetney and Curry are pretty much the same player, I'm glad we agree on that. Difference being that the Bulls aren't paying Sweetney $60 M for an average performance.

And the Knicks are horrible defensively. I bet Jerome James starts over Eddy before the end of the year.


----------



## Frankensteiner

ace20004u said:


> It's preseason I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Besides, I think the Knicks have a similar preseason record to teh Bulls so far...doesn't mean a thing...nada.


The Bulls have a proven track record as being a good defensive team. The Knicks have a proven track record of being a horrible defensive team. I'm with Madox, that team is lottery bound.


----------



## giusd

The knicks starters have been awful on defensive. If you look at the stats so far there opp % is greater than %50 in the pre-season. Now you can say it is the preseason but this is a continuation from last year and i think they will be one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA again.

There has been much discussion but IMHO not only will the bulls have a better record than the knicks i think the knicks are in the lotto again and we get that pick.

david


----------



## ScottMay

I think we should probably worry more about our own house than what's going on in NY.

Otherwise, it seems a bit two-faced to blame all our woes on "it's just preseason." Why wouldn't the same be true for the Knicks?

The Bulls are yielding an overall team FG% of .463, which is bad, and .468 from three, which is dreadful. Those numbers scream "lottery".


----------



## ace20004u

Frankensteiner said:


> The Bulls have a proven track record as being a good defensive team. The Knicks have a proven track record of being a horrible defensive team. I'm with Madox, that team is lottery bound.


And the Bulls thus far in the preseason have proven to not be a good offensive team, I still fail to see the point since this is all preseason and both teams have played a ridiculously long rotation.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, Sweetney and Curry are pretty much the same player, I'm glad we agree on that.


Do you really think that Curry and Sweetney are the same player?

To me, they seem completley different. Curry scores over people and uses quickness and athleticism. Sweetney gets to the line and burrows his way to space using his massive frame. Sweetney seems like he'll be an even worse defender than Curry. 

I'm a fan of Sweetney... but I don't think he's similar to Curry at all.


----------



## madox

ace20004u said:


> ... I still fail to see the point since this is all preseason and both teams have played a ridiculously long rotation.


That's true. 

But the fact is at least 4 outta 5 Knick starters have a voluminously poor history of playing defense. 

The Knicks secound unit, the one logging all these pre-season minutes, is probably a better defensive unit than the first unit. 

I don't think the same can be said for the Bulls.


----------



## Qwst25

ScottMay said:


> I think we should probably worry more about our own house than what's going on in NY.


Considering all the draft picks Paxson swindled out of them in the trade, I think keeping a close eye on NY makes a great deal of sense for any Bulls fan. I am going to be very interested in what NY does this season.


----------



## yodurk

Kukoc4ever, do you agree with my previous assertion that playing for this particular Knicks team is Eddy Curry's biggest chance ever to boost his rebounding numbers? I certainly think so. For starters, there just aren't any good rebounders on the Knicks! Unless Channing Frye turns out to have a knack for it (which I don't think he does, from seeing him play at Arizona), SOMEBODY has to grab rebounds on this team. I've been saying this since the day Eddy was traded.

In any case, I don't tend to put much stock in pre-season games. I do think the Bulls' first 2 games should be relatively overlooked since we were missing about 4 key bench players, and relied upon the likes of Kasib Powell, Jermaine Jackson, and Randy Holcomb to log big minutes. The Boston game was nearly flawless any way you look at it with nearly our whole team playing. If there's any game to be worried about, it's the T-Wolves game...we had most of our team there, yet still played crappy. 

With the Knicks, they're displaying exactly what I expected. Alot of offense, very poor defense. They certainly aren't dispelling my predictions so far, but again we gotta wait a few months to really see where each team is at. 

By the way, does anyone think the Knicks are built similar to the 2002-2003 Bulls team?

Marbury = Jalen Rose
Crawford = Crawford
Curry = Curry
Q-Rich = Marshall (similar enough, production-wise)
Nate Robinson = Jay Williams
Channing Frye = Chandler
Maurice Taylor = Marcus Fizer
Ariza = Trent Hassell
Jerome James = Corie Blount

I suppose this Knicks team has a bit more depth, but both teams "on paper" look good, but on the floor there's merely good offense balanced with poor defense.


----------



## Ron Cey

Qwst25 said:


> Considering all the draft picks Paxson swindled out of them in the trade, I think keeping a close eye on NY makes a great deal of sense for any Bulls fan. I am going to be very interested in what NY does this season.


I agree. I'm going to be following the Knicks closely both this season and next. For the picks and to see how Curry plays. I have longstanding opinions about Curry and I'll be curious to see if I was wrong about them. 

On a couple of other notes that are completely unrelated to Eddy Curry, Channing Frye and David Lee look pretty darn good to me in the two games I've watched. I like those picks a lot. I trash Isiah pretty relentlessly sometimes, but he does appear to have drafted very well these last two seasons (though I think Nate Robinson looks like a fan-favorite, flashy, but ulimately useless point guard who can't defend and will be a turnover machine who can't control tempo within a team concept)

Also, John Salmons might be a free agent to keep an eye on. He might be a nice "big guard role player" solution for the Bulls down the line. 

Finally, Iguodala looked like a complete and utter stud last night. I've always been on the "Hey, Gordon and Iggy are both excellent in different ways so Paxson didn't make a mistake" bandwagon when it comes to Iggy. But if he keeps playing like that, or better, Gordon is going to have to absolutely explode to have been the better pick for Chicago.


----------



## Da Grinch

pre season is only worth what the head coach wants to get out of it.

for the knicks its worth nothing because i dont think marbury is taking it seriously, that he is coasting , although actually playing the style they want him to play , he hasn't played well once yet , and a 3 game streak when that happens is very rare ...say what you want about marbury , but he is as consistent a player as there is in the nba, he gets his 18-25 in any game that counts.

also they haven't had what i believe will their starting line up once yetor ste their rotation , and in all 3 games the opposing starting line up pretty much took advantage of them. it was their depth that brought them back in 2 games.

for the bulls they too have kept players out , tried new things here and there in player combinations and are trying to gell ...

i think both teams are headed for slow starts in the reg. season but will be fine soon enough.


----------



## rlucas4257

Could it be that the Bulls have 2 lottery picks? 

Man, 2 lottery picks in what is shaping up as a terrible draft and cap space in what is shaping up as a terrible FA class. Good job


----------



## fl_flash

rlucas4257 said:


> Could it be that the Bulls have 2 lottery picks?
> 
> Man, 2 lottery picks in what is shaping up as a terrible draft and cap space in what is shaping up as a terrible FA class. Good job


What would that make the job Zeke is doing then? No lottery picks (or any pick) and no capspace with which to improve.


----------



## rlucas4257

fl_flash said:


> What would that make the job Zeke is doing then? No lottery picks (or any pick) and no capspace with which to improve.



Bad GMing on both sides


----------



## Frankensteiner

fl_flash said:


> What would that make the job Zeke is doing then? No lottery picks (or any pick) and no capspace with which to improve.


Yeah but Zeke added two future All-Stars in consecutive offseasons. So he gets high marks.


----------



## rosenthall

Mikedc said:


> So far this thread has been relatively useful, so let me just ask, as a personal favor, that you two, Kukoc4Ever and Bullsville, resist the temptation (which always seems to be there for you two) to engage the debate at a completely meaningless and point-missingly pedantic level like shouting back and forth whichever statistics, at a given moment, seems to suit your purpose. It was boring last year and its already boring again.
> 
> There are decent debates to be had, but the inane back and forth over "my guy had a good game last night" isn't one of them. Ick. At least take it to a different thread instead of hijacking one where people were actually talking about something.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mikedc again.


----------



## yodurk

rlucas4257 said:


> Could it be that the Bulls have 2 lottery picks?
> 
> Man, 2 lottery picks in what is shaping up as a terrible draft and cap space in what is shaping up as a terrible FA class. Good job


Sorry to verge OT, but rlucas...I'm curious why you think the 2006 draft will be crappy. To be honest, I haven't looked into it deeply, but it just seems a little premature. We have no idea at this point who will declare for the draft, nor do we know which college players will step up their games and emerge as lottery picks. Same goes for the foreign prospects. I believe that you agreed with me that Sheldon Williams would be a great pickup for the Bulls if he's there for the taken. What gives?


----------



## Soulful Sides

madox said:


> The important thing here is that the Knicks are looking like one of the worst teams in the league, which means the Bulls should be getting a lottery pick.
> 
> People actually thought Larry Brown was gonna get Curry, Crawford, Marbury to play defense? LMAO!!!
> 
> Guaranteed, Knicks will be bottom 5 in the NBA in FG% allowed = Lottery pick for the Bulls.
> 
> As of now they're right about 50% in FGA... O man, it's gonna be hilarious listening to Knicks fans this year!!!
> 
> 
> ... There's simply no helping these Crawford/Curry supporters until they hit bottom.


Actually, it is interesting that I read this comment today about this thing: http://www.blogabull.com/story/2005/10/12/195419/61

In a nutshell, the statistics show that Larry Brown usually a dramatic and rapid defensive improvement to a team. On the negative side, this will probably be a very competitive Eastern Conference and he has only one player on the roster who averaged more than 5 rebounds a game last season.


----------



## Ron Cey

yodurk said:


> Sorry to verge OT, but rlucas...I'm curious why you think the 2006 draft will be crappy. To be honest, I haven't looked into it deeply, but it just seems a little premature. We have no idea at this point who will declare for the draft, nor do we know which college players will step up their games and emerge as lottery picks. Same goes for the foreign prospects. I believe that you agreed with me that Sheldon Williams would be a great pickup for the Bulls if he's there for the taken. What gives?


Well, one thing is for sure. It won't be as deep as it was last year. You immediately lose 4-12 potential high school projects who may have declared if not for the new rule. 

Here is the nbadraft.net projections for the draft, for what its worth: http://nbadraft.net/index.asp

There doesn't appear to be "that guy" in the draft. But that shouldn't really matter for either the Bulls or Knicks' pick anyway. There does appear to be some size. The Bulls could shore up some areas with those two picks, but I don't think they'll be looking at game changers. Not a big surprise, really.

A big and a bomber like JJ Redick would be nice additions.


----------



## BenDengGo

rlucas4257 said:


> Could it be that the Bulls have 2 lottery picks?
> 
> Man,* 2 lottery picks in what is shaping up as a terrible draft* and cap space in what is shaping up as a terrible FA class. Good job


that's year 2000 all over again....

1. New Jersey	Kenyon Martin Cincinnati Sr. PF 6-9 230	
2. Vancouver	Stromile Swift LSU So. PF 6-9 235 
3. LA Clippers	Darius Miles Lincoln HS Sr. SF 6-9 200
*4. Chicago	Marcus Fizer Iowa State Jr. PF 6-8 240 *
5. Orlando (from GS)	Mike Miller Florida So. SF 6-8 218 
6. Atlanta	DerMarr Johnson Cincinnati Fr. SF 6-9 200 
7. Chicago*(To Cleveland)	Chris Mihm Texas Jr. C 7-0 262 
*8. Cleveland *(To Chicgo)	Jamal Crawford Michigan Fr. PG/SG 6-6 195	*
9. Houston*(To Milwaukee)	Joel Przybilla Minnesota So. C 7-1 240 
10. Orlando*(To LA Clippers)	Keyon Dooling Missouri So. PG 6-3 180 
11. Boston	Jerome Moiso UCLA So. PF 6-10 230 
12. Dallas	Etan Thomas Syracuse Sr. PF 6-9 231 
13. Orlando*(To Dallas)	Courtney Alexander Fresno St. Sr. SG 6-5 200 
14. Detroit	Mateen Cleaves Michigan St. Sr. PG 6-2 190 
15. Milwaukee *(To Houston)	Jason Collier Georgia Tech Sr. C 7-0 230


----------



## yodurk

Ron Cey said:


> Well, one thing is for sure. It won't be as deep as it was last year. You immediately lose 4-12 potential high school projects who may have declared if not for the new rule.
> 
> Here is the nbadraft.net projections for the draft, for what its worth: http://nbadraft.net/index.asp
> 
> There doesn't appear to be "that guy" in the draft. But that shouldn't really matter for either the Bulls or Knicks' pick anyway. There does appear to be some size. The Bulls could shore up some areas with those two picks, but I don't think they'll be looking at game changers. Not a big surprise, really.
> 
> A big and a bomber like JJ Redick would be nice additions.


Good point, I forgot about the new age rule. I still think it's premature to call it a bad draft though. If I recall, Andrew Bogut was nowhere near the project #1 pick before last season. Many other players' stocks rose and fall as well. It doesn't really shape up until the last month or two of the college season. Historically speaking, having 2 picks around 15th or higher will land you good talent. 

And BenDengGo, I still have nightmares about our 2000 draft and how horrible it was. But it should be noted that while 2000 was not at all top heavy, there were some great mid-first rounders:

Etan Thomas - 13th
Hedo Turkoglu - 17th
Desmond Mason - 18th
Quentin Richardson - 19th
Jamaal Magloire - 20th
Speedy Claxton - 21st
Morris Peterson - 22nd
(Pretty darn solid run of picks from 17-22!)

There was also:
Primoz Brezec - 27th
Marko Jaric - 30th
Michael Redd - 43rd (!)
Brian Cardinal - 44th
Jason Hard - 49th

Pretty amazing how some of the mid to late picks were better than many of the lotto picks.


----------



## johnston797

yodurk said:


> Good point, I forgot about the new age rule. I still think it's premature to call it a bad draft though. If I recall, Andrew Bogut was nowhere near the project #1 pick before last season. Many other players' stocks rose and fall as well. It doesn't really shape up until the last month or two of the college season. Historically speaking, having 2 picks around 15th or higher will land you good talent.
> 
> And BenDengGo, I still have nightmares about our 2000 draft and how horrible it was. But it should be noted that while 2000 was not at all top heavy, there were some great mid-first rounders:
> 
> Etan Thomas - 13th
> Hedo Turkoglu - 17th
> Desmond Mason - 18th
> Quentin Richardson - 19th
> Jamaal Magloire - 20th
> Speedy Claxton - 21st
> Morris Peterson - 22nd
> (Pretty darn solid run of picks from 17-22!)
> 
> There was also:
> Primoz Brezec - 27th
> Marko Jaric - 30th
> Michael Redd - 43rd (!)
> Brian Cardinal - 44th
> Jason Hard - 49th
> 
> Pretty amazing how some of the mid to late picks were better than many of the lotto picks.



I only count 2 (maybe 3) guys that would help our rotation this year and make us 5% better or more. Magloire, Redd and possibly Brezec. 

I hope next year's draft is waaaaaaay better.

Some of those guys would allow us Reinsdorf to be cheap and not pay guys like Songailia or Nocioni in the future. I'm sure some of that will get a big cheer from a certain faction of the board.


----------



## yodurk

johnston797 said:


> I only count 2 (maybe 3) guys that would help our rotation this year and make us 5% better or more. Magloire, Redd and possibly Brezec.
> 
> I hope next year's draft is waaaaaaay better.
> 
> Some of those guys would allow us Reinsdorf to be cheap and not pay guys like Songailia or Nocioni in the future. I'm sure some of that will get a big cheer from a certain faction of the board.


To continue the OT discussion... 

The point is, having a poor draft lottery-wise doesn't mean there won't be serviceable pieces in the mid-to-late 1st round, or maybe even 2nd round. The 2000 draft is a clear example of this. The Clippers made out like bandits by getting both Richardson and Jaric with relatively low picks (although being the Clippers, they managed to screw that up but that's beside the point). 

And IMO, Nocioni is a guy who we might have to let go in a few years. Not that I want to, but if Deng is capable of a bigger role and takes all the SF minutes...and if Noch is commanding a bigger contract...we might be better served to find a lower cost option for backup SF. I don't see how this makes us cheap though, when we don't have a big enough role for Noch to be happy and if we're better served spending the team's money elsewhere.


----------



## bullsville

Eddy hurt his shoulder Tuesday night and did not run yesterday.

Also, Brown is already sick of the Knicks, and it only took him 3 preseason games to issue a "no defense, no hustle, no play" edict:



http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archi...ays_hustle_defense_will_dictate_playing_time/

Fed up after two consecutive poor preseason performances, Larry Brown issued a mandate yesterday that playing time this season will be dictated not by contract or reputation, but by smart play and sheer hustle, something these Knicks haven't shown yet. 

After a 3 1/2-hour practice session in which the coach went over some of the most basic principles of the game, Brown said players who don't hustle back on defense or don't pass the ball will watch much of the game from the bench, and might not even start. 

"A lot of (that) is gonna determine who's going to play," he said. "The guys who are committed to hustling back, making the extra pass, taking the good shot, are probably the ones who are gonna be out there in the guts of the game, or maybe at the beginning of the game." 

Brown watched Tuesday night's debacle against the Sixers from a luxury box -- every year he allows his first assistant to coach a game, so Herb Williams was in charge -- and was not happy with what he saw as the Knicks were blown out by a team that didn't have Allen Iverson, Chris Webber or Samuel Dalembert. 

"We lost to a summer-league team in a lot of ways without Allen and Samuel and Chris," he said. "It was not a pretty sight." 

In other Knicks news Eddy Curry did not run yesterday because of a sore shoulder, an injury he suffered Tuesday night.


----------



## truebluefan

hey guess what?? Just 160-plus pages to go to catch up with the Jamal Crawford thread.


----------



## bullsville

truebluefan said:


> hey guess what?? Just 160-plus pages to go to catch up with the Jamal Crawford thread.


This thread started out 2 months behind Jamal's since Eddy was traded in October instead of August, but IMHO it's safe to say that this thread's length passes Jamal's before the end of the regular season.


----------



## lorgg

*Curry off the bench*

BENCH MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A OREB DREB REB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS 
E CURRY 17 3-3 0-0 4-8 0 1 1 1 1 2 5 4 10 

ouch 5 turn overs. 1 rebound. A bench player alreay? Hmmmmm?


----------



## Sham

*Re: Curry off the bench*



lorgg said:


> BENCH MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A OREB DREB REB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS
> E CURRY 17 3-3 0-0 4-8 0 1 1 1 1 2 5 4 10
> 
> ouch 5 turn overs. 1 rebound. A bench player alreay? Hmmmmm?




*turns gun on self*


:curse: 



 



Please stop. It is customary in preseason for teams to expierment with lineups. Unless of course you think Milt Palacio really is going to start for the Jazz.


----------



## NYKBaller

*Re: Curry off the bench*

he had a shoulder injury, thats why...


----------



## madox

*Re: Curry off the bench*

13 Knick assists vs. 30 Knick turnovers. 


Holy crap.


----------



## L.O.B

*Re: Curry off the bench*

Holy Michael Sweetney, Batman! 4 personal fouls in 17 minutes how is the kid ever going to stay on the court?


----------



## yodurk

*Re: Curry off the bench*

I got to watch some of the Knicks game last night; first one I've seen this pre-season. Looked like the same old Eddy Curry to me. He still has the soft shooting touch and can put the ball in the hoop. But still struggles making the right decisions and especially executing passes. One play in particular was vintage Eddy Curry...he gets a nice post feed from Marbury, the double team comes, he tries to pass out of it, but then throws the pass directly to a Mavs player (Josh Howard, I think) for the easy fast-break dunk. The same highs and lows, just like always. 

Also, I plan on tracking the Knicks all season long since we get their draft pick, and let me say that Larry Brown will be a miracle worker if he gets them to win 40 games. The pros for the Knicks are that they have plenty of talented athletes and a pretty deep roster. But the cons are that they simply fail to outplay and outhustle the opponent. Surprisingly though, my prediction of the Knicks being a terrible rebounding team has not yet come to fruition. I really can't wait for the start of the regular season to see where both the Bulls and Knicks are at.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

In regards to Curry couldnt the same highs and lows type situation be said in regards to Tyson as well and thats without the medically enforced layoff ? Curry not only has to improve his game but get back in game shap after not really playing BBall period for a few months .The rust is quite Obvious .

As for the knicks and their pick .If they stay healthy we are screwed because that team will be a top 4 team in the east.They started James/AD and came in off the bench with Curry/Mo Taylor and if they play hard they are one of the best frontlines in the east and Brown has them playing hard .That doesnt even mention the rookies in Frye and Lee who have looked very good.

I think the knicks will suprise this year because of the fact that they are a talented team and because Brown always gets his way so they will play hard.


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Curry off the bench*



yodurk said:


> One play in particular was vintage Eddy Curry...he gets a nice post feed from Marbury, the double team comes, he tries to pass out of it, but then throws the pass directly to a Mavs player (Josh Howard, I think) for the easy fast-break dunk. The same highs and lows, just like always.


IMHO, these types of plays are why Curry is ranked as a poor defender by Dan R's system.

Let's face it, he is never going to lose that soft touch and 300 pound athletic body. If he ever improves the mental side of this game, he will be borderline all-star for years. I really don't want to bet against such a young player having Larry Brown teaching him.


----------



## yodurk

TRUTHHURTS said:


> In regards to Curry couldnt the same highs and lows type situation be said in regards to Tyson as well and thats without the medically enforced layoff ? Curry not only has to improve his game but get back in game shap after not really playing BBall period for a few months .The rust is quite Obvious .


Of course it could be said of Tyson. I wasn't saying anything about Eddy Curry to bash him; I wish Eddy well and all (it's the Knicks as a team who I hope fail miserably). It simply had been a long time since I've seen Curry in action (March 30th to be exact), and I was clearly recognizing the same old Eddy. Call it rust if you want, but he's a very mistake-prone player. I will say that with Tyson, though, that the highs are almost as high, while the lows aren't nearly as low. In other words, Eddy's mistakes made me wanna bash my head into a wall. Tyson's mistakes are usually quickly forgotten and forgiven; this has alot to do with the roles they play of course.

We'll just have to disagree about the Knicks and let the results speak for themselves. As I said, I'll give due props to Larry Brown if he coaches them to a mere 40 wins. The talent is obviously there, but just about everyone on that team is either a) a career loser, b) a career underachiever, c) a washed up veteran, or d) a rookie. Not a very good mix, IMO...then again, many perceived last year's Bulls as such a team. The key difference, though, is that the Bulls quickly achieved an identity, as a defensive team with a deep bench and well-balanced offensive attack. Do the Knicks have the type of players who can achieve such an identity? Maybe as a run-and-gun team, perhaps? I don't know, I just don't see it. I hope I'm right, as the Bulls reap the benefits.


----------



## giusd

This is a joke right "As for the knicks and their pick. If they stay healthy we are screwed because that team will be a top 4 team in the east." This has to be the most silly thing i have ever read. The knicks are not the 4 best team in the east in frankly i would be surprised if they even make the playoffs. This was one of the worst teams in the east the last half of the season last year.

They lost 10 games in a row as well. They are soft, dont play defensive and on O they are mostly one on one. So now i am to beleive that because Larry Brown is the coach this team is a 4th seed. PLEASE. This is the same bs we all had to read last year. Remember everyone. The knicks are going to win the east. JC is the starting SG on the 2nd best team in the east and on and on and on.

The fact is the bulls had a much better record than the knicks last year and the bulls will have a better record then the knicks this year as well.

All the knicks can do is score. Ever other aspect of their game is weak and ALREADY Larry Brown is telling them that if they dont pick it up and play some D the so called stars will be on the bench.

david


----------



## madox

*Re: Curry off the bench*



johnston797 said:


> If he ever improves the mental side of this game, he will be borderline all-star for years. I really don't want to bet against such a young player having Larry Brown teaching him.


He won't be a borderline all-star, he'll be the best center in the league. 

Everyone knows this. But to say you're "not willing to bet against" something-- that statement is about as significant as your morning bowel movement. 

No one cares what you're NOT willing to bet against. Tell us what you ARE willing to bet on/against. 

That is how the internet will judge you.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife

*Re: Curry off the bench*

In My opinion Chicago got the better of the deal, Eddy curry is still soft to the basket, if not he's worse on the offensive end needing New York to run it to get it into his hands (Example: 3 of his 4 Dunks against Philly were fast breaks)


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

giusd said:


> This is a joke right "As for the knicks and their pick. If they stay healthy we are screwed because that team will be a top 4 team in the east." This has to be the most silly thing i have ever read. The knicks are not the 4 best team in the east in frankly i would be surprised if they even make the playoffs. This was one of the worst teams in the east the last half of the season last year.
> 
> They lost 10 games in a row as well. They are soft, dont play defensive and on O they are mostly one on one. So now i am to beleive that because Larry Brown is the coach this team is a 4th seed. PLEASE. This is the same bs we all had to read last year. Remember everyone. The knicks are going to win the east. JC is the starting SG on the 2nd best team in the east and on and on and on.
> 
> The fact is the bulls had a much better record than the knicks last year and the bulls will have a better record then the knicks this year as well.
> 
> All the knicks can do is score. Ever other aspect of their game is weak and ALREADY Larry Brown is telling them that if they dont pick it up and play some D the so called stars will be on the bench.
> 
> david


Actually I would say its silly to keep referring to last season when talking about this current knicks squad because they are not even close to being the same team.

You say they are soft and i say if you watched them this year you would know they are going to be one of the most physical teams in the league upfront.


If you watched them this year you would know they are showing signs of being a much better defensive team than last year.

Who said the knicks would win the east ?You obviously havent watched them at all and are basically letting your dislike for them cause you to look like a fool.

Your only response to anything thats said is what happened last season when we are talking about this season with a new coach and 7 new players.

the* only * thing thats a sure thing in the east is that barring injury The Pacers,Pistons and Heat will battle it out for the top 3 spots after that its basically a toss up for the next 5 playoff spots and the knicks have just as good a chance as anyone else including us.Its amazing how one good year and weve seem to gotten outrageously arrogant.


----------



## MikeDC

I thought for a second there I mistakenly wondered onto the Knicks board.

Same old Eddy is right. Unfortunately "same old Eddy", good game or not averages out to one of the league's better centers.

He actually got talked about by the announcers for making a nice defensive play, coming over to help and blocking a shot.

Sank a 15 footer with two guys right in his grill too.

Also made a couple of really stupid turnovers.

AD was looking pretty decent for them too. I'm fairly certain they'll make the playoffs.


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Curry off the bench*



madox said:


> Tell us what you ARE willing to bet on/against.


I bet we regret that Curry is no longer a Bull for years. I've had that pretty clear in pleny of other posts.


----------



## yodurk

*Re: Curry off the bench*



johnston797 said:


> I bet we regret that Curry is no longer a Bull for years. I've had that pretty clear in pleny of other posts.


Just out of curiousity, what if we're somehow able to use our collective assets, particularly the Knicks pick, our own pick, and our large cap room next summer, to make one or more acquisitions that we wouldn't have been able to make if Curry WERE here? What if these acquisitions turn us into a contending team within the next couple of years? Even if Curry does flourish in New York, wouldn't these circumstances make everything fine and dandy in Chi-town? Wouldn't that make Curry's production in NY pretty much irrelevent as far as the Bulls are concerned?


----------



## bullsville

*Re: Curry off the bench*



> If you watched them this year you would know they are showing signs of being a much better defensive team than last year.


I don't know what signs you are talking about, in 4 preseason games the Knicks have allowed their opponents 97 pts/game on 47.6% FG shooting. That's not a big sample, but it's not a sign of a good defensive team IMHO. 

At least Eddy is still the same so far, he has ONE assist and 13 turnovers in 65 minutes, and he's rebounding at the same rate as 5'9" PG Nate Robinson.

I just hope when the Bulls play the Knicks that Larry Brown lets Eddy play in the 4th quarter, his continued lack of rebounding and complete and total ineptitude when faced with a little defensive pressure should allow the Bulls to once again sweep the season series.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: Curry off the bench*



yodurk said:


> Just out of curiousity, what if we're somehow able to use our collective assets, particularly the Knicks pick, our own pick, and our large cap room next summer, to make one or more acquisitions that we wouldn't have been able to make if Curry WERE here? What if these acquisitions turn us into a contending team within the next couple of years? Even if Curry does flourish in New York, wouldn't these circumstances make everything fine and dandy in Chi-town? Wouldn't that make Curry's production in NY pretty much irrelevent as far as the Bulls are concerned?


Not to speak for Johnston, but I think he and everyone gets that idea, it's just that he's betting that doesn't happen. So am I. 

Speaking properly, its doesn't matter whether we're able to make an aquisition we couldn't have made if we had Curry. What matters is whether we actually make an aquisition we couldn't have made with him AND that its better).


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

*Re: Curry off the bench*



bullsville said:


> I don't know what signs you are talking about, in 4 preseason games the Knicks have allowed their opponents 97 pts/game on 47.6% FG shooting. That's not a big sample, but it's not a sign of a good defensive team IMHO.
> 
> At least Eddy is still the same so far, he has ONE assist and 13 turnovers in 65 minutes, and he's rebounding at the same rate as 5'9" PG Nate Robinson.
> 
> I just hope when the Bulls play the Knicks that Larry Brown lets Eddy play in the 4th quarter, his continued lack of rebounding and complete and total ineptitude when faced with a little defensive pressure should allow the Bulls to once again sweep the season series.



Im not talking about stats because in the preseason they mean nothing .The Spurs are giving up 97 ppg while averaging 90ppg .

Besides the game Brown wasnt on the sideline they have played well defensively but Brown has played a lot of guys and all the stuff people bemoaned wouldnt be there has been.Im talking rebounding defense and Brown alienating players .

This was the first game i think the knciks had their entire pf/C rotation available and the came out and put the clamps on the WC finalists in the 1st quarter in their building it wasnt until the knicks came with all 3 rookies on the floor at once did the Mavs make a run.

Eddy hasnt played fullcourt basketball in 7 months so cries of ole same old eddy is pretty weak imo.Hes had little chance to work on any of his weaknesses but considering he was pretty good even with those weaknesses wouldnt make things very favorable for the Bulls .As I recall when Eddy did play in the 4th quarter it spelled trouble for the opponents .

As I said before they could SUPRISE and mainly due to tough frontline for any team of Curry/AD/James/Mo taylor with Frye/Lee on the bench as well.I dont think they are better defensively because of stats but because of the way they have played defense which is much smarter and much more improved effort in every game besidest he Dallas game.


----------



## giusd

So lets look at this knick team that is going to be a much improved defensive team. Ok lets do that.

The backcourt. Marbery and JC. Ok perhaps the worst defensive starting backcourt in the NBA. And nate is an exciting PG but he is small and i think it unlikely he is going to be a defensive force.

OK up front. EC (i still wish you were a bull but) and who ever else on this team that will play PF is perhaps the worst starting defensive frontcourt in the nba. And dont start with me that M. Rose is a good defender because we all know he is not going to be starting.

OK sf Q. Big heart and a solid player but he is a SG and not a SF and is what 6'4". At small foward he is going to have a really hard time defending most SFs and for example how is he going to guard Deng at 6"9"?

Sure i agree it is only the preseason and the knicks may play better d in the season. But seriously, when in the last 14 months have they EVER played good D. They consistantly play bad D and IMHO they are a team of starts (except for Q) have very little heart.

david


----------



## NYKBaller

Ariza will guard a Deng type of player, quite frankly I think Brown will start him because hes great defensively and hes logging the most minutes of anyone so far...


----------



## NYKBaller

http://www.nba.com/games/20051025/NYKPHI/boxscore.html

good game from Curry, 15&9 with a 1block in 22mins. Brown been working with him hard, he was dominating in the 2nd quarter.


----------



## ScottMay

NYKBaller said:


> http://www.nba.com/games/20051025/NYKPHI/boxscore.html
> 
> good game from Curry, 15&9 with a 1block in 22mins. Brown been working with him hard, he was dominating in the 2nd quarter.


Yeah, I watched most of that with a nice nauseous feeling.

I don't know what they're doing with Eddy in practice, but he is really rounding into game shape. He was handily beating Dalembert up and down the floor. 

The Bulls never used Eddy enough in that respect. He is outstanding in transition. 

He played a solid defensive game from what I saw, too. Nice work on the boards, outstanding help on a couple plays, and excellent defense on his own man.

Ugh.


----------



## johnston797

ScottMay said:


> The Bulls never used Eddy enough in that respect. He is outstanding in transition.


Be carefull or else Scott Skiles is going call you out at the next press conference.


----------



## cima

ScottMay said:


> Yeah, I watched most of that with a nice nauseous feeling.
> 
> I don't know what they're doing with Eddy in practice, but he is really rounding into game shape. He was handily beating Dalembert up and down the floor.
> 
> The Bulls never used Eddy enough in that respect. He is outstanding in transition.
> 
> He played a solid defensive game from what I saw, too. Nice work on the boards, outstanding help on a couple plays, and excellent defense on his own man.
> 
> Ugh.


 :curse: :curse: :curse:


----------



## futuristxen

I watched the second quarter, and I swear to god, you guys won't believe this, but I saw Eddy get several rebounds. And, get this, actually jump for them. Like really jump. Like how he jumps for lobs at the rim.

He's still out of shape. I think he asked out at one point because he was completely gassed. But it's scary what that kid could do if he starts rebounding and blocking shots, to go with his offense. With the depth of big men the knicks have, foul trouble isn't really a problem he has to worry about. Jackie Butler looks good too. The Knicks have a very interesting team.

I also saw Jamal out there d'ing up. Saw Larry yelling at him a lot. But leaving him on the floor. He's been the most consitently on the floor knick in the preseason. I don't know what the minutes are, but it seems like everytime I turn on the knick games he's on the floor playing one of the guard spots, usually the off guard.

The talent is there. I just don't know if the Knicks will be ready this year. They look like a two-year project for Larry at most. Theoretically if he got them playing hard enough, the sky is the limit, given how deep they are. They have about 3 good players to play at every position.


----------



## DaBullz

futuristxen said:


> I watched the second quarter, and I swear to god, you guys won't believe this, but I saw Eddy get several rebounds. And, get this, actually jump for them. Like really jump. Like how he jumps for lobs at the rim.
> 
> He's still out of shape. I think he asked out at one point because he was completely gassed. But it's scary what that kid could do if he starts rebounding and blocking shots, to go with his offense. With the depth of big men the knicks have, foul trouble isn't really a problem he has to worry about. Jackie Butler looks good too. The Knicks have a very interesting team.
> 
> I also saw Jamal out there d'ing up. Saw Larry yelling at him a lot. But leaving him on the floor. He's been the most consitently on the floor knick in the preseason. I don't know what the minutes are, but it seems like everytime I turn on the knick games he's on the floor playing one of the guard spots, usually the off guard.
> 
> The talent is there. I just don't know if the Knicks will be ready this year. They look like a two-year project for Larry at most. Theoretically if he got them playing hard enough, the sky is the limit, given how deep they are. They have about 3 good players to play at every position.


Isaiah is a moron

:biggrin:


----------



## ace20004u

I saw the game last night too and I was stunned. Curry was just dunking on people like they robbed him. Curry & Crawford and the Knicks in general were playing great defense. Curry was jumping and fighting for revounds, it was ridiculous. Seems like we definitley gave up on him too soon.


----------



## badfish

I saw the game too. Curry had a good game for sure. Much more active. He just finishes so well on the dump off. Maybe he'll thrive in an off the bench role like he was used last night. At any rate, I'm surprised at the level of surprise here. We've all seen Curry have great games before. I don't get it.


----------



## CredeCrew24

yea curry had a great game. i am new here as you might have notcie but i am the biggest eddy curry fan so i am goin to have to keep up on the knicks now also and not just the bulls. i think pax made a huge mistake by trading away curry. that was a dumb move. we arent goin to be able to score down low and if you think sweeteny is just as goos and is goin to hlp our team like curry would then you got some problems. curry is goin to tear it up out thee in new york...


----------



## DaBullz

CredeCrew24 meet Sloth. Sloth, meet CredeCrew24.


----------



## CredeCrew24

DaBullz said:


> CredeCrew24 meet Sloth. Sloth, meet CredeCrew24.



who is sloth??i am guessing he doesnt like eddy curry?


----------



## L.O.B

CredeCrew24 said:


> who is sloth??i am guessing he doesnt like eddy curry?


You couldn't be more wrong, you guys might have been seperated at birth


----------



## CredeCrew24

L.O.B said:


> You couldn't be more wrong, you guys might have been seperated at birth


where is this sloth guy


----------



## step

over there -->


----------



## truebluefan

hey just 167 more pages to go and we catch up with the Jamal Crawford thread!


----------



## Qwst25

I've been pretty critical of Curry recently, and I do feel that Paxson made the right decision. But when I clicked on Curry's NBA.com players page; I saw something that I really didn't like. They already had picture of him playing in a New York uniform. It just didn't feel right. So basicaly what I'm saying is, that even though I want NY to lose (because of the draft picks) I still want to see the guy succeed. I'll still be rooting for him in NY. 

I just hope he doesn't hit any game winners. :biggrin:


----------



## MikeDC

Qwst25 said:


> It just didn't feel right.


I agree. This is something important to me. It ain't just about the uniform. Good or bad, some guys are "part of the team", and it just ain't right to see em shipped out. Especially when it's the result of something like a disagreement on a health issue. You don't do that to guys who are part of the family.


----------



## NYKBaller

Curry looks real good in a knick uniform, i was surprised. It just felt like destiny, you know.


----------



## ScottMay

Mikedc said:


> I agree. This is something important to me. It ain't just about the uniform. Good or bad, some guys are "part of the team", and it just ain't right to see em shipped out. Especially when it's the result of something like a disagreement on a health issue. You don't do that to guys who are part of the family.


This is how I came to feel about Skiles, and why I so doggedly defended his "right" to be extended and paid his market value.

We all root for laundry -- heck, it was pretty much ALL we had to root for in the late 70s/early 80s (talk about an unlikable, bad-jibbed collection of players), and then for most of the horror show that's been the post-Jordan/Pippen/Phil era. 

But my loyalties don't turn on a dime, and even if I didn't think that the Bulls had made a horrible basketball decision by trading him, it would take me a while to get over Eddy. The fact that he's a Knick, of all things, makes the experience particularly unsettling.


----------



## ace20004u

I was watching a little NBA tv last night and I became highly pissed off. Why? you may ask. Well, they had Isaiah Thomas on interviewing him about the Curry trade and they mentioned John Paxsons stance on the NBA thing and asked IT whether he had any reservations about dealing for or playing Curry given the heart situation and Paxsons reservations. IT said, to paraphrase, "We watched the situation from afar for a while and got what information we could, when Eddy came over in the trade we had TEN doctors examine and clear him, they all said the same thing, "there is nothing wrong with Eddy Curry's heart" so we felt good about the trade..etc.." 

Now...if NY can get TEN freaking doctors to clear Curry, My question is what in the HELL is rammed up Paxsons ***? 

They also had discussion between Fred Carter and Frank Isolda and the consensus was that the Bulls HAVE to make a trade. That they are too thin up front to duplicate last years success. Carter came out and said it, "The Bulls will NOT be as successful as last season unless they make a trade". Isolda commented that he expects the Bulls to make a trade "within the next couple of weeks".


----------



## Da Grinch

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/sports/basketball/28knicks.html

couldn't cut and paste it for some reason.

but it had some interesting tidbits in it.

for one it had a # of quotes from David Stern.

The nba had its own cardiologist look at curry's records .

stated that basically this is the reason the league i looking to institute minimum standards in pyhsicals now.

and of course more of the same about DNA testing how it doesn't determine if you have HCL but only shows if you are predisposed to getting it.


----------



## ScottMay

Da Grinch said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/sports/basketball/28knicks.html
> 
> couldn't cut and paste it for some reason.
> 
> but it had some interesting tidbits in it.
> 
> for one it had a # of quotes from David Stern.
> 
> The nba had its own cardiologist look at curry's records .
> 
> stated that basically this is the reason the league i looking to institute minimum standards in pyhsicals now.
> 
> and of course more of the same about DNA testing how it doesn't determine if you have HCL but only shows if you are predisposed to getting it.


Good find, Grinch.

As relates to the heart, what'll happen is that all teams will be required to give their players echocardiograms as part of the annual physical, not just EKGs. Echocardiograms are the gold standard for evaluating the health and structure of the heart.



> In general, Stern said the league wanted to know "what level of diagnostics are currently applied" by individual teams, "and what higher level, if any, should be considered." Asked if DNA testing could be included, Stern said: "We haven't heard that yet. I think we're talking about the differences between EKGs and echocardiograms, different levels of heart tests."
> 
> Even proponents of the DNA test acknowledge it cannot provide certainty. It can only indicate whether a person is predisposed to a condition.
> 
> "There are always risks that individual people take against the possibility that they may be the one in a thousand or the one in a million," Stern said. "That's just life. But if you're satisfied that you did all you can, you're more comfortable with the day-to-day."



There is the usual "Gathers and Lewis had HCM" error in this article, and another error that's more significant. Monty Williams had clinical HCM for the entirety of his playing career, not "a more benign heart ailment."


----------



## johnston797

From the Times article......



> In view of all of those cases, Stern said he had "a general sense of concern," but he seemed satisfied that the league had taken all necessary precautions with Curry.
> 
> "What we did was retain our own expert and asked them to review the same tests that the Knicks' doctors were looking at, and our doctor gave us the advice that it would be fine for him to play," Stern said. "Obviously, that reflected a league concern, and we satisfied that concern by having our own doctor involved."


----------



## Da Grinch

.........Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 
Eddy Curry 6 3 16.7 .657 .000 .595 1.30 2.70 4.00 .2 .50 .67 3.00 3.00 11.8 

entering last preseason game.

some good and some bad here , but i think the knicks will take it just fine.


----------



## ace20004u

Da Grinch said:


> .........Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
> Eddy Curry 6 3 16.7 .657 .000 .595 1.30 2.70 4.00 .2 .50 .67 3.00 3.00 11.8
> 
> entering last preseason game.
> 
> some good and some bad here , but i think the knicks will take it just fine.



Nearly 12ppg on 65+% shooting, 4rpg..thats pretty good except the 3to thing which should get better with team familiarity...


----------



## yodurk

Eddy's last pre-season game:

17 minutes, 4-5 FG, 2-5 FT, 10 pts, 5 reb, 0 asst, 1 blk, 4 TO, 5 fouls

The only thing really surprising me is his massive FG% this pre-season. He's nearly 70% now.


----------



## futuristxen

What's interesting to me, is that the Knicks basically run their offense through him. They look for him everytime down when he's in the game. He's their first option on offense. I thought with the Bulls we always had problems where we ignored him for long stretches. It doesn't seem like Larry Brown will let that happen, given that he forced Billups and Hamilton to dump the ball into Ben Wallace, it seems that when Eddy is in the game, he will be looked for everytime down, or used in the play on some level.


----------



## The Krakken

More and more, I'm believing that this trade will bite us in the *** MAJORLY.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

yodurk said:


> Eddy's last pre-season game:
> 
> 17 minutes, 4-5 FG, 2-5 FT, 10 pts, 5 reb, 0 asst, 1 blk, 4 TO, 5 fouls
> 
> The only thing really surprising me is his massive FG% this pre-season. He's nearly 70% now.


I read the refs called over 60 fouls or something that game .The refs should be fined for that and sent back down to the nbdl . :biggrin:


----------



## remlover

futuristxen said:


> What's interesting to me, is that the Knicks basically run their offense through him. They look for him everytime down when he's in the game. He's their first option on offense. I thought with the Bulls we always had problems where we ignored him for long stretches. It doesn't seem like Larry Brown will let that happen, given that he forced Billups and Hamilton to dump the ball into Ben Wallace, it seems that when Eddy is in the game, he will be looked for everytime down, or used in the play on some level.


I have noticed the same thing about the KNicks going through Curry.

However, one pitfall of this strategy is the potential for Eddy to pick up more offensive fouls and turn the ball over.


----------



## johnston797

remlover said:


> I have noticed the same thing about the KNicks going through Curry.
> 
> However, one pitfall of this strategy is the potential for Eddy to pick up my offensive fouls and turn the ball over.


Maybe it speeds up the kid's learning curve. :curse:


----------



## MikeDC

johnston797 said:


> Maybe it speeds up the kid's learning curve. :curse:


I've seen them doing it too and thought the same thing. It did make a pretty competent (if not good) passer out of Ben Wallace.

Last night I thought I was in Bizarro world when I flipped on ESPN and the announcers were talking about how the Knicks had their best run with Curry on the floor because he attracted so much attention he opened things up for everyone else.

Then I realized that's what I'd been pointing out for the last 6 months or so.


----------



## bullet

Mikedc said:


> I've seen them doing it too and thought the same thing. It did make a pretty competent (if not good) passer out of Ben Wallace.
> 
> Last night I thought I was in Bizarro world when I flipped on ESPN and the announcers were talking about how the Knicks had their best run with Curry on the floor because he attracted so much attention he opened things up for everyone else.
> 
> Then I realized that's what I'd been pointing out for the last 6 months or so.


I dunno what Brown could do to Eddy , but we definately did not have our best runs with Eddy on the floor. although the +\- stat should be looked at with care , the only thing it actually measures by the number is how your tean did while you're on court compared to off court , And Ed finished a *-6* player and most times he's even lower , closer to -10 if you followed 82games throughout the season. Yes , he attracts attention , but did we have good runs with him on court - Numbers show it to be the clear opposite...


----------



## johnston797

bullet said:


> I dunno what Brown could do to Eddy , but we definately did not have our best runs with Eddy on the floor. although the +\- stat should be looked at with care , the only thing it actually measures by the number is how your tean did while you're on court compared to off court , And Ed finished a *-6* player and most times he's even lower , closer to -10 if you followed 82games throughout the season. Yes , he attracts attention , but did we have good runs with him on court - Numbers show it to be the clear opposite...


I'm quite skeptical about making big decisions on +/-. Elton's Brand seeminlg has had the same season the last three and was +4, +1, +12. That's a huge variation. Again, with seemingly no change to his game.

It's impossible to break down exactly what caused Curry's negative number last year. Clearly, Chandler and Gordon's effectiviness against reserves with Curry out didn't help matters. I think if Curry improves the TO situation slightly then his entire game and his +/- come around big time. And guess what a young player is most likely to improve upon. 

The funny thing is at least one of Curry's offensive TO last night was bogus. So maybe all that needs to change a bit is his reputation. Seems like this is very likely to happen. That one play alone last night would have added to his +/-.


----------



## Da Grinch

the knicks run their offense through him , but dont make him the guy who makes tough passes, they give the ball to eddy in the high post to make the defense shuffle, he kicks it out and heads into the post looking to finish.

in this setup he isn't getting doubled as much unless he is shooting the ball at the rim in which he excels as a finisher.

the bulls had him deep in the low post dealing with double teams and he had to decide to shoot or pass, he often made bad passes or turned it over...outside of shaq and yao most centers have trouble making consistently good decisions in the low post and eddy was at times horrible at it.

he gets to be in pass/shoot modes with the knicks by virtue of the offense alot of his burden may be gone.

he is still making his share of mistakes but i think it is more getting a late start and his physical shape. when he is in the flow he should be relatively turnover free ...for him, which means he still gets his share of offensive fouls.


----------



## Da Grinch

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/360364p-307064c.html



> Oakley knows
> 
> The number Eddy Curry wears on his back may as well be a bull's-eye.
> 
> "He got my number, huh?" said Charles Oakley, laughing. "No one asked my permission. Just tell Eddy to wear it well and wear it with a swagger. I came to play every night in that uniform. He has to do the same. That's what the fans have come to expect."
> 
> 
> Curry happily accepted No. 34 from the Knicks and says that Oakley, his one-time teammate in Chicago, was a mentor to him.
> 
> 
> "This was a good trade for the Knicks because with Larry Brown, Eddy will get better," Oakley said. "The same goes for Steph (Marbury). He needs to start listening to Larry as well. Eddy's still just a kid. (Bulls coach Scott) Skiles did a good job but now Eddy knows the league and he's maturing."
> 
> 
> Oakley, who often trains at the same gym in Chicago as Curry, believes that the Knicks' newest center will dedicate himself to improving as a player. He also feels the Bulls used Curry's health "as an excuse" to trade him.
> 
> 
> "They wanted to sign Tyson Chandler and didn't want to sign Eddy," Oakley added. "Tyson was drafted No. 2, that's why they signed him."
> 
> 
> Oakley wore 34 for 10 years in New York and became popular among Knicks supporters for serving as Patrick Ewing's enforcer. The Knicks have talked to Oakley about working for the team in some capacity and Oakley is hoping to get a call from team president Isiah Thomas.


one more who thinks the bulls aren't in the right on this one.


----------



## MikeDC

bullet said:


> I dunno what Brown could do to Eddy , but we definately did not have our best runs with Eddy on the floor. although the +\- stat should be looked at with care , the only thing it actually measures by the number is how your tean did while you're on court compared to off court , And Ed finished a *-6* player and most times he's even lower , closer to -10 if you followed 82games throughout the season. Yes , he attracts attention , but did we have good runs with him on court - Numbers show it to be the clear opposite...


Except I put almost no stock in the 82games' raw +/- stat. As I've pointed out in great detail elsewhere, I don't think it accurately shows a whole lot of anything it is silly to point it out as anything other than one small piece of information; not the be all and end all of analysis. +/- is a pretty odd and dangerous to rely on stat because a small variation in the inputs can lead to a really large variation in the outputs.


----------



## kukoc4ever

ESPN SportsNation Poll.




> Now that the euphoria (and anxiety) surrounding the Knicks' acquisition of Eddy Curry has subsided somewhat, SportsNation is taking a cold, hard look at the deal, with more than 15,000 fans participating in this Q&A:
> 
> 
> How will Curry's Knicks career go?
> 43.2% He'll be solid but overpaid
> 39.8% He'll be an All-Star
> 9.5% He'll be a disappointment
> 7.5% He'll be an all-time great Knicks center


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-NewYorkPreview0506

Wow, 40% say he'll be an all-star. Very few think the heart will come into play, with only 9.5% saying he'll be a disappointment... and it has to be less than the figure that feels he'll be a disappointment due to health reasons.


----------



## futuristxen

remlover said:


> I have noticed the same thing about the KNicks going through Curry.
> 
> However, one pitfall of this strategy is the potential for Eddy to pick up more offensive fouls and turn the ball over.



Of coures when you have Jerome James, Frye, Davis, and Butler hanging around, along with Malik Rose, you can handle Eddy getting into foul trouble somewhat.


----------



## bullsville

Fantasy Fix

Sleeper: Malik Rose has never really gotten a chance to be a regular starter. Now he will. With 45 starts in nearly 600 career games, he's been a fantasy afterthought. But his points and rebounds should be career bests now, maybe 12 points, 8 boards, and that's solid 10th-round value. Someone's gotta rebound on this squad. 

Bust: Eddy Curry has developed into a solid scorer, but it's the drop-off in other areas that makes him overrated in fantasy. Curry doesn't rebound or block shots, and his free throw percentage remains a concern. We hope his health isn't an issue. You need centers who do more than score, and Curry's not that guy. 

– Eric Karabell |


----------



## johnston797

bullsville said:


> Fantasy Fix
> 
> Sleeper: Malik Rose has never really gotten a chance to be a regular starter. Now he will. With 45 starts in nearly 600 career games, he's been a fantasy afterthought. But his points and rebounds should be career bests now, maybe 12 points, 8 boards, and that's solid 10th-round value. Someone's gotta rebound on this squad.
> 
> Bust: Eddy Curry has developed into a solid scorer, but it's the drop-off in other areas that makes him overrated in fantasy. Curry doesn't rebound or block shots, and his free throw percentage remains a concern. We hope his health isn't an issue. You need centers who do more than score, and Curry's not that guy.
> 
> – Eric Karabell |


I wish that guy was in my fantasy bball league. Rose will be lucky to average 6 and 3 this year. Are you Eric Karabell, Bullsville? If not, I have never heard of him.


----------



## Da Grinch

bullsville said:


> Fantasy Fix
> 
> Sleeper: Malik Rose has never really gotten a chance to be a regular starter. Now he will. With 45 starts in nearly 600 career games, he's been a fantasy afterthought. But his points and rebounds should be career bests now, maybe 12 points, 8 boards, and that's solid 10th-round value. Someone's gotta rebound on this squad.
> 
> Bust: Eddy Curry has developed into a solid scorer, but it's the drop-off in other areas that makes him overrated in fantasy. Curry doesn't rebound or block shots, and his free throw percentage remains a concern. We hope his health isn't an issue. You need centers who do more than score, and Curry's not that guy.
> 
> – Eric Karabell |



this guy has no credibility ...larry brown has already all but said AD will start with frye as his backup , rose will not unless something changes even be in the rotation...and thats with brown already deciding he will go 10 deep 1 above normal for him.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/sports/basketball/30knicks.html




> Curry heard it from Tim Floyd, Bill Cartrwright and Scott Skiles, his head coaches in four seasons with the Chicago Bulls. He heard it from older teammates who recognized his potential. And he is still hearing it, on a nearly minute-to-minute basis.
> 
> "I'm on him a lot," said Knicks Coach Larry Brown, who has seen Curry go through peaks and valleys in the three weeks they have worked together.
> 
> "I've just got to understand that we've got to put that as a demand on him," Brown said.





> "I see great improvements in him," said the veteran Antonio Davis, Curry's teammate the last year and a half in Chicago. "He didn't used to go after every rebound and try to block shots and run the floor as much last year. He's really starting to do it."
> 
> The key for Curry is to keep hearing the mantra, which does not seem to be a problem here. Asked if he was in Curry's ear a lot, Davis chuckled.
> 
> "I think everybody is," Davis said





> "I had some great coaches in the past, but it doesn't stand up to what I've been through in my short amount of time with Coach Brown," he said. "It's amazing. I feel like I've learned so much."


----------



## bullsville

johnston797 said:


> I wish that guy was in my fantasy bball league. Rose will be lucky to average 6 and 3 this year. Are you Eric Karabell, Bullsville? If not, I have never heard of him.


It was from the same link K4E gave, I've never heard of the guy either but then again I don't follow fantasy basketball at all.


----------



## Soulful Sides

Should it be assumed that a new Chicago/NY rivalry will emerge?

From the reading here, it appears that most think the biggest mistake was hiring Paxson instead of Isiah, and Skiles instead of Brown.

The mangement should have been fired but the players kept?


----------



## futuristxen

Soulful Sides said:


> Should it be assumed that a new Chicago/NY rivalry will emerge?
> 
> From the reading here, it appears that most think the biggest mistake was hiring Paxson instead of Isiah, and Skiles instead of Brown.
> 
> The mangement should have been fired but the players kept?



Whoa whoa whoa. No one is saying we should have hired Isiah as our GM. Let's not get crazy here.


----------



## johnston797

http://www.wfan.com/

Larry Brown interview....

roughly 4 minute mark

"curry has a chance to be a special young player"
"great kid... really wants to get better"
"coached David Robinson.... but Curry is as athletic as a young big as he has ever coached" huh???
"Dumars felt he was THE best young big kid...Dumars tried to get him"
AD "has been great with Curry".

roughly 16 minute mark

"Curry hasn't understood the importance of [defensive] rebounding"

p.s. Brown declined to respond to Skiles cracks at him about Curry's coaching.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> It was from the same link K4E gave, I've never heard of the guy either but then again I don't follow fantasy basketball at all.


What the heck are you talking about?

You went to the fantasy basketball section of ESPN.com and somehow its from the link I gave?

Oh, becuase its on ESPN?

My link was simply showing what the masses felt. You are posting Eric Karabell. LOL. In roto basketball Marbury is better than Shaq. Its a silly world. I'm shocked a supporter of hard nosed ballers like Chandler and Prince would be posting that.

Silly. Silly to post an article about fantasy basketball. Only from the creator of "I hate Eddy Curry" would we get such a link. 

That was a great song BTW. The “I hate Eddy Curry Song.” When is the remix coming out?


----------



## kukoc4ever

johnston797 said:


> http://www.wfan.com/
> 
> Larry Brown interview....
> 
> roughly 4 minute mark
> 
> "curry has a chance to be a special young player"
> "great kid... really wants to get better"
> "coached David Robinson.... but Curry is as athletic as a young big as he has ever coached" huh???
> "Dumars felt he was THE best young big kid...Dumars tried to get him"
> AD "has been great with Curry".
> 
> roughly 16 minute mark
> 
> "Curry hasn't understood the importance of [defensive] rebounding"
> 
> p.s. Brown declined to respond to Skiles cracks at him about Curry's coaching.



What does Larry Brown know? Its good that Eddy's father figure AD is with him in NYC. That should help him out. AD is a good guy.


----------



## jbulls

johnston797 said:


> http://www.wfan.com/
> 
> Larry Brown interview....
> 
> roughly 4 minute mark
> 
> "curry has a chance to be a special young player"
> "great kid... really wants to get better"
> "coached David Robinson.... but Curry is as athletic as a young big as he has ever coached" huh???
> "Dumars felt he was THE best young big kid...Dumars tried to get him"
> AD "has been great with Curry".
> 
> roughly 16 minute mark
> 
> "Curry hasn't understood the importance of [defensive] rebounding"
> 
> p.s. Brown declined to respond to Skiles cracks at him about Curry's coaching.


Hasn't understood the importance of defensive rebounding?

Yeah, I'm sure Skiles was never on him about that.

Larry Brown might be a good coach, but he's a total jerk.


----------



## johnston797

jbulls said:


> Hasn't understood the importance of defensive rebounding?
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure Skiles was never on him about that.


I mentioned the radio guys asked about Skiles' rude comment about Brown re: coaching Curry. If you listend to the clip, Brown took the high road and said he loved Skiles. Continuing to be pressed, Brown did say something to the effect of ....

_Yea, I guess if a young kid has had great coaching before he turns 22, then he doesn't need any coaching after that._

:biggrin:


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Eddy will have a great season if he can beat up on the Nets, Sixers and Mavericks frontcourts the whole year.


----------



## jbulls

johnston797 said:


> I mentioned the radio guys asked about Skiles' rude comment about Brown re: coaching Curry. If you listend to the clip, Brown took the high road and said he loved Skiles. Continuing to be pressed, Brown did say something to the effect of ....
> 
> _Yea, I guess if a young kid has had great coaching before he turns 22, then he doesn't need any coaching after that._
> 
> :biggrin:


My favorite Brown quote re: Skiles was when he said in some interview last year (when asked who'd done a good job coaching last season) "the guy in Chicago".

It's funny that somebody who's pitching a tent 24/7 about playing the game "the right way" would be so reticent to give Skiles any credit.

Ask Darko Milicic about all the great coaching he got pre 22. (If Darko and Eddy have good years I'm sure Larry Naismith and his peach basket will somehow be responsible for both. Ugh)


----------



## johnston797

jbulls said:


> It's funny that somebody who's pitching a tent 24/7 about playing the game "the right way" would be so reticent to give Skiles any credit.


Brown said he loves Skiles and his coaching. Not sure how much arse people need to kiss around here to make the PaxDorfSkiles fan-boyz happy.



jbulls said:


> Ask Darko Milicic about all the great coaching he got pre 22. (If Darko and Eddy have good years I'm sure Larry Naismith and his peach basket will somehow be responsible for both. Ugh)


Brown is on the record that Darko is going to be great. He mentioned it in the interview. Although he could just be covering his arse. But here is a shocker. Larry Brown thinks that young bigs sometimes take a while to develop. And young players can get better by coaching them even after they hit 20 or 22.


----------



## jbulls

johnston797 said:


> Brown said he loves Skiles and his coaching. Not sure how much arse people need to kiss around here to make the PaxDorfSkiles fan-boyz happy.
> 
> 
> 
> Brown is on the record that Darko is going to be great. He mentioned it in the interview. Although he could just be covering his arse. But here is a shocker. Larry Brown thinks that young bigs sometimes take a while to develop. And young players can get better by coaching them even after they hit 20 or 22.


Not sure I consider myself one of the PaxDorfSkiles fan boy(z?). I do think Larry Brown is pretty self righteous (don't think I'm alone there). It's one thing to say you love Skiles and his coaching, it's another thing to say you love Skiles and his coaching when it's in response to a question regarding the sniping between you and Skiles.

I fully expect Eddy Curry to have a great year, I think Paxson mishandled the situation, and then managed to give Larry Brown a run for his money in terms of self righteousness. And I expect Larry Brown to be extremely eager to take credit for Curry's year. And then maybe quit.


----------



## johnston797

jbulls said:


> I do think Larry Brown is pretty self righteous (don't think I'm alone there). It's one thing to say you love Skiles and his coaching, it's another thing to say you love Skiles and his coaching when it's in response to a question regarding the sniping between you and Skiles.
> 
> I fully expect Eddy Curry to have a great year, I think Paxson mishandled the situation, and then managed to give Larry Brown a run for his money in terms of self righteousness. And I expect Larry Brown to be extremely eager to take credit for Curry's year. And then maybe quit.


That's cool. Agreed about Brown. Of course, Skiles is cut from the same cloth and is as cocky even though Skiles was rescued from on his sofa in Southern Indiana while Brown was winning a championship. Not that's some gumption. Most of the great coaches have a big ego. Not sure it works out so well with GMs.


----------



## jbulls

johnston797 said:


> That's cool. Agreed about Brown. Of course, Skiles is cut from the same cloth and is as cocky even though Skiles was rescued from on his sofa in Southern Indiana while Brown was winning a championship. Not that's some gumption. Most of the great coaches have a big ego. Not sure it works out so well with GMs.


Agreed. Obviously, Brown's coaching accomplishments completely dwarf Skiles' at this point. Doesn't mean I have to like the guy though. I don't like Tony LaRussa or Bill Parcels either but they're good. Brown's a great coach, that much is impossible to argue with. BTW, I'm sure Skiles would be totally insufferable if he won a championship.


----------



## Soulful Sides

johnston797 said:


> http://www.wfan.com/
> 
> Larry Brown interview....
> 
> roughly 4 minute mark
> 
> "curry has a chance to be a special young player"
> "great kid... really wants to get better"
> "coached David Robinson.... but Curry is as athletic as a young big as he has ever coached" huh???
> "Dumars felt he was THE best young big kid...Dumars tried to get him"
> AD "has been great with Curry".
> 
> roughly 16 minute mark
> 
> "Curry hasn't understood the importance of [defensive] rebounding"
> 
> p.s. Brown declined to respond to Skiles cracks at him about Curry's coaching.


In other words, nothing has changed since he was drafted.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> What the heck are you talking about?
> 
> You went to the fantasy basketball section of ESPN.com and somehow its from the link I gave?




Nope, it's right on the page you linked to.


> Oh, becuase its on ESPN?
> 
> My link was simply showing what the masses felt. You are posting Eric Karabell. LOL. In roto basketball Marbury is better than Shaq. Its a silly world. I'm shocked a supporter of hard nosed ballers like Chandler and Prince would be posting that.
> 
> Silly. Silly to post an article about fantasy basketball. Only from the creator of "I hate Eddy Curry" would we get such a link.


LMFAO, I didn't post any article about fantasy basketball. And the link came from YOU, not me. I just looked at the page you provided a link to, I didn't go any further. 


> That was a great song BTW. The “I hate Eddy Curry Song.” When is the remix coming out?


This is your post, the 3rd one from the bottom on page 15 of this thread.



kukoc4ever said:


> ESPN SportsNation Poll.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Now that the euphoria (and anxiety) surrounding the Knicks' acquisition of Eddy Curry has subsided somewhat, SportsNation is taking a cold, hard look at the deal, with more than 15,000 fans participating in this Q&A:
> 
> 
> How will Curry's Knicks career go?
> 43.2% He'll be solid but overpaid
> 39.8% He'll be an All-Star
> 9.5% He'll be a disappointment
> 7.5% He'll be an all-time great Knicks center
> 
> 
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-NewYorkPreview0506
> 
> Wow, 40% say he'll be an all-star. Very few think the heart will come into play, with only 9.5% saying he'll be a disappointment... and it has to be less than the figure that feels he'll be a disappointment due to health reasons.


Click on that link, and on the right hand side of the Knicks season preview is the fantasy fix, bullet item #10. On the same freaking page.

About 4 or 5 inches below the "Wow, 40% say he'll be an all-star" poll, which is bullet item #6. Right below that is #7, right below that is #8, right below that is #9, and right below that is #10.

I know you showed what the masses felt, I showed a fantasy guy opinions. Both are pretty insignificant in the big picture, don't you think?

Instead of the fantasy guy, maybe I should have used some of the ESPN "experts" instead? Unless they are less significant than the masses? Well, just for you...



Eric Neel said:


> It's New York, so people will pay attention, but Brown and Curry aren't really going to make that much of a difference.


Is that better?


When you post a link to try and make Eddy look good, you have to deal with the fact that if the page you link to shows something else, people just might look at the rest of the page as well.

I recommend Valium, maybe Xanax. Check with your doctor, though.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Is that better?


No, its not.

Where's my "I hate Eddy Curry" remix? Can you post it on bullsville.org?

Can you make it even more hateful than the last offering, if possible?

Thanks.

BTW, I think a poll like the one ESPN offered is a somewhat useful indicator to what people actually think. The game that's constantly played here is to attack the source... you are quite rabid at it.... which I why I think a poll with several thousand resonses is interesting to look at. Clearly, most people feel Curry is an important piece to that team. Most of the people ESPN pays to analyze basketball feel the same way. We're talking about thousands of pretty much independent opinions... the vast majority feeling that Curry is an important player. 

As for Eric the fantasy guy, I just thought it was a lame attempt on your part to find something to post. Looking at roto is silly. Marbury is better than SHAQ in roto. Its apples to oranges.


----------



## bullsville

Actually, I don't have an Eddy Curry re-mix, I've been working on my latest. It's "An Ode to K4E"

**********************

Jalen, Jamal, Donyell and Eddy
Call me up, I wanna go steady
Take a stroll, get some ice cream
Think about you in every dream

We made the playoffs, but I don't care
Cuz my 4 boos are lost somewhere
T-Dot, Cleveland, New York City
Life without you sure is ***tty

No defense, no damned "right way"
I sure loved to watch you play
Jackin' up shots and cryin' for calls
Gettin' in fights, swingin' for the balls

I sure long for the 30-win days
I miss them in so many, many ways
My man Jalen, he'd score 35
But give up 40 on 20 straight drives

Jamal be jackin' 3's left and right
Givin' up points with minimal fight
Eddy be scoring on a low-post dump
Never ever boardin', sayin' "what, coach, jump?"

Jalen be showin' the refs no lovin'
Jamal on D, he sure ain't Glovin'
The song ends now, I have no more
My heart is lying on the hardwood floor


----------



## BenDengGo

bullsville said:


> Actually, I don't have an Eddy Curry re-mix, I've been working on my latest. It's "An Ode to K4E"



haha nice one
good work


----------



## kukoc4ever

lol that's funny


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> lol that's funny


Thanks, I'm glad you liked it k4e. :rbanana:


----------



## mizenkay

johnston797 said:


> Brown said he loves Skiles and his coaching. Not sure how much arse people need to kiss around here to make the PaxDorfSkiles fan-boyz happy.



hey don't forget the girlz, dude. :smilewink

what is so funny to me is that eddy is just so completely BLAMELESS and INNOCENT in all of this in your eyes. when should eddy THE PLAYER be held responsible for improving his game and skill set? i mean to think that skiles never ever stressed or coached the importance of defensive rebounding to him? not ever? not even one time? c'mon larry. surprised his ego can even fit in the building. 


sidenote to bullsville: that song is priceless!!!


----------



## step

That was great.


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bullsville again.


----------



## narek

mizenkay said:


> hey don't forget the girlz, dude. :smilewink
> 
> what is so funny to me is that eddy is just so completely BLAMELESS and INNOCENT in all of this in your eyes. when should eddy THE PLAYER be held responsible for improving his game and skill set? i mean to think that skiles never ever stressed or coached the importance of defensive rebounding to him? not ever? not even one time? c'mon larry. surprised his ego can even fit in the building.
> 
> 
> sidenote to bullsville: that song is priceless!!!



Yes, you can't forget us!

I think they bought another building for Larry's ego, it's part of the 10 million a year compensation package.


----------



## yodurk

I'm watching the Knicks boxscore. Larry Brown must be really trying his darndest to run the offense through Eddy Curry. In the 13 minutes reported, Eddy's gotten 13 shot opportunities (1 shot attempt per minute, for all you math majors out there). He was fouled on 6 of them though, putting LaFrentz and Al Jefferson in foul trouble. 4-7 from the field, 5-12 from the foul line. If his team continuously gets him 1 shot per minute, then there's no way he can't average 18-20 ppg.


----------



## Sham

yodurk said:


> If his team continuously gets him 1 shot per minute, then there's no way he can't average 18-20 ppg.





a) They won't
b) 1 shot per minute should translate to a helluva more than 18-20ppg
c) And how is that a lot more impressive than 16.7 he put up for us?


----------



## step

Eddy Curry's boxscore stats
Min: 42
FGM-A: 6-15
FTM-A: 7-14
OREB: 2
DREB: 6
AST: 0
STL: 0
BLK: 2
TO: 2
PF: 3
PTS: 19

Must say its not that bad of a performance.


----------



## Frankensteiner

I check the box score and none of Knicks' 25 pt. scorers actually scored 25 points. Weird.

And if Eddy is getting 40+ minutes per game, the Knicks aren't going anywhere.


----------



## truebluefan

nice game by Eddy. I am glad to see him play 42 minutes.


----------



## bullsville

truebluefan said:


> nice game by Eddy. I am glad to see him play 42 minutes.


LOL, yeah that was probably his most impressive stat of the night. Followed by the 2 blocks, and then the only 2 TO.

But 40% FG, 50% FT, only 8 reb in 42 min, zero assists... I'm quite sure that LB expects a little better than that out of Eddy.


----------



## Babble-On

I don't like hearing Larry Brown's comments on Eddy's previous coaching, but you gotta admit, its the same thing Skiles did with Eddy in the media when he came in. "Eddy was never told that you gotta jump to rebound", "he never had anyone tell him you needed to be in shape to play in the NBA", etc. Same ****, different day. Though in both cases I think they are trying to take some of the heat off of their player, I still think its a little bit in bad taste to talk down another coach.


----------



## The Krakken

bullsville said:


> But 40% FG, 50% FT, only 8 reb in 42 min, zero assists... I'm quite sure that LB expects a little better than that out of Eddy.


And he'll get it........


----------



## anorexorcist

Eddy can have his all-star season, but we'll make the playoffs with the type of comebacks we put together tonight hopefully while the knicks will be in turmoil by midseason with LB forced to play babysitter.

-Z-


----------



## NYKBaller

Eddy can't pass out of the post, i did not know that.


----------



## Da Grinch

eddy did fine ,i didn't realize he needed to have a perfect boxscore or he was a failure, by my count 19 points 8 boards and 2 blocks is a pretty decent game for a center, he just needed to hit a few more FT's, if he hits his expected season avg. they probably take the game in regulation.

the team shot 54.5% from the ft line , turned the ball over 22 times and gave up 19 offensive boards

they deserved to lose, the celts found an advantage at small forward and milked it for everthing it was worth, they deserved to win for that alone, but i am of the opinion the celts wont have a good season if this game is any indication, they are too young and their team doesn't have enough firepower.


----------



## bullsville

The Krakken said:


> And he'll get it........


Well, he'll get half of it.

There is no way in hell Eddy shoots only 40% from the field and only 50% from the line this year, that's why I was saying he didn't have a very good night (and that I was most impressed by the fact that he was able to stay on the floor for 42 minutes). 

But the 8 boards in 42 minutes is almost exactly what Eddy gives for his career per minute (8.89 reb per 42 min career and declining every season), so I'm not sure the Knicks will see him grab any more than that. And any assist you get from Eddy, you'll be happy for.


----------



## johnston797

bullsville said:


> But the 8 boards in 42 minutes is almost exactly what Eddy gives for his career per minute (8.89 reb per 42 min career and *declining every season*.


Well, so far he is increasing his rebounding per min this season.


----------



## Da Grinch

eddy's rebounding was just fine in the game , he kept his man off the boards and grabbed 3 more than him in 1 less mintes of play.(8-5) if a couple of more knicks did that they would have won.

the rebounding problem was teamwide, the big men boxed out and rebounded fine and the perimeter players let their men come in and get off. boards


----------



## yodurk

johnston797 said:


> Well, so far he is increasing his rebounding per min this season.


Yeah, and I would've expected that (and if I may pat myself on the back, I predicted as much as soon as the trade went down :biggrin: ). Main reason being that the Knicks just don't have anyone else to grab rebounds. Somebody has to rebound. Especially with the perimeter guys who love to launch (Q & JC in particular), I could see Eddy's offensive rebounding double from previous years. Maybe it's flawed reasoning, but I think I'm right at least.


----------



## step

He did shoot 40%, but don't forget he went to the line 7 times.

One interesting aspect was Frye's DNP... i'm pretty sure he could of helped on the rebounding aspect, considering Rose and James were pathetic.


----------



## spongyfungy

step said:


> He did shoot 40%, but don't forget he went to the line 7 times.
> 
> One interesting aspect was Frye's DNP... i'm pretty sure he could of helped on the rebounding aspect, considering Rose and James were pathetic.


 This is Larry Brown we are talking about.


----------



## step

> This is Larry Brown we are talking about.


Yeah i know, but he did give him praise in the preseason, and considering the guards basically outrebounded the big men, that is pretty slack. Rose and James played 13 minutes combined, and only managed 1 board between them. If that doesn't say something to Brown, i don't know what does. I'll bet Frye would play his heart out in those 13 minutes compared to the so called "vets" on that team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Raef Lafrentz and Mark Blount combining for 33 points on 12-25 shooting. I'm sure Larry Brown will be missing Wallace and Wallace soon enough.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/03/sports/basketball/03eddy.html



> The Knicks' Eddy Curry said Wednesday that he had nothing in common with Jason Collier, the Atlanta Hawks center who died on Oct. 15.
> 
> According to autopsy results released Tuesday, Collier, who was 28, died of a sudden heart-rhythm disturbance caused by an abnormally enlarged heart.
> 
> The Chicago Bulls benched Curry in late March after he experienced arrhythmia and showed signs of an enlarged heart. But Curry, who was traded to the Knicks last month, said Wednesday that his condition was temporary.
> 
> "They told me that I had a normal-size heart for an athlete," Curry, 22, said, referring to doctors. "They said every athlete's heart is a little bigger than normal, and that that's what I had. It wasn't a fixed size. Once I rested and stopped playing for a while, it went down to normal size."
> 
> Collier, who was 7 feet and 260 pounds, apparently had no warning that he might have a heart problem. But the autopsy showed his heart "was above the accepted limits, even for a man of his size," said Dr. Kris Sperry, the chief medical examiner in Georgia. Sperry said Collier's heart was about one and a half times the size it should have been.
> 
> Several cardiologists, including those hired by the Knicks and the N.B.A., have examined Curry and concluded that he is not at undue risk. The Bulls, however, wanted to go a step further and asked Curry to take a DNA test, to screen for a predisposition to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a potentially fatal condition. Curry declined, leading to his trade to the Knicks.
> 
> "I'm sad about the whole situation," Curry said of Collier. "As far as me, my health, I don't really think that it reflects on me. I'm sorry that it happened, and hopefully we can find a way to avoid situations like that in the future."


----------



## giusd

Two things This statement is bs. ""They told me that I had a normal-size heart for an athlete," Curry, 22, said, referring to doctors. "They said every athlete's heart is a little bigger than normal, and that that's what I had. It wasn't a fixed size. Once I rested and stopped playing for a while, it went down to normal size."

No he has an enlarged heart, period. Cardiologists can disagree about if it is pathlogical or not but EC is in la la land. In addition, my understanding is after he resting his heart did not decrease in size and this is why Camon wanted more tests, so again EC may be fine but he is in total denial. Mind you i have no idea what will happen to him and watching him play for the knicks last night was killing me he shuold be on the bulls.

As for last night i watched the game and IMHO EC looked very good. And for his stats they were great the first half except his FTs. In the second half he just totally ran out of gas and his game suffered but even then i think he looked petty good.

I like the way the knicks set him up at the FT line (elbow) and then let him work his way down to the post. And the knicks guards were really working hard to set EC up underneath and they seemed to do it much better then the bulls guards. 

david


----------



## bullsville

johnston797 said:


> Well, so far he is increasing his rebounding per min this season.


Very great point.

Last season, Eddy only averaged 7.85 reb per 42 minutes, and last night he got all the way up to 8 reb per 42 minutes.

It's still an anemic total for a true center, but it is an increase. Great job, Eddy.

:rotf:


----------



## kukoc4ever

Seems like Curry was in much, much better shape than many here gave him credit for. 

42 minutes. 

Bang up job by Eddy to be in good enough shape to log that many minutes, especially given that he was not able to work out for such a long time due to the heart condition. Way to be ready to start the season Eddy.


----------



## yodurk

kukoc4ever said:


> Seems like Curry was in much, much better shape than many here gave him credit for.
> 
> 42 minutes.
> 
> Bang up job by Eddy to be in good enough shape to log that many minutes, especially given that he was not able to work out for such a long time due to the heart condition. Way to be ready to start the season Eddy.


Good for Eddy and all, but I do hope you're rooting against the Knicks this year. Not only are they fighting us for a playoff spot potentially, but we would like their draft pick to be as high as possible.


----------



## kukoc4ever

yodurk said:


> Good for Eddy and all, but I do hope you're rooting against the Knicks this year. Not only are they fighting us for a playoff spot potentially, but we would like their draft pick to be as high as possible.


Where's the school pride, yodurk? Q is on the Knicks! 

I root for players as well as laundry, so I hope Curry and Crawford do well. I also hope Marbury and Crawford do well for my fantasy team!


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Where's the school pride, yodurk? Q is on the Knicks!
> 
> I root for players as well as laundry, so I hope Curry and Crawford do well. I also hope Marbury and Crawford do well for my fantasy team!


Of course you mean that Curry and Crawford do well individually, but that the Knicks do poorly as a team. You certainly wouldn't take any pleasure in the Knicks actually having a good record since that would directly and adversely affect the Bulls.

As for Curry, he looked very active and in shape on the offense end last night, I thought. Of course, once he crossed half court going the other way he miraculously became very sluggish. Odd.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Of course you mean that Curry and Crawford do well individually, but that the Knicks do poorly as a team. You certainly wouldn't take any pleasure in the Knicks actually having a good record since that would directly and adversely affect the Bulls.


I've been told that this season does not matter anyway, so I'm just looking for some NBA entertainment. 

I hope the Knicks do well. I like many of their players. There are 8 playoff spots up for grabs and the Knicks are in a different division than the Bulls. 

Rest assured, and this is seemingly and mysteriously so important for whatever reason, than when it comes down to Bulls vs Knicks for anything that I root for the Bulls. I picked the Bulls to finish 8th and the Knicks 9th. I'd be fine with that. I'd also be fine with the Knicks finishing ahead of us if we both make the playoffs. Does not make any more difference to me than New Jersey finishing ahead of us. Best case for this season anyway is a low playoff seed, IMO, and I don't think we can hang with the elite of the East, so I'll just have to enjoy the ride and see where we end up.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> As for Curry, he looked very active and in shape on the offense end last night, I thought. Of course, once he crossed half court going the other way he miraculously became very sluggish. Odd.


That's fine. The rebounding and preparedness for season attacks are not fruitful right now so its time to move on to effort and assists. Fun shell game.


----------



## Ron Cey

> I've been told that this season does not matter anyway, so I'm just looking for some NBA entertainment.


I don't know who told you that.



> I hope the Knicks do well. I like many of their players. There are 8 playoff spots up for grabs and the Knicks are in a different division than the Bulls.


Given that the Bulls hold the Knicks first round pick next season, unprotected, a statement by a Bulls fan that he "hopes the Knicks do well" pretty much makes me want to vomit. 

No Bulls fan should have well wishes for the Knicks this season or in 2007 because it directly affects the value of the Bulls' assets. 



> Rest assured, and this is seemingly and mysteriously so important for whatever reason, than when it comes down to Bulls vs Knicks for anything that I root for the Bulls.


I don't doubt that.



> I picked the Bulls to finish 8th and the Knicks 9th. I'd be fine with that.


I'd be "fine" with that too. That puts the Knicks pick in the lottery with an outside chance at landing in the top 3 picks.



> I'd also be fine with the Knicks finishing ahead of us if we both make the playoffs.


That, on the other hand, would be a dissappointing outcome because then the Knicks pick would not be in the Lottery. 



> Does not make any more difference to me than New Jersey finishing ahead of us.


It should. We don't own New Jersey's unprotected first round draft pick.



> Best case for this season anyway is a low playoff seed, IMO, and I don't think we can hang with the elite of the East, so I'll just have to enjoy the ride and see where we end up.


Best case scenario is the Bulls make the playoffs and the Knicks finish with the worst record in the entire league thus improving the value of the unprotected pick we own. See the trend here?


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> That's fine. The rebounding and preparedness for season attacks are not fruitful right now so its time to move on to effort and assists. Fun shell game.


Its not a shell game when its true. I thought Curry looked good last night. Far better than he ever did to start a season with the Bulls. 

But certain important deficiencies were still obvious. I'll comment on that until the cows come home or Curry fixes them.


----------



## yodurk

kukoc4ever said:


> Where's the school pride, yodurk? Q is on the Knicks!


I know, I know. Let's just say Q is not my favorite DePaul alum. He only played 2 years at DePaul, but dominant as he was in college, I'm not a fan of his game. I was proud of Bobby Simmons until the recent woman-beating incident. Steven Hunter was nothing but an underachiever at DePaul...it still boggles the mind how he was drafted so high. And then there's Eddy Curry and Dorrell Wright (of the Heat) who both committed to DePaul but left for the draft out of high school. DePaul could've been a national champ with the talent we had committed, but all of them decided to leave early.

Imagine this:

PG - Imari Sawyer (talented, but troubled PG who transferred)
SG - Bobby Simmons
SF - Quentin Richardson
PF - Steven Hunter
C - Eddy Curry

Yes, it could've been.

In any case, my favorite DePaul players are the guys who will probably never play in the NBA. Drake Diener is a great guy and would've been a Euro star if not for his recent health problems.


----------



## ztect

Looked like the New York Bulls team last night with AD, Curry and Craw out on the floor.

It is against every fiber in my body to pull for a New York team, and despite my preference that Pax look like a fool for making his latest trade, the draft picks involved make me want the New York Bulls to have a bad record so the Chicago Bulls will get a better pick.

Interesting about EC's play was that he seemed to get his points throughout the game rather than just at the beginning of the game. Knick's guard did a good job of finding him through the entire game whereas Bulls had a tendency last year of not playing an inside out game in the second half.

If EC had a more typical shooting night (around 50%+) and hit even 60% of his ft's, EC would have had an even better stat line.

Can't also remember any game last year when EC played 42 minutes.
Good thing EC doesn't have a heart condition.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> That's fine. The rebounding and preparedness for season attacks are not fruitful right now so its time to move on to effort and assists. Fun shell game.


Actually, Eddy's effort has been questioned since back in HS, and his Yinka Dare-ish assist totals have been well-documented throughout his career. So it's not a shell game, it's Eddy continuing to lack in the areas he has always lacked in.

Just like rebounding, if you do a little research you will see that 8 rebounds per 42 minutes is historically very poor for a "true center", so those "attacks" are still fruitful.




And k4e, you forgot to edit your sig, we won last night. The Right Way is inching closer and closer to .500 and beyond. 

I did mine, and the Knicks are now officially a sub-.400 team since they acquired Jamal. And, obviously, winless with Eddy Curry being 2nd on the team in minutes.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Given that the Bulls hold the Knicks first round pick next season, unprotected, a statement by a Bulls fan that he "hopes the Knicks do well" pretty much makes me want to vomit.


Yah, sorry, I like Jamal, AD and Curry and would feel bad for them if they were on the worst team in the East. And, I don't think that's a realistic thing to actively root for. Like I've said 1,000,000 times, I'm not just a fan of laundry.

The thought of the Knicks being the worst team in the league is so ridiculous that it does not seem to be even worth thinking about. The odds of us moving up enough in the lotto to make the 9th playoff team pick worth caring about is so improbable it does not seem worth rooting for. The Knicks should be an OK team. Banking on that pick ending up a good one is foolish. Rooting for that is a waste of time and energy, IMO. 

Of course, you had very little good to say about Curry when he wore a Bulls uni. So, I don't think its just about the laundry for you either. You also seem to dislike players like Jamal and Jalen, but you were not posting here while they were on the team so I can't speak to that.

I can't just immediately start wishing ill upon players I've screamed my lungs out for the last 2-3 years. Sorry, but I just can't. 

Here's a barf bag.


----------



## Babble-On

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, sorry, I like Jamal, AD and Curry and would feel bad for them if they were on the worst team in the East. And, I don't think that's a realistic thing to actively root for. Like I've said 1,000,000 times, I'm not just a fan of laundry.


I understand this sentiment because I've also rooted for our former players to do well. But in this case, you're effectively rooting against the Bulls.

Another thing about rooting for former players: I gain an attachment to our players, but its hard for me to understand the extreme attachment to guys who really didn't accomplish much on an individual or team level. Jamal was horribly inconsistent and part of some of the worst Bulls teams ever. My lasting image of Eddy is of him being out of shape and playing poorly until February after setting high expectations the last 20 games of the previous season, with the low point being the game against MIA where he was so out of shape coming off a short injury stint that he was lumbering up the court begging to come out of the game, one of my most embarassing moments as a fan, right up there with the game in 99' where we scored only 49 points in a game and the couple of 50 point losses we suffered.

The only guys from the post dynasty era who I really miss or feel any sort of attachment to are AD, Brand, and Artest. They are the only guys that always to me brought it in terms of effort and performance, if not always wins. Brad Miller, I'd have rather kept him, but even in his case, the main thing I remember with him is that much like Eddy before last season, he never came into camp in shape for us, and thus never performed as well as he could have. I also maybe have a soft spot for Fizer because he showed some promise when he actually got a chance and for the fact that he had such bad luck starting with being drafted by us when we already had Brand, then having to play behind two high schoolers, and ending with him tearing up his knee just when he seemed to have found his niche.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, sorry, I like Jamal, AD and Curry and would feel bad for them if they were on the worst team in the East. And, *I don't think that's a realistic thing to actively root for.* Like I've said 1,000,000 times, I'm not just a fan of laundry.
> 
> The thought of the Knicks being the worst team in the league is so ridiculous that it does not seem to be even worth thinking about. *The odds of us moving up enough in the lotto to make the 9th playoff team pick worth caring about is so improbable it does not seem worth rooting for.* The Knicks should be an OK team. Banking on that pick ending up a good one is foolish. Rooting for that is a waste of time and energy, IMO. Of course, you had very little nice to say about Curry when he wore a Bulls uni. So, I don't think its just about the laundry for you either. You also seem to dislike players like Jamal and Jalen, but you were not posting here while they were on the team so I can't speak to that.
> 
> I can't just immediately start wishing ill upon players I've screamed my lungs out for the last 2-3 years. Sorry, but I just can't.
> 
> Here's a barf bag.


Its a very simple concept. Knicks wins = bad for Bulls. Get it? It has nothing to do with whether or not you "like" some of the players on the Knicks. 

And teams that barely miss the playoffs jump up to the top three picks all the time. That is how Orlando got the Webber pick. That is how Milwaukee got the Bogut pick. The Rockets jumped way up to get Yao. And those are #1 picks, let alone teams that have jumped up into the top 3. *Any* statistical chance is better than *no* statistical chance. And even if ends up the 14th pick, that is better than the 15th pick because it leaves one more draft option on the board.

And in any event, I'm not talking about whats realistic. 

*You said you "hope the Knicks do well".* That doesn't have anything to do with realism. It has to do with your expressly stated *hopes* for a team's success that, if accomplished, necessarily depletes the value of an asset held by the team you are a fan of.

That is illogical. 

But I guess "hopes" aren't a thing of logic. They are a thing of preference. It is odd to me that your preference is for the Knicks to do well under the circumstances. That being us having their unprotected first round pick and all, in case you forgot. 

Personally, my preference and hope is that the Knicks flat out suck balls all season long both this year and next year since that makes their picks more valuable.

I can't believe that any Bulls fan would take the position you are taking. Its shocking to me. Its right up there with another "hope" I saw once from another poster which was that Paxson fail and be fired, even though that failure and firing would necessarily be preceeded by the Bulls themselves failing to win.

Sometimes the posts in here just baffle me. But as they say, "it takes all kinds", right?


----------



## Electric Slim

What annoys me about this thread is that people are acting like Pax traded Curry because he didn't think Curry would put up numbers or help his team if he is suited up and on the court. Most of us know that, if healthy, he will play the best basketball in his career for the Knicks. So as of right now, the Knicks got a good deal, plain and simple.


----------



## Electric Slim

Ron Cey said:


> Its a very simple concept. Knicks wins = bad for Bulls. Get it? It has nothing to do with whether or not you "like" some of the players on the Knicks.
> 
> And teams that barely miss the playoffs jump up to the top three picks all the time. That is how Orlando got the Webber pick. That is how Milwaukee got the Bogut pick. The Rockets jumped way up to get Yao. And those are #1 picks, let alone teams that have jumped up into the top 3. *Any* statistical chance is better than *no* statistical chance. And even if ends up the 14th pick, that is better than the 15th pick because it leaves one more draft option on the board.
> 
> And in any event, I'm not talking about whats realistic.
> 
> *You said you "hope the Knicks do well".* That doesn't have anything to do with realism. It has to do with your expressly stated *hopes* for a team's success that, if accomplished, necessarily depletes the value of an asset held by the team you are a fan of.
> 
> That is illogical.
> 
> But I guess "hopes" aren't a thing of logic. They are a thing of preference. It is odd to me that your preference is for the Knicks to do well under the circumstances. That being us having their unprotected first round pick and all, in case you forgot.
> 
> Personally, my preference and hope is that the Knicks flat out suck balls all season long both this year and next year since that makes their picks more valuable.
> 
> I can't believe that any Bulls fan would take the position you are taking. Its shocking to me. Its right up there with another "hope" I saw once from another poster which was that Paxson fail and be fired, even though that failure and firing would necessarily be preceeded by the Bulls themselves failing to win.
> 
> Sometimes the posts in here just baffle me. But as they say, "it takes all kinds", right?


Ron Cey, arguing w/ k4E is a war of attrition, and he has the typing fingers of Luke Skywalker.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Babble-On said:


> I understand this sentiment because I've also rooted for our former players to do well. But in this case, you're effectively rooting against the Bulls.


Whatever. I guess there is a reason I didn't join the army. Not a big flags and pendants kind of guy. I’m fine with being a NBA fan whose favorite team is the Bulls. I’ve been going to Bulls games regularly for 20+ years now, so I always find it hysterical to have my fandom questioned. 



> Another thing about rooting for former players: I gain an attachment to our players, but its hard for me to understand the extreme attachment to guys who really didn't accomplish much on an individual or team level. Jamal was horribly inconsistent and part of some of the worst Bulls teams ever. My lasting image of Eddy is of him being out of shape and playing poorly until February after setting high expectations the last 20 games of the previous season, with the low point being the game against MIA where he was so out of shape coming off a short injury stint that he was lumbering up the court begging to come out of the game, one of my most embarassing moments as a fan, right up there with the game in 99' where we scored only 49 points in a game and the couple of 50 point losses we suffered.


See, I remember Curry as the starting center, leading scorer and guy who played the 2nd most minutes on the Bulls team that finally turned this train wreck around. 

Also, the end of 2002-2003 was really the only other time it was fun to be a Bulls fan since MJ left, and Jalen, Jamal and Eddy were leading that team. 

I'm a big Artest fan as well, and root for him to do well. Kukoc as well, although his days are coming to a close. Its a shame they ended up on division rivals, but what can ya do?



> The only guys from the post dynasty era who I really miss or feel any sort of attachment to are AD, Brand, and Artest. They are the only guys that always to me brought it in terms of effort and performance, if not always wins.


Yah, I agree that the effort thing means a lot more to Chicago fans. Rose made the team better the second he joined the squad. That team, when we traded Artest and Miller, was absolutely abysmal. Artest was melting down before our eyes, which was sad to see, but, even as an owner of a Ron Artest Bulls jersey, I had to admit it was time for him to go. 




> Brad Miller, I'd have rather kept him, but even in his case, the main thing I remember with him is that much like Eddy before last season, he never came into camp in shape for us, and thus never performed as well as he could have.


You are right about this. Miller came into camp his first year horribly out of shape and was not ready to start the season. Why he didn't get ridden as hard as Eddy did by Bulls fans is curious.



> I also maybe have a soft spot for Fizer because he showed some promise when he actually got a chance and for the fact that he had such bad luck starting with being drafted by us when we already had Brand, then having to play behind two high schoolers, and ending with him tearing up his knee just when he seemed to have found his niche.


See, I hated Fizer.  I was OK with drafting him, since it seemed like a trade was lined up and he did seem like the best player available, but I just didn't like his game in the NBA. He sure did look like a stud in college though. Wow.


----------



## bullsville

Ron Cey said:


> Its a very simple concept. Knicks wins = bad for Bulls. Get it? It has nothing to do with whether or not you "like" some of the players on the Knicks.
> 
> And teams that barely miss the playoffs jump up to the top three picks all the time. That is how Orlando got the Webber pick. That is how Milwaukee got the Bogut pick. The Rockets jumped way up to get Yao. And those are #1 picks, let alone teams that have jumped up into the top 3. *Any* statistical chance is better than *no* statistical chance. And even if ends up the 14th pick, that is better than the 15th pick because it leaves one more draft option on the board.
> 
> And in any event, I'm not talking about whats realistic.
> 
> *You said you "hope the Knicks do well".* That doesn't have anything to do with realism. It has to do with your expressly stated *hopes* for a team's success that, if accomplished, necessarily depletes the value of an asset held by the team you are a fan of.
> 
> That is illogical.
> 
> But I guess "hopes" aren't a thing of logic. They are a thing of preference. It is odd to me that your preference is for the Knicks to do well under the circumstances. That being us having their unprotected first round pick and all, in case you forgot.
> 
> Personally, my preference and hope is that the Knicks flat out suck balls all season long both this year and next year since that makes their picks more valuable.
> 
> I can't believe that any Bulls fan would take the position you are taking. Its shocking to me. Its right up there with another "hope" I saw once from another poster which was that Paxson fail and be fired, even though that failure and firing would necessarily be preceeded by the Bulls themselves failing to win.
> 
> Sometimes the posts in here just baffle me. But as they say, "it takes all kinds", right?


:clap:

IMHO, the "chances" of the Knicks finishing with the worse record in the league aren't much lower (if at all) than the Bulls finishing with the 3rd best record in the East last season.

But "hope"? Jeez, as unrealistic as it is, I certainly "hope" the Knicks go 0-82, just like I "hope" the Bulls go 82-0. I certainly HOPE that the pick we get from the Knicks is as close to #1 as humanly possible, so it goes without saying that I certainly HOPE that Eddy and Jamal play very poorly and do all they can to help the Knicks lose *because that directly helps the Bulls*.

It's fine to root for players as well as laundry, but when the laundry fails to come first and foremost you are no longer a fan of the laundry, you are a fan of certain players even to the detriment of the laundry.

But hey, if you pay for season tickets, you most certainly have the right to HOPE that the team gets a worse draft pick...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Its a very simple concept. Knicks wins = bad for Bulls. Get it? It has nothing to do with whether or not you "like" some of the players on the Knicks.


Oh, OK. Thanks for the explanation. Now I get it. Wow, how could I be so blind?





> And teams that barely miss the playoffs jump up to the top three picks all the time.


ALL the time? 




> And in any event, I'm not talking about whats realistic.


I agree.




> *You said you "hope the Knicks do well".* That doesn't have anything to do with realism. It has to do with your expressly stated *hopes* for a team's success that, if accomplished, necessarily depletes the value of an asset held by the team you are a fan of.
> 
> That is illogical.


No, its not. Like I said, I'm not just a fan of laundry. I root for the players as well. Its not a simple black and white issue for me.





> I can't believe that any Bulls fan would take the position you are taking. Its shocking to me. Its right up there with another "hope" I saw once from another poster which was that Paxson fail and be fired, even though that failure and firing would necessarily be preceeded by the Bulls themselves failing to win.


Yeah, sorry its shocking. I know the guy that sits behind me at games, who is a *diehard* Bulls fan and season ticket holder longer than I that I was talking to also feels the same way that I do. Some people like the players. Maybe I'm just weak. I would not be a good soldier.

So, there are seeds of disloyalty in the fleet. We need a court marshall ASAP.





> Sometimes the posts in here just baffle me. But as they say, "it takes all kinds", right?


Yeah, it sure does.  Anyway, this seems like a stupid thing to be talking about all season long.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> But "hope"? Jeez, as unrealistic as it is, I certainly "hope" the Knicks go 0-82, just like I "hope" the Bulls go 82-0. I certainly HOPE that the pick we get from the Knicks is as close to #1 as humanly possible, so it goes without saying that I certainly HOPE that Eddy and Jamal play very poorly and do all they can to help the Knicks lose *because that directly helps the Bulls*.
> 
> It's fine to root for players as well as laundry, but when the laundry fails to come first and foremost you are no longer a fan of the laundry, you are a fan of certain players even to the detriment of the laundry.


Everytime I read a post like this, I just queue up my copy of "I Hate Eddy Curry," composed last season mind you, into my play list and start to giggle.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Just a little more on this subject. I feel bad for Elton being in Clipper-land. That's not the kind of fate I wanted for the guy. Even though it looks like he is not the type of player that can lead a winning team, like Krause thought, I'd rather him be on the Bulls. I don't think I could root for Elton to go 0-82.


If Chris Duhon, Hinrich and Deng were traded to the Knicks tomorrow I'd have a hard time wanting them to go 0-82 as well. Bullsville and the penguin are just stronger willed men than I am I guess.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh, OK. Thanks for the explanation. Now I get it. Wow, how could I be so blind?
> 
> ALL the time?
> 
> I agree.
> 
> No, its not. Like I said, I'm not just a fan of laundry. I root for the players as well. Its not a simple black and white issue for me.
> 
> Yeah, sorry its shocking. I know the guy that sits behind me at games, who is a *diehard* Bulls fan and season ticket holder longer than I that I was talking to also feels the same way that I do. Some people like the players. Maybe I'm just weak. I would not be a good soldier.
> 
> So, there are seeds of disloyalty in the fleet. We need a court marshall ASAP.
> 
> Yeah, it sure does.  *Anyway, this seems like a stupid thing to be talking about all season long.*


You liking the players is irrelevent to how the Knicks success affects the Bulls pick. Its not about who you like. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it.

As for the stupidity of the topic, I disagree. The success of the Knicks and how that affects the return obtained in the Curry trade is the most important discussion that can be had at this point. 

I agree with Babble-on. Though it is not your intent, hoping the Knicks "do well" has the effect of hoping for something bad to befall the Bulls. Thats the bottom line and it can't be debated. 

Like you acknowledged, Knicks wins = bad for Bulls. I can't for the life of me understand how you can acknowledge that simple fact and still hope for Knick wins.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> I can't for the life of me understand how you can acknowledge that simple fact and still hope for Knick wins.


B/C I'm also a fan of Curry, Crawford, Artest and Brand.

It always mystified me that many Bulls fans were not hopeful and supportive of Jamal and Eddy when they were actually on the team.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> I agree with Babble-on. Though it is not your intent, hoping the Knicks "do well" has the effect of hoping for something bad to befall the Bulls. Thats the bottom line and it can't be debated.


The "bad" things happened to the Bulls the last two summers IMO, which many Bulls fans here were gleeful or indifferent about. 

Granted, those are sunk costs at this point. 

If the Bulls get the number one pick in the draft, I’ll be a happy camper overall. I just don't think its going to happen.

Given that I’m a fan of both players and country, I humbly ask you to be sympathetic to my plight.


----------



## chifaninca

I'm rooting for Eddy and Jamal to succeed, but I'm rooting harder that the Knicks lose every single game this year. I want the lottery Pick and the next Yao Ming!


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Everytime I read a post like this, I just queue up my copy of "I Hate Eddy Curry," composed last season mind you, into my play list and start to giggle.


I'm glad you brought that up. 

I don't really hate Eddy, but I absolutely, positively hated the way he didn't defend well and I totally hated the way he didn't rebound.

The difference is, I didn't HOPE that Eddy played matador defense and I didn't HOPE that he rebounded like a guard. I was HOPING that he would actually play like a TRUE center, but he didn't (and IMHO he never will, which is why I wanted him traded for a high draft pick).

And I, unlike you, am still HOPING that the Knicks suck this year so that the Bulls do, indeed, get a high draft pick in return for Eddy.

And I am also hoping that the Knicks suck even more next year so that we can switch picks with them and wind up getting TWO high draft picks for Eddy.

After the Knicks owe us no more draft picks, I will have no more reason to root against Eddy or Jamal. I'll be back to hoping that Jamal blows up, the limited edition, autographed, jersey rookie card I have will then be worth something.

*************

Here's an example:

Drew Bledsoe was my favorite Patriot of all time, and I've been a fan since the mid-70s. But when he got hurt and his replacement won us a Super Bowl, I had no problem with him being traded. 

And since the Bills gave us their 1st round pick the next season, I rooted all year for Drew to play horribly and for the Bills to go 0-16, even though he was my favorite player. Why? Because the laundry comes first.

Now that he's in Dallas, I still root for Drew to throw for 400 yards every week and make the Pro Bowl, in spite of the fact that I hate Parcells.

So I completely understand why you would still root for your favorite former Bulls, but I will never understand how you can root for them to win games the next two seasons when it directly effects the Bulls in a negative way.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Yeah, when push comes to shove, I want the Bulls to get a high lotto pick as well. 

Its a tough thing for me though, and I don't think its a realistic plan of attack.

Man, this could not have gone better for the Jamal and Curry haters!


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Yeah, when push comes to shove, I want the Bulls to get a high lotto pick as well.


Wait, do you mean from the Knicks, or because the Bulls win 20 games this year because we traded away Jamal and Eddy? 

(I'm sorry, I had to) :biggrin: 



> Its a tough thing for me though, and I don't think its a realistic plan of attack.
> 
> Man, this could not have gone better for the Jamal and Curry haters!


Yes, so far the season is off to a great start for the "Bulls are better off without JC and EC" crowd.

But I vividly remember 0-9, and I remember the Knicks starting off well last season, so I'm certainly not counting any chickens yet.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Wait, do you mean from the Knicks, or because the Bulls win 20 games this year because we traded away Jamal and Eddy?
> 
> (I'm sorry, I had to) :biggrin:


Honestly, either way. I think we need an influx of talent if we're ever going to really contend and this season is pretty much meaningless anyway, from a winning the title perspective. Many here have even stated that this season is pretty much just a small bump in the road on the way to the grand season of 2006-2007, and that developing players is the #1 goal. 

If it would not break the spirit of the team, I would not mind getting some high lotto picks to make up for the talent loss of Jamal, Eddy and JWill. Two high picks would be better than one, right?


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> I'm glad you brought that up.
> 
> I don't really hate Eddy, but I absolutely, positively hated the way he didn't defend well and I totally hated the way he didn't rebound.


Well, you sang? that you "hated his (explitive) guts."

But, perhaps, that was just artistic license.


----------



## madox

I feel it should be mentioned that if Eddy Curry were a very good basketball player this thread wouldn't even exist. The bottom line is that good players play well, which eliminates the need for daily updates. Players as consistently inconsistent as Curry/Crawford cost you games. 


How come there's no Official Shaq Update thread in L.A.'s forum?
No Baron Davis thread in the Hornets forum?
No McGrady thread in the Magic forum?
No Larry Hughes update in the Wizard forum?
No Webber update in the Kings forum?

Answer: because all of the above players are good.

It's almost embarrassing that the Bulls pull off an ubelievable win last night and the top 3 topics on the Bulls board are:

Eddy Curry Update
Jamal Crawford Update (WTF!!??!!??)
Trade Hinrich


O my God, I gotta make some changes...


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Well, you sang? that you "hated his (explitive) guts."
> 
> But, perhaps, that was just artistic license.


Yeah, in the song my wife also says "I'm in love with Hinrich", except she had never heard of him when she said that.

And great use of the ?, I have recorded lyrics over music many times, but I'm pretty sure I have never "sang" anything in my life.

"Ode to K4E" says that you want to go steady with Eddy and Jalen and Jamal, and I don't believe that, either. Hang out and have a few beers, sure- but not "go steady". 

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


----------



## YearofDaBulls

madox said:


> I feel it should be mentioned that if Eddy Curry were a very good basketball player this thread wouldn't even exist. The bottom line is that good players play well, which eliminates the need for daily updates. Players as consistently inconsistent as Curry/Crawford cost you games.
> 
> 
> How come there's no Official Shaq Update thread in L.A.'s forum?
> No Baron Davis thread in the Hornets forum?
> No McGrady thread in the Magic forum?
> No Larry Hughes update in the Wizard forum?
> No Webber update in the Kings forum?
> 
> Answer: because all of the above players are good.
> 
> It's almost embarrassing that the Bulls pull off an ubelievable win last night and the top 3 topics on the Bulls board are:
> 
> Eddy Curry Update
> Jamal Crawford Update (WTF!!??!!??)
> Trade Hinrich
> 
> 
> O my God, I gotta make some changes...


Agreed. There's only so much talk of DNA, Curry and Crawford one can take. I could give a rats behind how the other players are doing because they are not Bulls anymore and I like to direct my attention just to this team. I liked Curry, but he had to go end of story.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> B/C I'm also a fan of Curry, Crawford, Artest and Brand.
> 
> It always mystified me that many Bulls fans were not hopeful and supportive of Jamal and Eddy when they were actually on the team.


I'd be fascinated to meet the Bulls fan that did not hope Jamal and Eddy realized their talent as Bulls. I've not met one yet, but perhaps they do exist somewhere.


----------



## mizenkay

madox said:


> It's almost embarrassing that the Bulls pull off an ubelievable win last night and the top 3 topics on the Bulls board are:
> 
> Eddy Curry Update
> Jamal Crawford Update (WTF!!??!!??)
> Trade Hinrich
> 
> 
> O my God, I gotta make some changes...



why should you change? it *is* embarrassing. and kinda pathetic. but that's the way of our board i guess. 

:dead:


----------



## Electric Slim

Ron Cey said:


> I'd be fascinated to meet the Bulls fan that did not hope Jamal and Eddy realized their talent as Bulls. I've not met one yet, but perhaps they do exist somewhere.


Excellent point. I'm a .00000000000001% Tim Thomas fan, but i _support_ him 100%.


----------



## Electric Slim

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, either way. I think we need an influx of talent if we're ever going to really contend and this season is pretty much meaningless anyway, from a winning the title perspective. Many here have even stated that this season is pretty much just a small bump in the road on the way to the grand season of 2006-2007, and that developing players is the #1 goal.


Listen, I believe that w/o Eddy Curry the Bulls are lacking quite a weapon. A crappy machine gun is still valuabull when you're going against foes w/ only muskets at their disposal.

But you act like the Bulls would have competed for the title THIS YEAR if Eddy had not been traded. IF in fact he had not been traded, you would not be acting like that, you just find it convenient to say that becaue no one can prove it.


----------



## Da Grinch

i find it alittle odd that people are now attempting to judge the length a thread lives as a reason of patheticness.

its a message board , and as much as people dont seem to like it , threads die , only when interest in the topic dies .

jamal crawford still has some interest ....as i expect eddy curry to for some time, not just because of who they are but the because of the tenure as bulls and way they are no longer bulls.

my advice to those who have a problem with it....is to read other threads ....but that is seemingly impossible , i would bet these threads would be a nice chunck smaller without people coming in and pontificating on how lame the thread is ...which to me was ...pretty lame.


----------



## Electric Slim

Da Grinch said:


> i find it alittle odd that people are now attempting to judge the length a thread lives as a reason of patheticness.
> 
> its a message board , and as much as people dont seem to like it , threads die , only when interest in the topic dies .
> 
> jamal crawford still has some interest ....as i expect eddy curry to for some time, not just because of who they are but the because of the tenure as bulls and way they are no longer bulls.
> 
> my advice to those who have a problem with it....is to read other threads ....but that is seemingly impossible , i would bet these threads would be a nice chunck smaller without people coming in and pontificating on how lame the thread is ...which to me was ...pretty lame.


It only takes one to repeatedly bump a thread.


----------



## Da Grinch

Electric Slim said:


> It only takes one to repeatedly bump a thread.


and?????

when i see a thread i am not interested in at the top of the page , i simply keep reading until i find one i am interested in.

i suggest that course of action for everyone and threads will be more harmonious and if they aren't most wont even know about it , because they will be too busy in threads of interest to them to notice.

if all it takes is someone to bump a thread to annoy you or anyone else , i just shake my head at that and offer my pity to the poor souls who cant let go and leave well enough alone.


----------



## spongyfungy

Da Grinch said:


> and?????
> 
> when i see a thread i am not interested in at the top of the page , i simply keep reading until i find one i am interested in.
> 
> i suggest that course of action for everyone and threads will be more harmonious and if they aren't most wont even know about it , because they will be too busy in threads of interest to them to notice.
> 
> if all it takes is someone to bump a thread to annoy you or anyone else , i just shake my head at that and offer my pity to the poor souls who cant let go and leave well enough alone.


 'can't let go' 

like Eddy Curry? 

In effect, I bumped this thread. Does that make me a hypocrite for posting in this thread if I'm sick of the Eddy Curry talk?


----------



## ViciousFlogging

spongyfungy said:


> In effect, I bumped this thread. Does that make me a hypocrite for posting in this thread if I'm sick of the Eddy Curry talk?


this almost made me head explode. I'm so confused.

and I just bumped the thread and now I'm even more bewildered.


----------



## jbulls

Slight change of pace here. I watched a bit of the Knicks/Celtics game last night and thought Delonte West looked tremendous. He finished with a 14/9/9 line and played even better than that. He even stuffed Curry at one point. I was very, very impressed with him. Al Jefferson looked pretty invisible.


----------



## lougehrig

I am watching the Knicks v. Wizards on the NBA League pass. I have some general observations on our old friend Eddy. I don't necessarily miss Curry (although he was a decent player with some prescence). The main point I have is that is still so unnatural. The Knicks can never dump it down to Eddy 5 times in a row and expect him to put up a good shot 5 times in row. They dump it down 5 times, they get 1 offensive foul, 1 turnovers, 2 good move and basket, 1 pass out. The same applies to his rebounding. He will have a dynamic put back dunk, folllowed up by being out jumped and out rebounded by Gilbert Arenas. I think Tyson has the same problem with his offense, although Tyson is a vary reliable rebounder. I think Tyson will develop more consistenly offensively since it's his nature. The longer Curry goes with his hit or miss appoach the longer it will take him to improve. I wish him luck. Right now he has 10 points, 4 fouls, 4 turnovers, 3 offensive rebounds, 1 defensive rebound, in 8 minutes. That's gonna drive Larry Brown crazy sooner rather than later.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest

lougehrig said:


> I am watching the Knicks v. Wizards on the NBA League pass. I have some general observations on our old friend Eddy. I don't necessarily miss Curry (although he was a decent player with some prescence). The main point I have is that is still so unnatural. The Knicks can never dump it down to Eddy 5 times in a row and expect him to put up a good shot 5 times in row. They dump it down 5 times, they get 1 offensive foul, 1 turnovers, 2 good move and basket, 1 pass out. The same applies to his rebounding. He will have a dynamic put back dunk, folllowed up by being out jumped and out rebounded by Gilbert Arenas. I think Tyson has the same problem with his offense, although Tyson is a vary reliable rebounder. I think Tyson will develop more consistenly offensively since it's his nature. The longer Curry goes with his hit or miss appoach the longer it will take him to improve. I wish him luck. Right now he has 10 points, 4 fouls, 4 turnovers, 3 offensive rebounds, 1 defensive rebound, in 8 minutes. That's gonna drive Larry Brown crazy sooner rather than later.


Yes, some people act like he had developed into Shaq before having the heart issue. He was still inconsistent, and as usual, would completely disappear in the second half or even after the first quarter. He was developing, but the defense needed work, he wasn't guaranteed to make a shot, throw in the heart issue and his attitude at times, and I'm happy that we at least got Sweetney and Thomas to fill in to score rather than not sign him and get nothing. It sucks AD is gone, but they're gone, and we'll be fine


----------



## giusd

I agree with this post but i miss EC and wish he was still a bull. But he has four TO and just missed two stright FTs with four minutes left. He is going to drive larry brown into his grave.

EC come back home.

david


----------



## cima

Eddy never disappeared after the first quarter, we just stopped feeding him the ball or stopped playing him all together.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Hey *bullsville.* Please post any Curry / Knicks bashing or your own ego stroking in here. Its not fair to pollute the nightly analysis thread with your chest-thumping.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Speaking of which, since *bullsville* was talking about his sig in the "nightly analysis" thread of all places, lets take a look at the cowardly offering that is the *bullsville* signature.



> Knicks winning percentage B.C. (Before Crawford): .498 over 5 seasons
> Knicks winning percentage with Crawford: .393
> Knicks record with Eddy AND Jamal: 0-2 (.000)
> 
> Bulls winning percentage with Crawford: .271 over 4 seasons
> Bulls winning percentage after Crawford left: .578


What can one reasonably infer from these numbers you are presenting, given the state of roster flux for both teams, the change in quality of teammates for both team and just the flux of changed across the league over the years? 

I realize that you are looking to create a signature where you will never be "wrong," but I think its sad that you copped out and went with a 5 season history for the Knicks. 

5 years ago the main men on the Knicks were Allan Houston, Latrell Sprewell, Marcus Camby, Glen Rice, Kurt Thomas, Larry Johnson and Charlie Ward. What does this squad, which happens to be the *winningest* squad in the last five years for the Knicks by far, have to do with Jamal Crawford's or Eddy Curry’s impact on the Knicks, given it’s a completely different team now? What about the team from 4 years ago? 3? How are those numbers meaningful?

As for your Bulls record, you are including a rookie season where Crawford averaged 17 minutes a game and another season where he only played 23 games! 

You are including games in your signature where Crawford didn't even play, and somehow attributing them to Crawford! 

You are also including the 2003-2004 season where Crawford played with band of rookies and NBDL guys!

Its a ridiculous, meaningless report you are offering up there, IMO. 

I know you are trying to juxtapose your signature with the ones I made the last couple of years, which is fine and funny, but at least step up and make a real prediction with it. Don't attempt pad it with wins and losses that have absolutly nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make. You've created a laughable "sure thing" there, and now you are bragging about it. LOL.

I'll stand by the silly sigs I've made... I didn't think the Bulls would make the playoffs at the start of last season. I'll live with that. My current one shows the overall record for John Paxson over 2 1/82 seasons. The first season was his "playoff guarantee" team and the second consisted of mostly his guys. 

Your sig is a joke, IMO. Not because its "right" or "wrong"... its because you are so cowardly with your "predictions" that you feel the need to pad them with drivel.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Hey *bullsville.* Please post any *Curry / Knicks bashing* or your own ego stroking in here. Its not fair to pollute the nightly analysis thread with your chest-thumping.


:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Before I ever posted in the "nightly analysis thread", you had this "*Curry / Knicks defending*" post to offer up:

****************


Today, 09:16 PM #49 
kukoc4ever 
dream a little dream 4 me




Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,070 
Points: 27941.20 (Donate) 
RPG Character
Rep Power: 13
Re: Semi OT: The Official Tonight around the NBA thread 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbulls 
Eddy was Eddy. A couple highlight reel plays, even one really nice assist, but he managed to commit 5 TO's in 16 min's.




*If tonight was "Eddy was Eddy" he'd never see the floor or get signed by any team. He played like crap. If you look at his history, his usual game is not 5 turnovers and 4 fouls in 16 minutes. That's a Sweetney-esqe foul rate. The Knicks have no chemistry at all right now, I agree. But, that's kind of what everyone expected, right? Its going to take a few games, just like the Bulls, for Brown to find out a rotation.*

********************



If anyone has a picture of a pot calling a kettle black, please feel free to post it now. Thanks in advance. 

Also, a picture of me stroking my ego might fit in here...


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Speaking of which, since *bullsville* was talking about his sig in the "nightly analysis" thread of all places, lets take a look at the cowardly offering that is the *bullsville* signature.
> 
> 
> 
> What can one reasonably infer from these numbers you are presenting, given the state of roster flux for both teams, the change in quality of teammates for both team and just the flux of changed across the league over the years?
> 
> I realize that you are looking to create a signature where you will never be "wrong," but I think its sad that you copped out and went with a 5 season history for the Knicks.
> 
> 5 years ago the main men on the Knicks were Allan Houston, Latrell Sprewell, Marcus Camby, Glen Rice, Kurt Thomas, Larry Johnson and Charlie Ward. What does this squad, which happens to be the *winningest* squad in the last five years for the Knicks by far, have to do with Jamal Crawford's or Eddy Curry’s impact on the Knicks, given it’s a completely different team now? What about the team from 4 years ago? 3? How are those numbers meaningful?
> 
> As for your Bulls record, you are including a rookie season where Crawford averaged 17 minutes a game and another season where he only played 23 games!
> 
> You are including games in your signature where Crawford didn't even play, and somehow attributing them to Crawford!
> 
> You are also including the 2003-2004 season where Crawford played with band of rookies and NBDL guys!
> 
> Its a ridiculous, meaningless report you are offering up there, IMO.
> 
> I know you are trying to juxtapose your signature with the ones I made the last couple of years, which is fine and funny, but at least step up and make a real prediction with it. Don't attempt pad it with wins and losses that have absolutly nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make. You've created a laughable "sure thing" there, and now you are bragging about it. LOL.
> 
> I'll stand by the silly sigs I've made... I didn't think the Bulls would make the playoffs at the start of last season. I'll live with that. My current one shows the overall record for John Paxson over 2 1/82 seasons. The first season was his "playoff guarantee" team and the second consisted of mostly his guys.
> 
> Your sig is a joke, IMO. Not because its "right" or "wrong"... its because you are so cowardly with your "predictions" that you feel the need to pad them with drivel.


WOW!!

I have really struck a nerve. Wow.

I'll get out of this now, it isn't fair to the rest of the board.

Sorry, all, if I contributed to this in any way. I just like to laugh at the laughable, that's all.


----------



## lougehrig

CiMa said:


> Eddy never disappeared after the first quarter, we just stopped feeding him the ball or stopped playing him all together.


Well that's sorta true, but the reason he stopped playing was because he wasn't playing any defense, nor rebounding, nor finishing when fed earlier. Frye came in and played well, thus Curry didn't play. He was shut down a few times with turnovers and steals, then he let Haywood and others into the lane much too easily.


----------



## Da Grinch

kukoc4ever said:


> Speaking of which, since *bullsville* was talking about his sig in the "nightly analysis" thread of all places, lets take a look at the cowardly offering that is the *bullsville* signature.
> 
> 
> 
> What can one reasonably infer from these numbers you are presenting, given the state of roster flux for both teams, the change in quality of teammates for both team and just the flux of changed across the league over the years?
> 
> I realize that you are looking to create a signature where you will never be "wrong," but I think its sad that you copped out and went with a 5 season history for the Knicks.
> 
> 5 years ago the main men on the Knicks were Allan Houston, Latrell Sprewell, Marcus Camby, Glen Rice, Kurt Thomas, Larry Johnson and Charlie Ward. What does this squad, which happens to be the *winningest* squad in the last five years for the Knicks by far, have to do with Jamal Crawford's or Eddy Curry’s impact on the Knicks, given it’s a completely different team now? What about the team from 4 years ago? 3? How are those numbers meaningful?
> 
> As for your Bulls record, you are including a rookie season where Crawford averaged 17 minutes a game and another season where he only played 23 games!
> 
> You are including games in your signature where Crawford didn't even play, and somehow attributing them to Crawford!
> 
> You are also including the 2003-2004 season where Crawford played with band of rookies and NBDL guys!
> 
> Its a ridiculous, meaningless report you are offering up there, IMO.
> 
> I know you are trying to juxtapose your signature with the ones I made the last couple of years, which is fine and funny, but at least step up and make a real prediction with it. Don't attempt pad it with wins and losses that have absolutly nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make. You've created a laughable "sure thing" there, and now you are bragging about it. LOL.
> 
> I'll stand by the silly sigs I've made... I didn't think the Bulls would make the playoffs at the start of last season. I'll live with that. My current one shows the overall record for John Paxson over 2 1/82 seasons. The first season was his "playoff guarantee" team and the second consisted of mostly his guys.
> 
> Your sig is a joke, IMO. Not because its "right" or "wrong"... its because you are so cowardly with your "predictions" that you feel the need to pad them with drivel.


speaking of bullsville's sig am i the only one who finds humor in the fact that he adds the knicks 99-00 season into his sig to make it look worse , he goes back 4 years for the bulls but adds a 5th for the knicks , a year when jamal wasn't even in the nba ....who would want to bet if the knicks didn't win 50 that season he would have not seen the need?


----------



## spongyfungy

Alright, that's enough of the knickerbocker talk for now. This thread will close in a few minutes, so if anyone was going to say something, finish typing. Responses may be deleted.


----------



## bullsville

Da Grinch said:


> speaking of bullsville's sig am i the only one who finds humor in the fact that he adds the knicks 99-00 season into his sig to make it look worse , he goes back 4 years for the bulls but adds a 5th for the knicks , a year when jamal wasn't even in the nba ....who would want to bet if the knicks didn't win 50 that season he would have not seen the need?


To be fair, I changed my sig to include the Knicks' record in the FOUR seasons before Jamal arrived, leaving out the 50-win season.

That dropped the percentage from .498 to .470, obviously a huge difference and obviously the reason I went back 5 years. It made such a huge difference in my mind that I couldn't help myself.

:rotf: :rotf:


----------



## Sham

I just want to say that I hope both Eddy and Jamal do well in New York, and that both have long, healthy, happy careers. But I hope Sweetney turns out better than them both.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> To be fair, I changed my sig to include the Knicks' record in the FOUR seasons before Jamal arrived, leaving out the 50-win season.
> 
> That dropped the percentage from .498 to .470, obviously a huge difference and obviously the reason I went back 5 years. It made such a huge difference in my mind that I couldn't help myself.
> 
> :rotf: :rotf:


Why does the Knicks team from 4 years ago, led by Allan Houston, Latrell Sprewell, Kurt Thomas, Marcus Camby, Clarence Weatherspoon, Mark Jackson, Othella Harrington, Charlie Ward and Shandon Anderson have anything to do with Jamal's effect on the Knicks last season or Jamal, Eddy and AD's effect on the Knicks this season?

Why are you including nearly 100 games where Jamal didn't even play in your signature?

I figure if you answer the questions, and make some corrections to your sig, you might end up with something remotely meaningful, although I think there are too many errors.... it may be beyond help.


----------



## bullsville

ShamBulls said:


> I just want to say that I hope both Eddy and Jamal do well in New York, and that both have long, healthy, happy careers. But I hope Sweetney turns out better than them both.


I don't.

The only way Eddy and Jamal do well in NY is if they start hustling and defending and playing the right way.

And if they start doing all of those things, it will pee me off that they didn't bother doing those things when they were Bulls.

But as persons, I hope they have long careers and make lots of money and continue the Knicks tradition of losing to the Bulls in playoff series where the winner goes on to win the NBA Championship.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> That dropped the percentage from .498 to .470, obviously a huge difference and obviously the reason I went back 5 years. It made such a huge difference in my mind that I couldn't help myself.


OMG, I was way off... you *were* actually including the Knicks team that went to the Finals in your Jamal sig???? OMG. LOL. Even worse than I thought!


----------



## bullsville

Since this is the official Eddy update thread, we probably should update his season stats.

2 games
29.0 min
45.5% FG
55.0% FT
15.5 pts
6.5 reb
0.5 ast
3.5 TO
1.0 blk
0.0 stl
Team stats: 0 wins, 2 losses


----------



## Sham

He's improved as a rebounder :clap:


----------



## bullsville

ShamBulls said:


> He's improved as a rebounder :clap:


Yep, especially on the offensive boards, where he is averaging 2.5 offensive rebounds per game.

Of course, you have to give his best friend Jamal some of that credit, his 31.3% shooting has certainly helped the Knicks pile up a hell of a lot of offensive rebounding opportunities so far.

:clap:


----------



## Frankensteiner

The Knicks are a hard team to figure out (well, not really, at least if you watched more than 5 games of basketball in your life). They have 3 guys that could easily go off for more than 25 points yet no Knicks player has actually scored that amount in either of the 2 games. Hmmm?

And Eddy Curry committed 5 turnovers and only grabbed 5 rebounds. What's going on, that doesn't sound like him at all?


----------



## Frankensteiner

But I'm still sticking to my prediction of 67 wins and 2 NBA championships for the Knicks.


----------



## truebluefan

I am with Shambulls on this one. I wish Eddy and JC well in NY and I hope Sweetney turns out to be a player for us.


----------



## Da Grinch

bullsville said:


> To be fair, I changed my sig to include the Knicks' record in the FOUR seasons before Jamal arrived, leaving out the 50-win season.
> 
> That dropped the percentage from .498 to .470, obviously a huge difference and obviously the reason I went back 5 years. It made such a huge difference in my mind that I couldn't help myself.
> 
> :rotf: :rotf:


so why did you add the 5th season in the 1st place ...oh wait , its that impartial posting i am so use to over here from you .


----------



## lougehrig

I again watched our friend Eddy versus the Warrior today. Wow...I think I have truly figured out the conspiracy that everyone has fallen prey to in regards to Mr. Curry. Let's look at his stat line for today:

16 Minutes, 4-9 shooting, 3 boards, 2 TO, 4 PF and 11 points. Now the instinct is to say, that's not a bad per minute average for points. Well if you watch the actual game you can see that despite 11 points, Eddy is pretty much invisible. Here is where the conspiracy comes into play:

When Eddy is in the game, everybody assumes "Well we have an athletic 6'11" 285, quick center with soft hands. There aren't too many of those in the NBA, especially those that are 22 years old. We must force feed this player, since it will open up so many chances for everyone else." If you feed a player ever single time down the floor, then you are going to score points. But at what cost? Like I said previously, Eddy is very inefficient (despite his field goal percentage). He turns it over or the entry pass gets knocked away or he is blocked so frequently. He isn't Shaq. Shaq you can feed him 10-15 feed from the basket and back people down. If he is double teamed, he passes out. Simple. When Eddy is fed, he can't back people down, he holds the ball too low, he doesn't rebound. It's just brutal.

The hard reality. A player with that much ability should not be force fed. Play your offense including him, but he should be able to get his own points. He simply can't. If he is not fed in the post, you swear he isn't even in the game. I think the Knicks and the rest of the NBA is waking up to that fact. Star players, great players, good players, know how to get their own. Sometimes they have plays run for them, but most of the time they don't.

Tonight Golden State played horribly. They still won. If they were playing a real NBA team, they would have lost by 25 points easily. Is Curry a future All-Star center in this league? No way. Is he a 7th or 8th man off the bench to specialize in quick offense versus back centers? Absolutely. That's a long way from people are expecting.

In the 3rd quarter they started with Curry. He scored once, then had 4 or 5 bad plays including a bad foul. They took him out and brought in Frye and Lee. The Knicks had a big run and Curry never came back into the game. Even in the 4th quarter when they were down by 5, they brought in Lee and Frye instead of Curry. Brown knows what he is doing. Don't believe the hype.

BTW, they brought in Ariza early in the 3rd quarter to replace Q who had 4 fouls. Crawford again, invisible.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Great post, lou. Right on point. Larry Brown is stuck with Curry and Crawford, who put up stats but really make zero impact because they give it up just as easily on the other end with extremely poor defense. People respect Larry Brown, so when Brown starts benching Curry and limiting his minutes, hopefully people realize that Curry just isn't that good. I doubt it though.


----------



## giusd

The thing is you need to match EC up with a strong defensive unit so his defensive weakness are not has much a problem. So when he started with AD and deng they help EC out and his defensive weakness were not that obvious. But larry brown has him in with Q, marbery, and Karnes. Even thro AD starts he does have much left at 37 years old so EC has a lot more responsibities and he just doesnt have that kind of game.

Frye totally out played EC tonight and he is much more the kind of center that Larry Brown wants than EC. The knicks have a real problem. They look alot like the bulls two years ago with EC, rose, marshell, JC, and williams. Great talent but no team chemistry and players with low bball IQs.

These teams never win night in and night out in the nba. And it is not like the knicks first three games were that hard. They lost to bos (heading to the lotto) and the washington at home and today against GS.

And now they start a six game west coast road trip and even thro they play a couple of non playoff teams it is still a rough road trip. Even if they go 2 and 4 (which would be hard to believe based on how they have played the first 3 games) they would be 2 and 7 to start the season. This team looks badly put together by IT and it is the kind of team that drives Larry Brown nuts. I say (and until something changes on the knicks) that we will be getting their lotto pick next end of june.

david


----------



## Cap

I find it amazing that some Bulls fans here actually believed that Eddy Curry was a good player.


----------



## rwj333

EHL said:


> I find it amazing that some Bulls fans here actually believed that Eddy Curry was a good player.


I think he could have been a good player on our team, with good defensive players hiding his weaknesses and benefitting from his bursts of low post offense. He had some truly dominant scoring games last year, right before he got injured. 

On the Knicks it isn't that surprising that he's looked bad, but I'm sure he'll eventually look better. There's no place to go but up.


----------



## bullsville

It's freaking hilarious, Eddy's biggest "fanboys" haven't yet mentioned his acutal production on the floor this season.

But hey, to most of them defense and rebounding mean absolutely zero, as long as you are getting your points.

Through 3 games, I could not have possibly been more right about Curry. I can't believe, though, that there are actually people who try to defend the way he has played as a Knick.

Well, yes, I do believe it, most fans know very little about how the game is played, and what it takes to win games...


----------



## rwj333

bullsville said:


> It's freaking hilarious, Eddy's biggest "fanboys" haven't yet mentioned his acutal production on the floor this season.
> 
> But hey, to most of them defense and rebounding mean absolutely zero, as long as you are getting your points.
> 
> Through 3 games, I could not have possibly been more right about Curry. I can't believe, though, that there are actually people who try to defend the way he has played as a Knick.
> 
> Well, yes, I do believe it, most fans know very little about how the game is played, and what it takes to win games...


I don't see why you would expect them to with backlash like this.


----------



## bullsville

rwj333 said:


> I don't see why you would expect them to with backlash like this.


Backlash? No, backlash is a response to something that was said, Eddy's fanboys post much less with each passing game. Trust me, if Eddy was putting up 20/8/2, or if the Knicks were winning (as many predicted) some Bulls' fans who post here would be updating his season's stats after every quarter (if not after every point, rebound, and FGM).

The Crawford thread is pretty much all done, finally even his most ardent fans have figured out that despite his all-world skills (I mean that), he just doesn't have what it takes to be more than an MLE player.

And I love Jamal's talent, there was a time 3 or 4 years ago that I believed Krause when he said that Jamal was his "new Jordan".

But I am just hoping that Eddy becomes such a non-factor in NY that the Knicks suck for the next two seasons minimum, and that Jamal joins him in the "overpaid" category. Not only will that make me 100% correct in my completely outspoken "Eddy isn't worth the money" stance that I caught so much crap for, it will give the Bulls a pair of high lottery picks. 

Nice. The Knicks are 0-3. Besides having Eddy they also have "the best coach in the world" and an Olympian and Jamal... 

Life is good....... too bad there are 79 games to go, the Knicks could still turn it around. Brown has already figured out that Eddy is only good for ~15 minutes per game, once he moves Eddy to the bench as a scoring 6th man (the role I preached all summer that the Bulls should give him at 4 yr/$32 mil) the Knicks could be dangerous.


----------



## Da Grinch

bullsville said:


> It's freaking hilarious, Eddy's biggest "fanboys" haven't yet mentioned his acutal production on the floor this season.
> 
> But hey, to most of them defense and rebounding mean absolutely zero, as long as you are getting your points.
> 
> Through 3 games, I could not have possibly been more right about Curry. I can't believe, though, that there are actually people who try to defend the way he has played as a Knick.
> 
> Well, yes, I do believe it, most fans know very little about how the game is played, and what it takes to win games...


i'm pretty sure there was some chatter after his 1st game about his 19 and 8 game on this thread.

he is avg. 14 points 5.3 and 45% shooting in 24.7 min. its not like he is so far his production last season.

in the GS game if he had stayed on the court longer he would have been dominant , as he was fouling he was getting fouled, getting adonal in foul trouble and was out the game before eddy was , and i dont think chris taft was quite ready for him, after eddy left the game in the 1st half channing frye had his way with him.

foul trouble was his biggest problem in the 1st 3 games, you are acting like he is playing like yinka dare


----------



## lougehrig

Da Grinch said:


> i'm pretty sure there was some chatter after his 1st game about his 19 and 8 game on this thread.
> 
> he is avg. 14 points 5.3 and 45% shooting in 24.7 min. its not like he is so far his production last season.
> 
> in the GS game if he had stayed on the court longer he would have been dominant , as he was fouling he was getting fouled, getting adonal in foul trouble and was out the game before eddy was , and i dont think chris taft was quite ready for him, after eddy left the game in the 1st half channing frye had his way with him.
> 
> foul trouble was his biggest problem in the 1st 3 games, you are acting like he is playing like yinka dare


i agree somewhat. foul trouble has been a major issue. however, in the game today there were many, many times the Knicks needed inside scoring. brown didn't call his number. why? simple...he was having trouble scoring against foyle and even taft...even though he was 4-9 from the floor, i would estimate they dumped it down to him 16 times at least...that would make it 4 hoops in 16 posessions...he also was not rebounding at all...nor playing defense (didn't matter because foyle is not a threat)...he is just so inefficient...even if he didn't get into foul trouble, he would have had 20 points on 8-18 shooting, 2 boards...8 hoops on 30 possessions...the guy is brutal...simple as that...right now frye has already surpassed him...and he is game 3 of his nba career...


----------



## Da Grinch

lougehrig said:


> i agree somewhat. foul trouble has been a major issue. however, in the game today there were many, many times the Knicks needed inside scoring. brown didn't call his number. why? simple...he was having trouble scoring against foyle and even taft...even though he was 4-9 from the floor, i would estimate they dumped it down to him 16 times at least...that would make it 4 hoops in 16 posessions...he also was not rebounding at all...nor playing defense (didn't matter because foyle is not a threat)...he is just so inefficient...even if he didn't get into foul trouble, he would have had 20 points on 8-18 shooting, 2 boards...8 hoops on 30 possessions...the guy is brutal...simple as that...right now frye has already surpassed him...and he is game 3 of his nba career...


i think with curry its a lot of things , things that will be fixed in time.

the offense on the whole the team is having trouble with.

the team has no set rotation.

Qrich cannot feed the post well at all, and neither can matt barnes , leaving the job to AD and marbury , and its not always in their hands when curry has his position in the post, if a team is going to make feedin the post its focus either they have to get better at it or be removed for guys who can , like JC and ariza...or even unfortunately penny.

i think the knicks plan was to feed him until he decimated their weak depth.

curry to me is not the kind of post presence who is a grind it out guy who you can run your team through, he is a finisher a guy who should be using his physical gifts to get himself easy baskets.

it wasn't curry's lack of ability to convert , once foyle left the game taft showed he was green, and curry did exploit it , but frye really explioted it because pretty soon thereafter curry had to leave the game. also when neither of them were in the game troy murphy was playing center and his man to man defense needs work, so to me curry did partailly what he was supposed to do against a team with that interior which was exploit their depth , he just couldn't stay on the court due to his own issues, and the fact that the other knick big men(AD, frye and Lee) imo played better. 

curry's rebounding wasn't a problem today , the knicks were + 11 on the boards...imo using that advantage when curry was out the game , but they weren't having trouble when curry was in the game, it wasn't like the celtic game where the celts crashed relentlessly.

at the end of the day he got 11 in 16 minutes , which is good while it last but he needs to be on the court longer, and thats it, its neither the beginning nor end of the world.


----------



## ace20004u

I think Bullsville is getting carried away here personally. Have the Knicks been off to a slow start? Yeah. Have Curry & Crawford played especially well? No. Curry has looked absolutely dominating at times and spending far too much time on the bench with foul trouble at other times. Crawford looked amazing in the preaseason but has been slow out of the gates. Still, all of this doesn't justify Bullsvilles or any other posters negative impressions about Curry or Crawford, all it says is that they both, along with the Knicks, are off to a slow start. I fully expect both guys...and the team...to get it together and pick it up before too long. Btw, Chandler was 1 & 8 last game, Curry was 11pts 3rebs...


----------



## bullsville

Sorry, I'm late with posting Eddy's updated season stats through 3 games:

24.7 min
.452 FG 
.583 FT
2.0 off reb
5.3 tot reb
0.3 ast
3.0 TO
0.0 stl
0.7 blk
3.7 PF
14.0 pts


What about the man who has replaced Eddy in the low post (Sweets):

21.0 min
.538 FG
.750 FT
3.0 off reb
7.3 tot reb
1.0 ast
1.3 TO
0.67 stl
1.0 blk
4.0 PF
11.3 pts

It sure looks like so far we got the best of the Eddy trade, according to this "Official Eddy Curry Update".


----------



## Sham

Back in the early days of this saga, a lot was said about Hank Gathers and that whole escapade.

I just watched the clip of that happening for the first time in my life. Even when I knew it was going to happen, it was scary to look at.

Now I have this clip on my computer, should anybody want to see it. I'm not going to make it public, because I can't imagine anyone wanting to see this (I only watched it for the reason that I believe you have to see things like this once, if only to keep it int he back of your mind). But for those who had seen in live back in whichever year it was, it struck a cord. Perhaps they might want to see it again, I don't know. It's gruesome. In fact I don't even know why I said this. I just felt compelled.


----------



## jbulls

bullsville said:


> Sorry, I'm late with posting Eddy's updated season stats through 3 games:
> 
> 24.7 min
> .452 FG
> .583 FT
> 2.0 off reb
> 5.3 tot reb
> 0.3 ast
> 3.0 TO
> 0.0 stl
> 0.7 blk
> 3.7 PF
> 14.0 pts
> 
> 
> What about the man who has replaced Eddy in the low post (Sweets):
> 
> 21.0 min
> .538 FG
> .750 FT
> 3.0 off reb
> 7.3 tot reb
> 1.0 ast
> 1.3 TO
> 0.67 stl
> 1.0 blk
> 4.0 PF
> 11.3 pts
> 
> It sure looks like so far we got the best of the Eddy trade, according to this "Official Eddy Curry Update".


Can we please put a moratorium on people posting stats until 10 or 15 games into the season? It's just stupid at this point. And I mean that for both sides of the Curry debate. Everyone around here is way too smart to view this kind of statistical comparison as anywhere near meaningful. It's inflamatory and dumb.


----------



## bullsville

jbulls said:


> Can we please put a moratorium on people posting stats until 10 or 15 games into the season? It's just stupid at this point. And I mean that for both sides of the Curry debate. Everyone around here is way too smart to view this kind of statistical comparison as anywhere near meaningful. It's inflamatory and dumb.


I appreciate the sentiment, but IMHO it's inflamatory and dumb that we even have an "Official Eddy Curry Update Thread" on the Bulls' message board.

"Update" being the key word here. If people are interested in "updating" what Eddy is doing, his stats are fairly important.

What the hell else are we supposed to "update"? What Eddy had for breakfast? What kind of car he is driving? Where does he shop for clothes?

And this isn't directed at you, jbulls, but if Eddy was putting up 20 and 8 I have a feeling nobody would be complaining about his stats being posted....


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

bullsville said:


> I appreciate the sentiment, but IMHO it's inflamatory and dumb that we even have an "Official Eddy Curry Update Thread" on the Bulls' message board.





This thread is inflammatory and dumb? Its dominated your online life for a week now. 

If this thread is dumb (and quite honestly, you are right -- it is), I've started a half dozen threads today alone that could benefit from your insight.


----------



## bullsville

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> This thread is inflammatory and dumb? Its dominated your online life for a week now.
> 
> If this thread is dumb (and quite honestly, you are right -- it is), I've started a half dozen threads today alone that could benefit from your insight.


Hey, give me a break, I just got out of bed and this was the first thread I posted it.

I just find it quite ironic that some posters have a problem with me actually updating Eddy's stats in the "Eddy Curry Update" thread. Of course, they only have a problem with the fact that Eddy is playing like crap, if he were putting up the 20/10 that his fanboys kept saying he would, nobody would have a problem with his stats being posted.

I took all kinds of crap for saying that Eddy is the next Kevin Duckworth, but when he actaully plays like Duck then people have a problem.

You'll never see me bumping this thread if it ever makes it off the front page, but it doesn't.


----------



## ace20004u

I have no problem with the stats updates. Of course, they will change dramatically over the course of the season. One thing that is for certain and Bullsville fails to mention is that Sweetney is a power forward and not a center. Sure, he can log minutes at center but no matter what stats he puts up he is never going to be a center, Eddy is.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

ace20004u said:


> I have no problem with the stats updates. Of course, they will change dramatically over the course of the season.


Will they? Don't take that question as a knock, but the numbers Ed is putting up now are pretty close to his statistical season averages for the past couple of years.

So far this year he is putting up what, about 14 points and 5 1/2 boards?

Last year he put up 16.1 points, a career high, and 5.4 rebounds.

The year before that, he did 14.7 points and 6.2 boards.

Maybe his stats WILL go up, maybe dramatically, as you suggest.

Maybe he is already playing his average, and that's about it. Heck, 15/5 is not superstar, but its nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## DaBullz

Where's the Tom Boerwinkle Update Thread?

He's an ex-player, too


----------



## ace20004u

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Will they? Don't take that question as a knock, but the numbers Ed is putting up now are pretty close to his statistical season averages for the past couple of years.
> 
> So far this year he is putting up what, about 14 points and 5 1/2 boards?
> 
> Last year he put up 16.1 points, a career high, and 5.4 rebounds.
> 
> The year before that, he did 14.7 points and 6.2 boards.
> 
> Maybe his stats WILL go up, maybe dramatically, as you suggest.
> 
> Maybe he is already playing his average, and that's about it. Heck, 15/5 is not superstar, but its nothing to sneeze at.



I definitley expect them to go up. Once Eddy gets familiar in NY's offense and gets familiar with his teamates he will do much better. I have seen a lot more hustle out of Eddy going for boards & blocked shots in NY, he actually has played pretty well, he has just been limited by foul trouble and fatigue. I also expect to see Sweetneys numbers go up as he is able to spend more time on the floor.

I think, at worst, Eddy's #'s will go up to around 19 & 6 on the season, Sweetney probably closer to 14-15 & 10.


----------



## bullsville

ace20004u said:


> I have no problem with the stats updates. Of course, they will change dramatically over the course of the season. One thing that is for certain and Bullsville fails to mention is that Sweetney is a power forward and not a center. Sure, he can log minutes at center but no matter what stats he puts up he is never going to be a center, Eddy is.


If Eddy is a center and Sweets is a PF, why does Sweets shoot a MUCH higher percentage on FG (.538 to .452), why does Sweets grab 37% more rebounds (7.3 to 5.3), and why does Sweets block 43% more shots (1.0 to 0.7)?

Sweets has been guarding centers almost exclusively, and he is putting up much better "center" stats. 

Wes Unseld was a center. Ben Wallace is a center. Being 7' and 300 pounds doesn't make you a center if you don't rebound and clog the lane on defense. 

People call Eddy a center all the time, but he certainly doesn't play like a center. Ask Larry Brown, he's figuring it out real quickly. :clap:


----------



## bullsville

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> This thread is inflammatory and dumb? Its dominated your online life for a week now.
> 
> If this thread is dumb (and quite honestly, you are right -- it is), I've started a half dozen threads today alone that could benefit from your insight.


FTR, I have posted in 11 of the threads on the front page. But when there is an Eddy thread, and my outspoken and even ridiculed opinions of Eddy are proving to be pretty spot on so far, then yeah I am going to point that out.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

DaBullz said:


> Where's the Tom Boerwinkle Update Thread?
> 
> He's an ex-player, too


You know I post Boerwinkle updates when I can find them.

Here's one I don't think I posted before:

Tom's Wikipedia entry


----------



## mizenkay

bullsville said:


> FTR, I have posted in 11 of the threads on the front page. But when there is an Eddy thread, and my outspoken and even ridiculed opinions of Eddy are proving to be pretty spot on so far, then yeah I am going to point that out.



really? check your post history. i just did.

i am temporarily LOCKING this thread, with permission, for 12 hours. it will be unlocked tonight.

just to see if you and others can contribute to some actual bulls content today.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

bullsville said:


> I took all kinds of crap for saying that Eddy is the next Kevin Duckworth, but when he actaully plays like Duck then people have a problem.


Why Does Everyone Hate on Duckworth?


----------



## truebluefan

uh-oh. this thread has been locked. The JC thread was locked more than one time! We are doomed. Another 180+ thread in the making. 

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!


----------



## lougehrig

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/82games/11/04/knicks/3.html

Interesting read about Curry (and James) and his development (or lack there of). Alot of analysis and compaison to past player trends. It's all about efficiency. Curry is very inefficient.


----------



## Da Grinch

ace20004u said:


> I definitley expect them to go up. Once Eddy gets familiar in NY's offense and gets familiar with his teamates he will do much better. I have seen a lot more hustle out of Eddy going for boards & blocked shots in NY, he actually has played pretty well, he has just been limited by foul trouble and fatigue. I also expect to see Sweetneys numbers go up as he is able to spend more time on the floor.
> 
> I think, at worst, Eddy's #'s will go up to around 19 & 6 on the season, Sweetney probably closer to 14-15 & 10.


maybe curry doesn't have to get familiar with ny's offense...



> For a few seconds yesterday, Eddy Curry thought he was back on a winning team with a bright future. When Larry Brown had the Knicks practice several new halfcourt sets with Curry ending up with the ball each time, they looked like the same plays he had run with the Bulls. That's because they were.
> "I wasn't even expecting it," Curry said after practice. "I was like, 'This play looks familiar. So does this one.' It's starting to look very familiar to me. I've never had this kind of attention before. I think it will help me and help the team."
> 
> Figuring out a way to bring in Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich would help even more. Maybe then Brown could start getting this mess turned around. But for now, he will have to continue to use Stephon Marbury and Jamal Crawford as the Knicks try to find a way to break their three-game slide tonight when they begin their longest trip of the season. When the Knicks meet Portland to start their six-game, 12-day West Coast trek, Brown plans on using the old Chicago plays.
> 
> "He realizes that I need to catch the ball on the move," said Curry, who also got some one-on-one instruction from Brown at the team's Greenburgh facility. "He definitely has done his homework. It's a lot of Chicago stuff he's put in for me. There's one play out of transition, two or three halfcourt sets, and we've actually put in an out-of-bounds play, too."


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/363776p-309806c.html

looks like the knicks are going to look even more like the bulls.


----------



## fl_flash

Da Grinch said:


> maybe curry doesn't have to get familiar with ny's offense...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/363776p-309806c.html
> 
> looks like the knicks are going to look even more like the bulls.


Wait.... Now Brown is trying to put the Chicago _into_ a player? Make up your mind Lar!

(I like Curry's response... "Hey, these plays look familiar." They should ya big lug!)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

oh hooray. the thread is back.


----------



## step

> It's starting to look very familiar to me. *I've never had this kind of attention before.* I think it will help me and help the team."


I'm speechless.


----------



## Wynn

> For a few seconds yesterday, Eddy Curry thought he was back on a winning team with a bright future. When Larry Brown had the Knicks practice several new halfcourt sets with Curry ending up with the ball each time, *they looked like the same plays he had run with the Bulls. That's because they were*.
> "I wasn't even expecting it," Curry said after practice. "I was like, 'This play looks familiar. So does this one.' It's starting to look very familiar to me. *I've never had this kind of attention before*. I think it will help me and help the team."


hehehe....

How exciting must it be to be Eddy Curry and have new and exciting things presented to you (again) every day of the week. Something about "same plays" and "I've never had this before" strikes a very resonant bell with me and my opinion of Curry. 

Love you, Big Ed, but GE powered you are not...


----------



## bullsville

fl_flash said:


> Wait.... Now Brown is trying to put the Chicago _into_ a player? Make up your mind Lar!
> 
> (I like Curry's response... "Hey, these plays look familiar." They should ya big lug!)


Hopefully, LB still has some of that Chicago that he took out of Dupree lying around somewhere...


----------



## ace20004u

Obviously the Knicks realize what a big contribution Eddy can be and are running some of Chicagos familiar post up and pick and roll plays for him to try to get him acclimated early. Makes sense. Of course he still has to adjust to his new teamates and coach.


----------



## bullsville

> "He realizes that *I need to catch the ball on the move*," said Curry


Well, obviously Eddy doesn't read this board, or he would surely realize that he is a dominant low-post threat who demands a double team.

He would also know that you can just dump the ball right in to him in the low post and let him go to work because he is such an efficient scoring machine who usually draws a double team, making things much easier for his teammates.

I think I'm confused.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I've watched the Knicks games this season and preseason, where I could.

Oddly enough, when Ed was on the floor, anywhere near the basket...he was usually double teamed.


I agree with you 100%. You are confused.


----------



## mizenkay

Wynn said:


> hehehe....
> 
> How exciting must it be to be Eddy Curry and have new and exciting things presented to you (again) every day of the week. Something about "same plays" and "I've never had this before" strikes a very resonant bell with me and my opinion of Curry.
> 
> Love you, Big Ed, but GE powered you are not...



it's un.be.leiv.able, isn't it? mind meet boggle. boggle meet mind. 

anyway...welcome back *wynn!* we missed you!


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> Love you, Big Ed


Doubtful.


----------



## bullsville

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I've watched the Knicks games this season and preseason, where I could.
> 
> Oddly enough, when Ed was on the floor, anywhere near the basket...he was usually double teamed.
> 
> 
> I agree with you 100%. You are confused.


Well, that just confuses me even more. I haven't seen hardly any of the Knicks' games, but I do know they are an unimpressive 0-3 so far.

If Eddy is drawing so many double teams why are the Knicks so bad on offense? They have Marbury and Crawford and Q and Mo Taylor, are they just that selfish? If Eddy is being double teamed off the ball, it seems to me that a team with "4 or 5 guys who can score 25 on any given night" (so I have read) would be pretty good playing 4 on 3.

The Knicks are averaging only 85 points per game, and Eddy is 4th on the team in minutes, 1.3 minutes/game behind Jamal for #3. I've only seen a few minutes, but it certainly seems apparent that Eddy's drawing of the double team isn't doing much to help the Knicks offense.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

bullsville said:


> Well, that just confuses me even more. I haven't seen hardly any of the Knicks' games, but I do know they are an unimpressive 0-3 so far.


And we are an overtime hustle and a couple of fortunate calls away from the same fate, and I'm not writing off the Bulls just yet.



> If Eddy is drawing so many double teams why are the Knicks so bad on offense? They have Marbury and Crawford and Q and Mo Taylor, are they just that selfish?


'Nuff said.




> If Eddy is being double teamed off the ball, it seems to me that a team with "4 or 5 guys who can score 25 on any given night" (so I have read) would be pretty good playing 4 on 3.


Ya'd think...

Looks like Any Given Night hasn't showed up this week.



> The Knicks are averaging only 85 points per game, and Eddy is 4th on the team in minutes, 1.3 minutes/game behind Jamal for #3. I've only seen a few minutes, but it certainly seems apparent that Eddy's drawing of the double team isn't doing much to help the Knicks offense.


Seems to be the case so far. Lets see if Uncle Larry can't get these guys on the same page and string some wins together before too long. For all his faults, LB does seem to have a knack for that coaching stuff.


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever said:


> Doubtful.


I don't think this post is basketball related.

I also think it is representative of the kinds of posts that have been proliferating on the board these last couple of months that have been detrimental to quality discussion. If you have something to say about my post, then please respond. If you wish to question whether I'm telling the truth, then I have no use for you.


----------



## ScottMay

Wynn said:


> I don't think this post is basketball related.
> 
> I also think it is representative of the kinds of posts that have been proliferating on the board these last couple of months that have been detrimental to quality discussion. If you have something to say about my post, then please respond. If you wish to question whether I'm telling the truth, then I have no use for you.


Count me in for the "I'll Never Question Wynn's Undying Love for Eddy Curry" Club.

:laugh:


----------



## mizenkay

kukoc4ever said:


> Doubtful.



you know what? for someone who protests so often and so loudly about having his loyalty to the team questioned, this is a bit much and was completely unwarranted. 

wynn is capable of forming his own opinion thank you very much. 

i am so glad i locked this thread for 12 hours yesterday. sheesh.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> I don't think this post is basketball related.
> 
> I also think it is representative of the kinds of posts that have been proliferating on the board these last couple of months that have been detrimental to quality discussion. If you have something to say about my post, then please respond. If you wish to question whether I'm telling the truth, then I have no use for you.


It never seemed like you "loved" Eddy Curry. Seems like a "killing him with kindness" kind of line to me.

Its a good idea for the Knicks to get the ball to Curry in situations where he's comfortable. Given that Curry is currently 2nd among centers in PPG and 1st among centers in FTA, they are already doing an OK job. Certainly there is room for improvement though, given the fouls and TOs.


----------



## bullsville

mizenkay said:


> you know what? for someone who protests so often and so loudly about having his loyalty to the team questioned, this is a bit much and was completely unwarranted.
> 
> wynn is capable of forming his own opinion thank you very much.


 :clap: :clap: :clap: 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mizenkay again.


----------



## kukoc4ever

mizenkay said:


> you know what? for someone who protests so often and so loudly about having his loyalty to the team questioned, this is a bit much and was completely unwarranted.


Thanks for quickly stepping in. 




> i am so glad i locked this thread for 12 hours yesterday. sheesh.


Maybe it should stay that way.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> Maybe it should stay that way.


 :stupid: 

Unfortunately, I tried that with the Jamal thread and enough poeple begged for its return that we opened it again. Much to my regret.


----------



## fl_flash

A little suggestion to the mods - with these three knick-related threads (this one, the Jamal update and the Brown/Meltdown thread)... Maybe it might be a good idea to lock these threads on a weekly basis and unlock them for 24-48 hrs and then lock them up again until the next week. We could have a "Tuesday is Knicks Day" and let everybody love/hate in these threads for a day or so. As entertaining as these threads are, it does get a little old anytime Jamal/Eddy/Knicks do anything good/bad and there is a rush by both camps to either crow or defend themselves. Maybe there's some sort of script that can be written that can automatically lock and unlock particular threads? Just a suggestion.

Oh, and Welcome back WYNN!!!!!! :banana:


----------



## Soulful Sides

If you were Eddy and had to pick a team just based on the guards you'd play with, what would your logical choice be...and why?

Hinrich-Gordon-Duhon

or

Marbury-Richardson-Crawford


----------



## kukoc4ever

I think he'd be most effective playing with Duhon, since he's the best of the bunch at getting him the rock where he needs it. I think he wanted to play with Duhon this season! 

I don't think Marbury will be happy playing the way Brown wants him to.


----------



## ScottMay

Soulful Sides said:


> If you were Eddy and had to pick a team just based on the guards you'd play with, what would your logical choice be...and why?
> 
> Hinrich-Gordon-Duhon
> 
> or
> 
> Marbury-Richardson-Crawford


That is actually a great question.

Unfortunately, and predictably, there's no easy answer. The Bulls have the Knicks' guards beat hands-down in terms of defense, but the Knicks guards are much more explosive (people are forgetting how great Marbury can be) and can do simple things like, you know, throw decent entry passes and catchable alley-oops.


----------



## truebluefan

fl_flash said:


> A little suggestion to the mods - with these three knick-related threads (this one, the Jamal update and the Brown/Meltdown thread)... Maybe it might be a good idea to lock these threads on a weekly basis and unlock them for 24-48 hrs and then lock them up again until the next week. We could have a "Tuesday is Knicks Day" and let everybody love/hate in these threads for a day or so. As entertaining as these threads are, it does get a little old anytime Jamal/Eddy/Knicks do anything good/bad and there is a rush by both camps to either crow or defend themselves. Maybe there's some sort of script that can be written that can automatically lock and unlock particular threads? Just a suggestion.
> 
> Oh, and Welcome back WYNN!!!!!! :banana:


thats not a bad idea fl-flash. Let the factions come in for a day or so at a time, get it out of their system, then lock it again. 

I just hope it doesn't spill over into the other threads if we do not give them enough time. 

We have so much more to talk about other than EC and JC.


----------



## narek

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,7213721.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines - something here not in the Daily News article on much the same topic:



> This week, Brown has launched what could be called Project Curry as he began to search for ways to make the 6-11 center more effective.
> 
> "I took out an old Chicago tape of him Monday and looked at it," Brown said yesterday. "We broke down all the plays that they ran for him, trying to see how they used him and what was very successful for them, so we can try to put him in that kind of position here."
> 
> At the end of practice, Brown was out on the court working alone with Curry for a good 15 minutes


.

One of the stories in Skiles' first week with the Bulls (not one of the ones saying Paxson made a bit mistake hiring him), it mentioned Skiles staying after practice to work one-on-one with Curry. The more things change.............


----------



## ace20004u

I don't understand why people can't just discuss basketball without this permeating need to force their agendas. I mean, I post what I believe in but if you don't agree...fine..at the end of the day we are all Bulls fans and it's all good. If you hate Curry & Crawford and think they will fail..thats fine..I don't care and neither should anyone else. If you like Curry & crawford and think they will suceed, thats great, I agree with you on that...so what? And for the people who dislike the update threads, there is a very simple solution that I have posted a number of times...don't look at em, don't post in em, problem solved!

In any case, we need to stop all of the personal stuff around here. Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean that they are right and it also is no call for insults. We are all Bulls fans here, lets keep it clean, above the belt and do what us Bulls posters do best..talk about basketball!


----------



## Soulful Sides

ScottMay said:


> That is actually a great question.
> 
> Unfortunately, and predictably, there's no easy answer. The Bulls have the Knicks' guards beat hands-down in terms of defense, but the Knicks guards are much more explosive (people are forgetting how great Marbury can be) and can do simple things like, you know, throw decent entry passes and catchable alley-oops.


If I'm the focal point of the offense what do I want?



I want to get the ball in the best position for me, as stated above.

I want defenders who are not going to constantly expose me to slashers, and thus keep me in foul trouble (or on Sportscenter in the case of Alonzo Mourning)

I want it to be worth my while to kick the ball out of the double team

I want guards who'll look for and reward me on the fast break


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Skiles principles are the similar to Browns in some ways but also very different in others.

Skiles will ride the hot hand Brown will continue to run the same plays regardless of who is hot 

Skiles allows his guards to basically do whatever they want offensively within reason as long as they hustle and play defense .Brown wants his guards to defend and run the offense he doesnt play mismatches he just wants his offense ran 

The knicks with Brown cannot have any success wthout them getting Curry more efficient because Brown wants to play inside-out and is not willing to allow his offense to become guard orientated even with Curry out of the game. He would much rather establish Rose,James,Taylor on the block than try to get Q,Marbury,or Crawford going offensively.


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever said:


> Its a good idea for the Knicks to get the ball to Curry in situations where he's comfortable. Given that Curry is currently 2nd among centers in PPG and 1st among centers in FTA, they are already doing an OK job. Certainly there is room for improvement though, given the fouls and TOs.


On this you and I agree totally. In order for the Knick to fully exploit Big Ed's abilities, they need to set the play and have hmi finish. I think even the worst Eddy detractor would agree that the kid can finish. He still doesn't make the best decisions with the ball, though, so your solution will work. Give it to him where he has one choice -- to score. If the Knick can do that regularly, they'll win a lot of games. I'm just not convinced they'll do that regularly.


----------



## Electric Slim

Eddy and Jamal lead the Knicks in scoring tonight! yay! Portland 87 New York 73. :cheers:


----------



## yodurk

Electric Slim said:


> Eddy and Jamal lead the Knicks in scoring tonight! yay! Portland 87 New York 73. :cheers:


Haha. I'm regretting this trade more and more as time passes. It's obvious, I mean they're the LEADING scorers tonight. :clown:


----------



## lougehrig

Sure Eddy gets double teams. But that's it. He had 6 TO's. Called for 3 second violations. Blocked because he holds the ball too low. Get's stripped by guards in the lane. The worst part, he has absolutely no idea how to play defense or help defense. He is a decent offensive force, but not enough to make up for the zero impact he has on the defensive end. Randolph, Patterson and Miles were going crazy in the lane. That's suppose to be Eddy's lane. Telfair drove right around him and he didn't even move and Telfair laid it in. Telfair is 6' tall. Eddy is 6'11". I don't care how many double teams he's getting. He's useless. 

On a positive note, it's good to see Tyson finally getting it. Playing good help defense, blocking out. He was guarding people all over the court tonight. His defensive rebounding was excellent. Not having Eddy around will only help to mature Tyson. He can only get better and better at this point. He is playing within himself and not trying to do too much offensively. He is staying out of foul trouble for the most part and really contributing to our success. Look at the last play against Richardson. Excellent defense.

More often than not, good defense wins you games. If that was Eddy instead of Tyson on the last play, the Bulls lose. Simple as that.


----------



## The Truth

ace20004u said:


> I don't understand why people can't just discuss basketball without this permeating need to force their agendas. I mean, I post what I believe in but if you don't agree...fine..at the end of the day we are all Bulls fans and it's all good. If you hate Curry & Crawford and think they will fail..thats fine..I don't care and neither should anyone else. If you like Curry & crawford and think they will suceed, thats great, I agree with you on that...so what? And for the people who dislike the update threads, there is a very simple solution that I have posted a number of times...don't look at em, don't post in em, problem solved!
> 
> In any case, we need to stop all of the personal stuff around here. Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean that they are right and it also is no call for insults. We are all Bulls fans here, lets keep it clean, above the belt and do what us Bulls posters do best..talk about basketball!



:rofl: 

You criticize people for forcing their agendas and say that we should ignore Curry and Crawford. But of course you throw in that you think they will be successful. 

So aren't you pushing your agenda?


----------



## kukoc4ever

6 TOs for Curry? Jeez... he's getting worse and worse by the game and season TO wise. 9 rebounds is getting better though. Unclear what the difference is, since I didn't see the game. 9 more trips to the line for Curry as well. He's on track to lead the league in that for centers this season.

Crap game for AD. 

Crawford seemingly had a nice game... judging by the radio broadcast I was listening to. He was playing well in the 2nd half and Brown appeared to be calling plays for him. The Blazers guards were not the ones that killed the Knicks tonight on O either. He's seemingly playing more under control. 6-10 shooting, only one three hoisted, 0 TOs. Not bad.

Marbury appeared to be mailing it in. 5 TOs and 4 assists for the best point guard in the NBA? Ouch. Some leader/star he is.

Great games by Darius Miles, who was playing hurt and Z Randolph. 

Who here is still on the Przybilla bandwagon?


----------



## Machinehead

Wynn said:


> On this you and I agree totally. In order for the Knick to fully exploit Big Ed's abilities, they need to set the play and have hmi finish. I think even the worst Eddy detractor would agree that the kid can finish. He still doesn't make the best decisions with the ball, though, so your solution will work. Give it to him where he has one choice -- to score. If the Knick can do that regularly, they'll win a lot of games. I'm just not convinced they'll do that regularly.


Absolutely 

Spot on 

71% of Eddy's baskets last year were assisted by selfless guards like Chris and Kirk 

He just doesn't have that kind of guard in New York 

Eddy really needs an old school type of point 

Someone that may be available ..like Andre Miller would do wonders for that Knick Team 

If the Knicks and Nuggets could do a Marbury and Ariza for Miller and Najera 

then follow up with a Knicks and Wolves trade that sent Crawford and James for Sczcerbiak and a conditional 1st round pick .. the Knicks would look a lot lot better and Eddy Curry would have a much better chance of fulfilling his potential in this mix 

*

Curry
Davis
Sczcerbiak
Richardson
Miller

bench
Frye
Lee
Najera
Hardaway
Robinson

Rose
Barnes

*

Wolves get a bigger bodied banger in James who will get lost in New York and maybe a guy in Crawford that complements Jaric some 

*

Olowokandi
Garnett
Griffin
Crawford
Jaric

bench

James
Madsen
Hassell/Dupree
McCants
Carter

*

Denver shapes up 

*

Camby
Martin
Anthony
Marbury
Watson

bench

Elson
Kleizas
Johnson/Hodge
Lenard/Ariza
Boykins

Nene - Injured List

*


----------



## step

> Who here is still on the Przybilla bandwagon?


Hopefully not many, though both Pryz and Ratliff didn't do much stat wise (haven't be able to watch that game yet).


----------



## jbulls

Da Grinch said:


> maybe curry doesn't have to get familiar with ny's offense...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/363776p-309806c.html
> 
> looks like the knicks are going to look even more like the bulls.


Oh boy. After all the Bulls trashing Larry Peachbasket is running Skiles sets for Eddy? That's too much.


----------



## jbulls

bullsville said:


> Well, that just confuses me even more. I haven't seen hardly any of the Knicks' games, but I do know they are an unimpressive 0-3 so far.
> 
> If Eddy is drawing so many double teams why are the Knicks so bad on offense? They have Marbury and Crawford and Q and Mo Taylor, are they just that selfish? If Eddy is being double teamed off the ball, it seems to me that a team with "4 or 5 guys who can score 25 on any given night" (so I have read) would be pretty good playing 4 on 3.
> 
> The Knicks are averaging only 85 points per game, and Eddy is 4th on the team in minutes, 1.3 minutes/game behind Jamal for #3. I've only seen a few minutes, but it certainly seems apparent that Eddy's drawing of the double team isn't doing much to help the Knicks offense.


The Knicks stunk last year. The Knicks stink this year so far. And somehow it's Eddy Curry's fault? Please.

And yes, newsflash, Marbury, Crawford and Q aren't big on sharing the rock.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Hopefully they keep losing. I thought the number one pick was a reach, since I expected the Knicks to atleast make a run at the playoffs, but they look pitiful right now and that number one pick doesn't look so distant. They're playing terrible basketball.


----------



## jbulls

Sir Patchwork said:


> Hopefully they keep losing. I thought the number one pick was a reach, since I expected the Knicks to atleast make a run at the playoffs, but they look pitiful right now and that number one pick doesn't look so distant. They're playing terrible basketball.


I figured, and still do, we'll get between the 10th and 18th pick from NY. Right now it's looking closer to the 10th, but there's a lot of season left. That said, there is absolutely no way a Larry Brown team will win less than 35. I don't like him, but even if they aren't playoff caliber, he'll keep them from being awful. We aren't getting anything in the high lottery unless we get a really lucky roll...


----------



## giusd

Right now the kincks are tied for the worst record in the nba. 0- 4. They have 4 games left on this road trip and it is not out of the question that they could be 0 - 8. Not only is there pick, that we get, going to be a lotto pick but it will be a top 5 pick. LB cant make a team out of this weak collection of soft show boat players.

Funny how this team looks sooo much like the bulls of 2 years ago. SOFT, SOFT, SOFT. No heart, no D, and play like they really dont care if they win as look as they look good.

david


----------



## BenDengGo

next knicks games...
@ Golden State 
@ Sacramento
@ Utah
@ L.A. Lakers
@ Denver


----------



## Rhyder

ace20004u said:


> I don't understand why people can't just discuss basketball without this permeating need to force their agendas. I mean, I post what I believe in but if you don't agree...fine..at the end of the day we are all Bulls fans and it's all good. If you hate Curry & Crawford and think they will fail..thats fine..I don't care and neither should anyone else. If you like Curry & crawford and think they will suceed, thats great, I agree with you on that...so what? And for the people who dislike the update threads, there is a very simple solution that I have posted a number of times...don't look at em, don't post in em, problem solved!
> 
> In any case, we need to stop all of the personal stuff around here. Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean that they are right and it also is no call for insults. We are all Bulls fans here, lets keep it clean, above the belt and do what us Bulls posters do best..talk about basketball!


Cheers. I read every word from every post on this forum, except I usually only skim thru the Jamal & Eddy updates. It's always the same ol', same ol', with thousands of posts basically rehashing agendas. I would gladly discuss poor and good performances by Eddy and Jamal, although I haven't caught any Knicks games yet this year.

And yes I will be cheering for the Knicks to lose, because they are in our conference, we own their pick, and even moreso because they are simply the Knicks. If they lose because Curry or Crawford have an extremely poor game, that's great too...

However, I don't rejoice in the fact that they had such a poor game because they are ex-Bulls.


----------



## Da Grinch

Machinehead said:


> Absolutely
> 
> Spot on
> 
> 71% of Eddy's baskets last year were assisted by selfless guards like Chris and Kirk
> 
> He just doesn't have that kind of guard in New York
> 
> Eddy really needs an old school type of point
> 
> Someone that may be available ..like Andre Miller would do wonders for that Knick Team
> 
> If the Knicks and Nuggets could do a Marbury and Ariza for Miller and Najera
> 
> then follow up with a Knicks and Wolves trade that sent Crawford and James for Sczcerbiak and a conditional 1st round pick .. the Knicks would look a lot lot better and Eddy Curry would have a much better chance of fulfilling his potential in this mix
> 
> *
> 
> Curry
> Davis
> Sczcerbiak
> Richardson
> Miller
> 
> bench
> Frye
> Lee
> Najera
> Hardaway
> Robinson
> 
> Rose
> Barnes
> 
> *
> 
> Wolves get a bigger bodied banger in James who will get lost in New York and maybe a guy in Crawford that complements Jaric some
> 
> *
> 
> Olowokandi
> Garnett
> Griffin
> Crawford
> Jaric
> 
> bench
> 
> James
> Madsen
> Hassell/Dupree
> McCants
> Carter
> 
> *
> 
> Denver shapes up
> 
> *
> 
> Camby
> Martin
> Anthony
> Marbury
> Watson
> 
> bench
> 
> Elson
> Kleizas
> Johnson/Hodge
> Lenard/Ariza
> Boykins
> 
> Nene - Injured List
> 
> *



what is spot on about a 4 game stat?

eddy gets assisted on 67% of his shots this season....not that big a difference....a stat i might add according to 82games.com he has done better than with JC at the point when he was a bull.

in 2002-03 eddy was assisted on 78% of his shots with shot 1st happy guards jay jalen and jamal at the helm.

fyi in 2003-04 eddy was assisted on 73% of his shots...this stat hardly proves your point that they need a pass 1st pg....something btw i vehemently disagree with.

the best scorer on the team is marbury ....so alot of the time he can get the best shot for himself, it makes little sense to pass up shots so others can take shots they have less chance of making, if there was a better scorer(s) on the team than marbury , then there may be reason to feel differently, until then its like telling chandler to box out so kirk can come in and pad his rebound #s.


----------



## madox

jbulls said:


> That said, there is absolutely no way a Larry Brown team will win less than 35.


Actually there is a way since it's already happened 4 times. 

And he isn't getting any younger.


----------



## step

> That said, there is absolutely no way a Larry Brown team will win less than 35.


I think this roster can make him lose it. I hope he does succeed, but somehow i don't see him able to work his voodoo magic on this squad. I can see quite a few changes being made soon, if not, i'm expecting something drastic at trade deadline the latest.


----------



## narek

madox said:


> Actually there is a way since it's already happened 4 times.
> 
> And he isn't getting any younger.


yes, it has: http://www.basketballreference.com/coaches/coachpage.htm?coachid=BROWNLA01



> Larry Brown
> Overall: 933 - 713
> Playoffs: 85 - 79
> 
> 
> Year Team Season Playoffs
> 1976 DEN 50 - 32 2 - 4
> 1977 DEN 48 - 34 6 - 7
> 1978 DEN 28 - 25 0 - 0
> 1981 NJN 44 - 38 0 - 2
> 1982 NJN 47 - 29 0 - 0
> 1988 SAS 21 - 61 0 - 0
> 1989 SAS 56 - 26 6 - 4
> 1990 SAS 55 - 27 1 - 3
> 1991 SAS 21 - 17 0 - 0
> 1991 LAC 23 - 12 2 - 3
> 1992 LAC 41 - 41 2 - 3
> 1993 IND 47 - 35 10 - 6
> 1994 IND 52 - 30 10 - 7
> 1995 IND 52 - 30 2 - 3
> 1996 IND 39 - 43 0 - 0
> 1997 PHI 31 - 51 0 - 0
> 1998 PHI 28 - 22 3 - 5
> 1999 PHI 49 - 33 5 - 5
> 2000 PHI 56 - 26 12 - 11
> 2001 PHI 43 - 39 2 - 3
> 2002 PHI 48 - 34 6 - 6
> 2003 DET 54 - 28 16 - 7
> 2004 DET 54 - 28 15 - 10


----------



## MikeDC

narek said:


> yes, it has: http://www.basketballreference.com/coaches/coachpage.htm?coachid=BROWNLA01


Hardly fair to count partial seasons against him. Looks like he's really only had two actual losing seasons
1988 SAS 21 - 61 
1996 IND 39 - 43
1997 PHI 31 - 51


----------



## madox

My mistake on LB's losing seasons, I guess I just scanned the win column. 

The point is valid though. He is absolutely capable of leading a team to a 21 win season. He's done it before after all.


----------



## mizenkay

and 1997 was his first season with the sixers i believe.


anyway.

ok, just finished listening to a radio interview with peter vecsey on "silvy and carmen" on espn1000.

ostensibly to talk about the bulls (why? i have no idea) cause they didn't really talk about the chicago team. but soon the real reason he was on became very clear. he was on to talk about eddy and the knicks.

i am going to post my notes from the interview - please, please don't shoot the messenger. 

now, granted, it's vecsey, you know, ny post writer/hack extraordinaire, but what he said was interesting. so here's some of it, paraphrased...the quotes are verbatim. 

he starts out by declaring he is "tight" with isiah. 

vecsey believes that zeke and eddy and eddy's agent were "in bed together for a while, since early summer" and that curry was telling friends in the early summer that "he would never wear a bulls uniform again". that leon rose and IT had a deal set up early in the off season. that curry was going to be as "uncooperative as possible" to the bulls because the knicks had already made him promises. so this is why he refused to return pax's calls etc. 

vecsey also believes that it is "such a joke" that the bulls didn't want to pay curry and they used the heart thing as an excuse. he thought it was "obvious" that the bulls cared about eddy's health, otherwise they would have played him in the playoffs. he thinks eddy "was so stupid not to take the DNA test".

then he starts to rail on larry. "larry brown is such a punk" after making excuses the other day in the press that when he arrived in NY that he thought would have sweetney and thomas. vecsey thinks larry wants to "move everybody" and the next step "is to get rid of isiah thomas!" 

****


----------



## Ron Cey

mizenkay said:


> and 1997 was his first season with the sixers i believe.
> 
> 
> anyway.
> 
> ok, just finished listening to a radio interview with peter vecsey on "silvy and carmen" on espn1000.
> 
> ostensibly to talk about the bulls (why? i have no idea) cause they didn't really talk about the chicago team. but soon the real reason he was on became very clear. he was on to talk about eddy and the knicks.
> 
> i am going to post my notes from the interview - please, please don't shoot the messenger.
> 
> now, granted, it's vecsey, you know, ny post writer/hack extraordinaire, but what he said was interesting. so here's some of it, paraphrased...the quotes are verbatim.
> 
> he starts out by declaring he is "tight" with isiah.
> 
> vecsey believes that zeke and eddy and eddy's agent were "in bed together for a while, since early summer" and that curry was telling friends in the early summer that "he would never wear a bulls uniform again". that leon rose and IT had a deal set up early in the off season. that curry was going to be as "uncooperative as possible" to the bulls because the knicks had already made him promises. so this is why he refused to return pax's calls etc.
> 
> vecsey also believes that it is "such a joke" that the bulls didn't want to pay curry and they used the heart thing as an excuse. he thought it was "obvious" that the bulls cared about eddy's health, otherwise they would have played him in the playoffs. he thinks eddy "was so stupid not to take the DNA test".
> 
> then he starts to rail on larry. "larry brown is such a punk" after making excuses the other day in the press that when he arrived in NY that he thought would have sweetney and thomas. vecsey thinks larry wants to "move everybody" and the next step "is to get rid of isiah thomas!"
> 
> ****


Yikes. Someone posted an article in here the other day (maybe it was a Vecsey article, I don't remember) that said the Bulls were forbidden to appear at Eddy's workouts at Hoops, but that Knicks representatives were regular attendees. 

Of course, it could all just be a huge pack of lies. Or, perhaps Edward is the evil one.


----------



## narek

mizenkay said:


> and 1997 was his first season with the sixers i believe.
> 
> 
> vecsey believes that zeke and eddy and eddy's agent were "in bed together for a while, since early summer" and that curry was telling friends in the early summer that "he would never wear a bulls uniform again". that leon rose and IT had a deal set up early in the off season. that curry was going to be as "uncooperative as possible" to the bulls because the knicks had already made him promises. so this is why he refused to return pax's calls etc.
> 
> ****


Does that fall under tampering? Or doesn't it matter since he was a restricted free agent?


----------



## ScottMay

mizenkay said:


> and 1997 was his first season with the sixers i believe.
> 
> 
> anyway.
> 
> ok, just finished listening to a radio interview with peter vecsey on "silvy and carmen" on espn1000.
> 
> ostensibly to talk about the bulls (why? i have no idea) cause they didn't really talk about the chicago team. but soon the real reason he was on became very clear. he was on to talk about eddy and the knicks.
> 
> i am going to post my notes from the interview - please, please don't shoot the messenger.
> 
> now, granted, it's vecsey, you know, ny post writer/hack extraordinaire, but what he said was interesting. so here's some of it, paraphrased...the quotes are verbatim.
> 
> he starts out by declaring he is "tight" with isiah.
> 
> vecsey believes that zeke and eddy and eddy's agent were "in bed together for a while, since early summer" and that curry was telling friends in the early summer that "he would never wear a bulls uniform again". that leon rose and IT had a deal set up early in the off season. that curry was going to be as "uncooperative as possible" to the bulls because the knicks had already made him promises. so this is why he refused to return pax's calls etc.
> 
> vecsey also believes that it is "such a joke" that the bulls didn't want to pay curry and they used the heart thing as an excuse. he thought it was "obvious" that the bulls cared about eddy's health, otherwise they would have played him in the playoffs. he thinks eddy "was so stupid not to take the DNA test".
> 
> then he starts to rail on larry. "larry brown is such a punk" after making excuses the other day in the press that when he arrived in NY that he thought would have sweetney and thomas. vecsey thinks larry wants to "move everybody" and the next step "is to get rid of isiah thomas!"
> 
> ****


Thanks for the transcript, miz!

I wonder which frequent Vescey / New York tabloid-bashing poster will be the first to step up and validate these nuggets from Peter? (always a hilarious process to witness).

Yeah, Pete's pretty "tight" with Isiah. The only longer-running feud is the Capulets and the Montagues.

Debunking the most obvious falsehood from Pete's interview is pretty simple -- Dr. Mark Estes held Curry out of the playoffs. There isn't a cardiologist in the world who would have given Curry the green light to play until it was clear his ventricular enlargement went away with deconditioning. 

One thing in Vescey's interview is almost certainly true, however: Curry's telling people he'd never wear a Bulls uniform again. That writing was on the wall very early on -- after he was asked to find a doctor who'd clear him (even though the first doctor the Bulls sent him to already had), find an insurer who'd insure him, find a team for a sign-and-trade, etc.


----------



## Ron Cey

narek said:


> Does that fall under tampering? Or doesn't it matter since he was a restricted free agent?


The "early in the summer" part, if true, is absolutely tampering. I don't know about the workouts thing, since he didn't start working out at Hoops until after free agency began.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> Or, perhaps Edward is the evil one.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Once Eddy and the Bulls failed to work out an extension, the company line was all about "market value" and "getting an offer". 

Now you're going to complain because Eddy actually went and talked to other teams?

Yikes indeed.


----------



## Ron Cey

ScottMay is absolutely right about Vecsey and Zeke. Vecsey can't stand the guy. I don't doubt one bit he'd take liberties with the truth to get at Thomas.

But who wrote the article noting the workouts the Knicks regularly attended at Hoops? Was that Vecsey? Who posted it?

If that was from another paper/writer, that would lend at least a little credibility to Vecsey's theory.


----------



## johnston797

Ron Cey said:


> Yikes. Someone ... said the Bulls were forbidden to appear at Eddy's workouts at Hoops, but that Knicks representatives were regular attendees.
> 
> Of course, it could all just be a huge pack of lies. Or, perhaps Edward is the evil one.


What would be evil about that? Curry wasn't a Bull. He could do any dang thing he wanted. I would give him a lot more credit that the typical RFA that signs a big offer with another team and then instructs his old team, "Don't match" ala Elton Brand and others.

Besides, maybe Curry would only allow in teams that would follow conventional medical advice and not try to impose unprecedented, probably illegal, testing on him.

EDIT: Maybe Curry let in teams that were willing to give him a firm offer. Bulls didn't even make a firm offer until Sept.


----------



## Ron Cey

ScottMay said:


> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> Once Eddy and the Bulls failed to work out an extension, the company line was all about "market value" and "getting an offer".
> 
> Now you're going to complain because Eddy actually went and talked to other teams?
> 
> Yikes indeed.


No, thats not what I'm complaining about. I don't "believe" Vecsey's story any more than you do. I meant it when I said it could be a pack of lies. It could be. It could also be true. If its true, and that Curry/Rose/Thomas worked on this thing since early summer, that would certainly take the wind of the "victim Eddy" sail. 

Your response to my original post could not be more misrepresentative of what I meant. I would never, ever complain about a free agent going out and talking to other teams to get the best offer possible. Thats what Eddy did in Atlanta. I certainly didn't complain about that.

You are way off base as to my meaning.


----------



## narek

Ron Cey said:


> ScottMay is absolutely right about Vecsey and Zeke. Vecsey can't stand the guy. I don't doubt one bit he'd take liberties with the truth to get at Thomas.
> 
> But who wrote the article noting the workouts the Knicks regularly attended at Hoops? Was that Vecsey? Who posted it?
> 
> If that was from another paper/writer, that would lend at least a little credibility to Vecsey's theory.


It was in the New York Daily News. don't have the article, but I have TomBoerwinkle's original post of the Sun-Times followup:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=211733&page=1&highlight=ephedra


----------



## Ron Cey

johnston797 said:


> What would be evil about that? Curry wasn't a Bull. He could do any dang thing he wanted. I would give him a lot more credit that the typical RFA that signs a big offer with another team and then instructs his old team, "Don't match" ala Elton Brand and others.
> 
> Besides, maybe Curry would only allow in teams that would follow conventional medical advice and not try to impose unprecedented, probably illegal, testing on him.


You guys are missing my point, so maybe I didn't express it properly. If what Vecsey is writing is true, which is far from a "safe bet", then Eddy Curry certainly isn't a victim in anything that transpired this summer as many have painted him to be. That is all I meant. I was flipping the use of the word "evil" that others have used to describe how Eddy was treated.

I don't actually consider the described conduct "evil" even if it is true. I would never use that word, and mean it, to describe any basketball transaction.


----------



## Electric Slim

ScottMay said:


> One thing in Vescey's interview is almost certainly true, however: Curry's telling people he'd never wear a Bulls uniform again. That writing was on the wall very early on -- after he was asked to find a doctor who'd clear him (even though the first doctor the Bulls sent him to already had), find an insurer who'd insure him, find a team for a sign-and-trade, etc.


Well, at least Eddy is happy now! :clap:


----------



## MikeDC

johnston797 said:


> What would be evil about that? Curry wasn't a Bull. He could do any dang thing he wanted. I would give him a lot more credit that the typical RFA that signs a big offer with another team and then instructs his old team, "Don't match" ala Elton Brand and others.
> 
> Besides, maybe Curry would only allow in teams that would follow conventional medical advice and not try to impose unprecedented, probably illegal, testing on him.


That appears to be the case to me. I remember seeing that the Bulls weren't allowed in to watch Curry work out, but it was apparently well into the DNA fiasco so it hardly seems unreasonable, although it appears evidence that we underestimated just how irritated and offended Curry was at the way the Bulls handled things.

That seems completely plausible. He got fed up and said I'm done with this.

The part about all the pre-arranged stuff dating to the very beginning of the summer sounds much less plausible for a lot of obvious reasons, such as the fact that Curry complaining about his perception the Bulls were abandoning him and the significant negotiation efforts that seemed to take place regarding contracts, insurance, doctors, etc. throughout the course of the summer. I suppose it's possible that was all some sort of machiavellian window dressing, but it doesn't make much sense to think that. Even if you think they're coordinated and smart enough to pull that off, it just doesn't seem necessary to waste that kind of time doing it.


----------



## Ron Cey

narek said:


> It was in the New York Daily News. don't have the article, but I have TomBoerwinkle's original post of the Sun-Times followup:
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=211733&page=1&highlight=ephedra


Thanks.



> Curry went on to average a career-high 16.1 points last season in 63 games while averaging just 5.4 rebounds and 28.7 minutes. He figured he was staying in Chicago until the controversy over his health lingered throughout the summer. *Curry eventually barred the Bulls from watching his workouts while the Knicks were welcomed visitors.*


That is the part I was referring to. It was written by Frank Isola. It isn't quite how I remembered it. The second sentence would tend to disagree with Vecsey's theory, while the final sentence would tend to support it.


----------



## Soulful Sides

mizenkay said:


> vecsey thinks larry wants to "move everybody" and the next step "is to get rid of isiah thomas!"


I would bet that Vecsey and Sam Smith are related somehow. The NBA has a lot of these conspiracies.

Other sports do not.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> No, thats not what I'm complaining about. I don't "believe" Vecsey's story any more than you do. I meant it when I said it could be a pack of lies. It could be. It could also be true. If its true, and that Curry/Rose/Thomas worked on this thing since early summer, that would certainly take the wind of the "victim Eddy" sail.
> 
> Your response to my original post could not be more misrepresentative of what I meant. I would never, ever complain about a free agent going out and talking to other teams to get the best offer possible. Thats what Eddy did in Atlanta. I certainly didn't complain about that.
> 
> You are way off base as to my meaning.


Unfortunately, most of the articles are in archives, but Curry didn't hire Rose until June 2 and didn't get full clearance from Cannom/the Bulls to resume workouts until July 1. Cannom cleared Eddy earlier than that, but the Bulls insisted in the face-to-face meeting. 

You have frequently argued in the past that Paxson's and the Bulls' doctors tacit approval of Cannom's diagnosis was meaningless because Curry wasn't technically a Bull when it occurred. If Curry's workouts with Grover didn't take place until after that milestone, it doesn't seem tampering is an issue here, at least in terms of the workouts. 

I suppose it's possible that Rose and Isiah talked at some point in June, but agents and GMs talk all the time, and I think the league would probably let that slide given Eddy's impending free agency and the perversity of the DNA test the Bulls were requiring.


----------



## Wynn

Wasn't Vescey Zeke's biggest supporter when Isaiah was destroying the Pacer organization? Has there been a lessening of the love?


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> I don't actually consider the described conduct "evil" even if it is true. I would never use that word, and mean it, to describe any basketball transaction.


I didn't think I'd ever find a use for that word in a basketball context, either, until our GM used his bully pulpit to repeatedly and knowingly spread distortions and untruths regarding the state of Eddy's health.


----------



## Ron Cey

> Unfortunately, most of the articles are in archives, but Curry didn't hire Rose until June 2 and didn't get full clearance from Cannom/the Bulls to resume workouts until July 1. Cannom cleared Eddy earlier than that, but the Bulls insisted in the face-to-face meeting.


I think thats right. 



> You have frequently argued in the past that Paxson's and the Bulls' doctors tacit approval of Cannom's diagnosis was meaningless because Curry wasn't technically a Bull when it occurred.


Thats right.



> f Curry's workouts with Grover didn't take place until after that milestone, it doesn't seem tampering is an issue here, at least in terms of the workouts.


I agree. I wrote that in this very thread about 10 minutes ago.



> I suppose it's possible that Rose and Isiah talked at some point in June, but agents and GMs talk all the time, and I think the league would probably let that slide given Eddy's impending free agency and the perversity of the DNA test the Bulls were requiring.


If they did talk about specifically working together to get Eddy to New York, its tampering. The pendency of his free agency makes it worse, not better. 

In case this is unclear, I don't believe Vecsey's statements on their face. I also don't disbelieve them on their face either. I'm dealing only in the "what if its true". *If its true*, Eddy Curry is no victim. I'm not sure what there is to argue with about that.


----------



## Ron Cey

Wynn said:


> Wasn't Vescey Zeke's biggest supporter when Isaiah was destroying the Pacer organization? Has there been a lessening of the love?


You know what, I think that's right. I'm misremembering it. Vecsey was taking shots a Jalen Rose to support Zeke wasn't he? That is what I was thinking of, but I had it backwards.


----------



## Da Grinch

Wynn said:


> Wasn't Vescey Zeke's biggest supporter when Isaiah was destroying the Pacer organization? Has there been a lessening of the love?



that is what i thought too.


----------



## jbulls

madox said:


> Actually there is a way since it's already happened 4 times.
> 
> And he isn't getting any younger.


I should amend that to say, "I don't see this Knicks teams winning less than 35 under Larry Brown", I figure they'll end up at least 5 wins better than last year.


----------



## jbulls

mizenkay said:


> ok, just finished listening to a radio interview with peter vecsey on "silvy and carmen" on espn1000.
> 
> ostensibly to talk about the bulls (why? i have no idea) cause they didn't really talk about the chicago team. but soon the real reason he was on became very clear. he was on to talk about eddy and the knicks.
> 
> ****


We should get him to post here


----------



## Frankensteiner

You know, in retrospect, Skiles looks like a genius in the way he used Curry. Played him a little over half the game minutes while getting the most out of his scoring ability and limiting his mistakes on defense & with turnovers.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> If they did talk about specifically working together to get Eddy to New York, its tampering. The pendency of his free agency makes it worse, not better.
> 
> In case this is unclear, I don't believe Vecsey's statements on their face. I also don't disbelieve them on their face either. I'm dealing only in the "what if its true". *If its true*, Eddy Curry is no victim. I'm not sure what there is to argue with about that.


You're looking at "tampering" with lawyer-colored glasses. In its strictest sense, I'm sure tampering goes on every single day in the NBA. Agents put out feelers for their players even if they're in a long-term contract. GMs put out feelers to agents to see how a player would react if that team traded for him. And so on.

I can't think of an instance where the NBA has actually disciplined a team or an agent for this type of "tampering." They punished the Heat for negotiating with Pat Riley while he was under contract with the Knicks, and they punished the T-Wolves for flagrantly circumventing the CBA, but other than some warnings (Will Perdue), that's it. Unless there's an advantage gained, and unless a team formally accuses another of tampering, it simply isn't "prosecuted."

And I fail to see what kind of advantage Rose and Isiah could have gained if, in fact, this plan was hatched before July 1. Eddy and the Bulls were stalemated long before Eddy hired Rose, and the Bulls' curious hardline stance on DNA, insurance, and offers obviously put Eddy off the prospect of remaining in Chicago (I guessed as much at the time). And, as Paxson angrily and repeatedly stated, as a restricted free agent, Eddy's escape route would be determined by the Bulls. 

The "fact" (considering the source) that Isiah may have talked to Rose two weeks earlier than he should have doesn't change any of the realities.


----------



## johnston797

ScottMay said:


> The "fact" (considering the source) that Isiah may have talked to Rose two weeks earlier than he should have doesn't change any of the realities.


Considering the Bulls didn't even make a formal offer to Curry until 2 months after other teams could officially talk to him, hypothetically, I really fail to see how the Bulls could argue that they were damaged if Knicks talked to him 2 weeks earlier they then should have. Clearly, the Bulls were not trying to get a head-start in the negotiation on other teams. They all but urged and insisted that Curry go talk to other teams.


----------



## Ron Cey

ScottMay said:


> You're looking at "tampering" with lawyer-colored glasses. In its strictest sense, I'm sure tampering goes on every single day in the NBA. Agents put out feelers for their players even if they're in a long-term contract. GMs put out feelers to agents to see how a player would react if that team traded for him. And so on.
> 
> I can't think of an instance where the NBA has actually disciplined a team or an agent for this type of "tampering." They punished the Heat for negotiating with Pat Riley while he was under contract with the Knicks, and they punished the T-Wolves for flagrantly circumventing the CBA, but other than some warnings (Will Perdue), that's it. Unless there's an advantage gained, and unless a team formally accuses another of tampering, it simply isn't "prosecuted."
> 
> And I fail to see what kind of advantage Rose and Isiah could have gained if, in fact, this plan was hatched before July 1. Eddy and the Bulls were stalemated long before Eddy hired Rose, and the Bulls' curious hardline stance on DNA, insurance, and offers obviously put Eddy off the prospect of remaining in Chicago (I guessed as much at the time). And, as Paxson angrily and repeatedly stated, as a restricted free agent, Eddy's escape route would be determined by the Bulls.
> 
> The "fact" (considering the source) that Isiah may have talked to Rose two weeks earlier than he should have doesn't change any of the realities.


This is what I'm commenting on:



> vecsey believes that zeke and eddy and eddy's agent were "in bed together for a while, since early summer" and that curry was telling friends in the early summer that "he would never wear a bulls uniform again". *that leon rose and IT had a deal set up early in the off season. that curry was going to be as "uncooperative as possible" to the bulls because the knicks had already made him promises.* so this is why he refused to return pax's calls etc.


That is tampering, if true. And its not tampering just a little bit or "in the strictest sense" though my lawyer's eyes. Its egregious as described. In fact, as described, I can't even think if how it could be worse.

Its the GM of a conference rival, before free agency, working together with another team's player and the agent of that player, sub rosa, on a specific plan to be as "uncooperative as possible" in order to force a trade. 

What do you think about those people saying you and I are wrong for thinking this story is less credible because Vecsey and Isiah hate each other?


----------



## Ron Cey

johnston797 said:


> Considering the Bulls didn't even make a formal offer to Curry until 2 months after other teams could officially talk to him, hypothetically, I really fail to see how the Bulls could argue that they were damaged if Knicks talked to him 2 weeks earlier they then should have. Clearly, the Bulls were not trying to get a head-start in the negotiation on other teams. They all but urged and insisted that Curry go talk to other teams.


We have gotten to the point where when a report surfaces that the Knicks, Eddy, and Eddy's agent colluded, before the free agency period commenced, to force a trade from the Bulls to the Knicks, Bulls fans actually defend the Knicks and Eddy. (if the report is assumed to be true)


----------



## mizenkay

just to be very clear.

vecsey said "early summer" but he did not indicate specific dates. he made no mention of whether or not it was before july 1st/free agency beginning.

he is convinced, however, that this deal was going down all summer no matter what the bulls did (good or bad, agree or disagree).

and he made it a point to say that eddy was going to be uncooperative as possible no matter what.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> This is what I'm commenting on:
> 
> 
> 
> That is tampering, if true. And its not tampering just a little bit or "in the strictest sense" though my lawyer's eyes. Its egregious as described. In fact, as described, I can't even think if how it could be worse.
> 
> Its the GM of a conference rival, before free agency, working together with another team's player and the agent of that player, sub rosa, on a specific plan to be as "uncooperative as possible" in order to force a trade.


You'd have something here if there were any real evidence that Eddy was uncooperative. Me, personally, I don't consider the refusal to take an invasive, medically unnecessary, ethically questionable test to be uncooperative. Especially when there's no evidence to suggest the Bulls had a contract offer on the table in June. Especially when there's plenty of evidence to suggest the Bulls had left Eddy to twist in the wind vis a vis the issues of insurance, clearance, and (later) sign-and-trade offers.

Ask yourself this question: even in the presence of a so-called "Uncooperative Plan," if the Bulls had offered Eddy a no-strings attached (or reasonably incentivized contract like Tyson's), deal in the neighborhood of what he's getting paid by the Knicks, do you think he would have signed it? 



> What do you think about those people saying you and I are wrong for thinking this story is less credible because Vecsey and Isiah hate each other?


I'm not saying that Vecsey and Isiah weren't ever close -- they worked together for a while at NBC, after all. But at some point, and not recently, the tenor of their relationship changed. Vescey has written way too many nasty, pointed attacks on Isiah for me to believe that they are actually "tight", and that's been going on for years now.


----------



## Ron Cey

mizenkay said:


> just to be very clear.
> 
> vecsey said "early summer" but he did not indicate specific dates. he made no mention of whether or not it was before july 1st/free agency beginning.
> 
> he is convinced, however, that this deal was going down all summer no matter what the bulls did (good or bad, agree or disagree).
> 
> and he made it a point to say that eddy was going to be uncooperative as possible no matter what.


Thats a good point. I'm taking liberties with "early summer" because, to me, that is June. Everything I wrote assumes this. If all this went down post free agency, then I don't see how it could be tampering. 

But even if it started a 4th of July barbecue, it would still be a fatal blow to the image of Eddy being ruthlessly victimized by the Bulls organization this summer (if true).


----------



## ace20004u

The Truth said:


> :rofl:
> 
> You criticize people for forcing their agendas and say that we should ignore Curry and Crawford. But of course you throw in that you think they will be successful.
> 
> So aren't you pushing your agenda?



There is, in my mind, a world of difference between stating your opinion, making your case, and forcing your agenda. I know that a lot of people are not going to agree that I think they will be successful and thats is perfectly fine with me, I accept that rather than trying to change everyone else's views to fit mine. I admit that I very well could be wrong. It does happen from time to time. Nothing wrong with expressing your views the problem is when you try to force your views on others.


----------



## Ron Cey

> You'd have something here if there were any real evidence that Eddy was uncooperative. Me, personally, I don't consider the refusal to take an invasive, medically unnecessary, ethically questionable test to be uncooperative. Especially when there's no evidence to suggest the Bulls had a contract offer on the table in June. Especially when there's plenty of evidence to suggest the Bulls had left Eddy to twist in the wind vis a vis the issues of insurance, clearance, and (later) sign-and-trade offers.


Well, I don't have any evidence of anything. And it never would have occurred to me to label Eddy as "uncooperative" for not taking the test. As you educated me about the test, I eventually came to the conclusion, and expressed the conclusion, that his refusal to take the test was reasonable.

But, if true, there could be all kinds of things behind the scenes that could have poisoned the process. A couple we know about are not returning calls and allowing the Knicks to attend his workouts, but not the Bulls.

Who knows? We're dealing entirely in speculation here. I admit that.



> Ask yourself this question: even in the presence of a so-called "Uncooperative Plan," if the Bulls had offered Eddy a no-strings attached (or reasonably incentivized contract like Tyson's), deal in the neighborhood of what he's getting paid by the Knicks, do you think he would have signed it?


If the report is true, no, I don't think he would have taken it. If the report is true, he wanted out. Period. 



> I'm not saying that Vecsey and Isiah weren't ever close -- they worked together for a while at NBC, after all. But at some point, and not recently, the tenor of their relationship changed. Vescey has written way too many nasty, pointed attacks on Isiah for me to believe that they are actually "tight", and that's been going on for years now.


When you mentioned that, and I agreed with you, I was thinking only of the Jalen Rose issues. But I now realize I had it backwards. I don't follow Vecsey closely enough to know if he has written attack pieces about Zeke. I'll take your word for it.

And not to be a broken record, but I'm not accepting the truth of Vecsey's report. I'm just saying "what if"?


----------



## mizenkay

ace20004u said:


> There is, in my mind, a world of difference between stating your opinion, making your case, and forcing your agenda. I know that a lot of people are not going to agree that I think they will be successful and thats is perfectly fine with me, I accept that rather than trying to change everyone else's views to fit mine. I admit that I very well could be wrong. It does happen from time to time. Nothing wrong with expressing your views the problem is when you try to force your views on others.




what are your views on the bulls this season? 

we are all painfully aware of your views on these ex-bulls. 

it's fun being a bulls mod, no?


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> But even if it started a 4th of July barbecue, it would still be a fatal blow to the image of Eddy being ruthlessly victimized by the Bulls organization this summer (if true).


I really don't see how Eddy's agent negotiating with another GM -- per Pax's encouragement, mind you -- changes the facts that Paxson and the Bulls clung to a medically radical diagnosis of Eddy's condition; that Paxson took great pains to make a sensationalistic and medically inaccurate comparison of Eddy's condition to the death of Reggie Lewis; that Paxson would have made Eddy retire if he hadn't passed the unconventional, very non-definitive DNA test; that Paxson left Eddy to his own devices to find medical clearance, insurance, and sign-and-trade offers.

EDIT (to avoid further cross-posting re workouts and phone calls): This is what I was getting at over the summer when I said people were completely overlooking the human element to this. I don't think Eddy needed Leon Rose or Isiah to "orchestrate" ignoring phone calls and keeping the Bulls out of workouts. They treated him like garbage, and he ignored them in return. It's not complicated.


----------



## ace20004u

mizenkay said:


> what are your views on the bulls this season?
> 
> we are all painfully aware of your views on these ex-bulls.
> 
> it's fun being a bulls mod, no?



I think that the Bulls are lacking size up front and in the backcourt. For the Bulls to have a successful season and reenter the post season I believe that the Bulls will have to hustle and fight every night and play their trademark defense and pray that they don't have a serious injury to any key guys. The good news is that we are deep in some areas, we have players willing to play unselfishly and play in a system, Skiles is an excellent coach. I think it is probably unlikely that we go most of the season without some injury difficulties, I believe I have been on record as predicting around 35 wins or so. I guess we will see.

I am not trying to pain anyone by sharing my views, I doubt you are either.

I was asked to be a Bulls mod a long long time ago because I am fair. I don't look at it as any sort of status thing I just like great basketball discussion. Btw, I have discussed a lot about the Bulls maybe you should check some other threads.


----------



## mizenkay

ace20004u said:


> I think that the Bulls are lacking size up front and in the backcourt. For the Bulls to have a successful season and reenter the post season I believe that the Bulls will have to hustle and fight every night and play their trademark defense and pray that they don't have a serious injury to any key guys. The good news is that we are deep in some areas, we have players willing to play unselfishly and play in a system, Skiles is an excellent coach. I think it is probably unlikely that we go most of the season without some injury difficulties, I believe I have been on record as predicting around 35 wins or so. I guess we will see.
> 
> I am not trying to pain anyone by sharing my views, I doubt you are either.
> 
> I was asked to be a Bulls mod a long long time ago because I am fair. I don't look at it as any sort of status thing I just like great basketball discussion. *Btw, I have discussed a lot about the Bulls maybe you should check some other threads.*




ok, whatever!!

:laugh:


----------



## Ron Cey

ScottMay said:


> I really don't see how Eddy's agent negotiating with another GM -- per Pax's encouragement, mind you -- changes the facts that Paxson and the Bulls clung to a medically radical diagnosis of Eddy's condition; that Paxson took great pains to make a sensationalistic and medically inaccurate comparison of Eddy's condition to the death of Reggie Lewis; that Paxson would have made Eddy retire if he hadn't passed the unconventional, very *non-definitive DNA test*; that Paxson *left Eddy to his own devices to find * medical clearance, *insurance*, and sign-and-trade offers.


Suffice it to say, and referring you to my post history on each of these subjects, I disagree with pretty much all of that both factually and philosophically (except the bolded parts).

But I doubt anyone reading this thread wants us to go back through all that again.


----------



## onetwo88

*Eddy Curry interview with insidehoops*

http://www.insidehoops.com/curry-knicks-interview-111105.shtml


----------



## lougehrig

Is it me or is Curry one of the softest players in the league? He doesn't fight for anything. If he isn't wide open for a dunk or an easy hook shot, he doesn't try to get better position. Same goes for rebounding and defense. Dunleavy drove the lane and Curry tried to draw a charge. He's suppose to be a dominant center. He didn't even put his hands up. You can't be a finese player. Curry's mediocre play continues tonight. Don't be fooled by the stat line. He was almost after the first 6 minutes of the game.


----------



## lougehrig

Gotta love Eddy. With 3 minutes left in a tie game, he is ACTUALLY in the game. He makes a good move and is followed. The basket spins out and he smacks the ball, right off Derek Fischer's head. He gets called for a technical. Aren't you suppose to act you haven't been there before? Oh wait. He hasn't.


----------



## Soulful Sides

14 & 10

KNICKS LOSE


----------



## lougehrig

Soulful Sides said:


> 14 & 10


Decent numbers. If you watched the game he was largely invisible except for the 1st quarter. He got 3 offensives boards on one play in the 4th quarter. That was it though. No defense or presence otherwise.


----------



## PD

*Re-Do the Curry Trade*

Paxson should call up Thomas and offer to re-do the Curry trade. We would take Curry back with his $50M contract. However, Thomas would need to throw in a couple of the draft picks along with one of their rookies - Fry - for an expiring contract - say, Tim Thomas and a seconder? 

By the way, I have been following the Knicks so much lately. They are currenlty 0-5. A Knicks' L is like a W for the Bulls.  We probably shouldn't be laughing at them becuase of our historical past. But it's nice to be on the other side of the fence.


----------



## mizenkay

*Re: Re-Do the Curry Trade*

sigh, no offense PD but i am going to merge this into the ongoing eddy thread.


----------



## truebluefan

*Re: Re-Do the Curry Trade*



PD said:


> Paxson should call up Thomas and offer to re-do the Curry trade. We would take Curry back with his $50M contract. However, Thomas would need to throw in a couple of the draft picks along with one of their rookies - Fry - for an expiring contract - say, Tim Thomas and a seconder?
> 
> By the way, I have been following the Knicks so much lately. They are currenlty 0-5. A Knicks' L is like a W for the Bulls.  We probably shouldn't be laughing at them becuase of our historical past. But it's nice to be on the other side of the fence.


thats the way I feel. 

I was watching the stats of last nights loss on Yahoo as the game was being played. I watched it all the way to the end. NY had a chance to win. I was rooting for GS. 

1. Because after all it is the knicks! 

2. our draft pick we have from them. If we dont trade it, with every loss they get its all good for us. 

That being said, they wont continue to lose at this pace, though they could be 0-9 after the west coast trip, they will play better.


----------



## Sham

*Re: Re-Do the Curry Trade*


----------



## Da Grinch

in his last 3 games 14-29 .482 for 14.7 points and 9.3 rebounds.


----------



## cima

Eddy had 9 rebounds in 28 minutes tonight. Looks like Larry Brown figured out something we couldn't.


----------



## Da Grinch

CiMa said:


> Eddy had 9 rebounds in 28 minutes tonight. Looks like Larry Brown figured out something we couldn't.


are you somehow implying skiles saying "jump" isn't enough?


----------



## cima

Da Grinch said:


> are you somehow implying skiles saying "jump" isn't enough?


It's more than that. AD was quoted saying that Larry Brown makes you work on your defense or you don't play, it's as simple as that. Eddy also had 5 blocks. The Knicks held the Jazz below 70 points. Apparently, Brown is getting a point across that Skiles didn't/couldn't with Eddy.


----------



## jbulls

Da Grinch said:


> are you somehow implying skiles saying "jump" isn't enough?


I'm sure that was the extent of the instruction Eddy recieved as a Bull.


----------



## NYKBaller

Curry = Olajuwan

I kid, I kid


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Caption this pic.


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Caption this pic.


"You must unlearn what you have learned."


----------



## truth

CiMa said:


> It's more than that. AD was quoted saying that Larry Brown makes you work on your defense or you don't play, it's as simple as that. Eddy also had 5 blocks. The Knicks held the Jazz below 70 points. Apparently, Brown is getting a point across that Skiles didn't/couldn't with Eddy.


Despite the Knicks lousy record it is very obvious that Coach Brown has made a major impact on 4 players..Curry,JC,Steph and Jerome James...

Curry is hustling,in better shape and playing D.5 blocks,9 boards and great help Defense.Hes improving every game,and if he slacks off,he sits.

JC has probably made the biggest adjustments in his game,considering he isnt starting.He is actually under control playing Rip-lite,and much to my astonishment I havent grimaced watching him hoist up some insanely off balance shot.Hes really under control and has cut down on the turnovers.....Its night and day

Steph has completely checked his ego and is playing great D,and not forcing things.He is doing everything Brown has asked...

Jerome James is not in shape and is out of the rotation.None of this play your way into shape.

The Curry and JC you guys bash no longer exist.If they do show up,they wont be playing


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Per / 40 stats*

<pre>
Curry
Points: 21.4
True Shooting %: 53.7
Rebounds: 11.8
TO: 5.6
Assists: 0.7
Steals: 0.9
Blocks: 2.2
PER: 17.7



Chandler
Points: 8.3
True Shooting %: 53.9
Rebounds: 13.0
TO: 2.8
Assists: 1.5
Steals: 0.2
Blocks: 0.9
PER: 9.9

</pre>


So far this season, Curry has improved and Chandler is in a steep decline.

Let's hope Chandler can right the ship.


----------



## bullsville

Yeah, it's amazing what playing back-to-back games versus the worst team in the West and then a team minus 4 starters will do for a player's game.


----------



## Da Grinch

CiMa said:


> It's more than that. AD was quoted saying that Larry Brown makes you work on your defense or you don't play, it's as simple as that. Eddy also had 5 blocks. The Knicks held the Jazz below 70 points. Apparently, Brown is getting a point across that Skiles didn't/couldn't with Eddy.



i'm sure he did too, although that was the message he left in the media, but skiles is a coach who excels in guard play, i didn't see any big who looked like they got better due to coaching and i still haven't under skiles . skiles is a good coach is very good at putting guards in a position to prosper , i am not sure it doesn't come at the expense of his big men. i think that is a weakness for him.

in fact i dont think either curry or chandler are really any better skillwise since before he took over .

tyson had a great 1st month under cartwright in 2003-04 and curry shot over 60% the last 2 months of 2002-03, this is the 1st time he actually looks like a better player, although curry isn't shooting as well he is a more complete player .


----------



## truth

After Larry Brown praised Curry after the game on his 5 blocks: 

"Now you can lay off my defense for a while," Curry told him. To which Brown responded, "I'm going to get on you for your defense until you're 40....


----------



## futuristxen

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Caption this pic.



"...Heroes in a halfshell, TURTLE POWER!"


----------



## NYKBaller

you guys can have some Curry action tonight, ESPN Primtetime!


----------



## Sham

For people who like to watch Eddy fail, here is a clip of him being too slow to rotate and being dunked on, and one, by Lamar Odom.

http://rapidshare.de/files/7746921/_mb__odom_dunks_on_curry_vs_knicks__4e4d238d_.avi.html


----------



## truebluefan

I may be critical of Eddy's game, but I do not want him to fail. I never have wanted that.


----------



## truebluefan

I have a bad feeling that this thread will catch up with the JC thread sometime this year.


----------



## Sham

truebluefan said:


> I may be critical of Eddy's game, but I do not want him to fail. I never have wanted that.



Me neither. Some do, though.


----------



## 36 Karat

I got him for fantasy. Either way, I'm hoping he succeeds wherever he is.


----------



## Zeb

truebluefan said:


> I may be critical of Eddy's game, but I do not want him to fail. I never have wanted that.


I don't want him to blow up, either. Just keep being the same old Eddy (and no more health issues).


----------



## Rhyder

36 Karat said:


> I got him for fantasy. Either way, I'm hoping he succeeds wherever he is.


Curry got selected in the fourth round in my fantasy league. Although I picked Ilgauskas in the third, who has my 9th round Center pick (PJ Brown) outplaying him.


----------



## Sham

Curry's a bad fantasy player. Always was. He's a perennial stay away.


----------



## ScottMay

ShamBulls said:


> Curry's a bad fantasy player. Always was. He's a perennial stay away.


If you play in a league that doesn't count turnovers and has strict center eligibility, he's decent as long as you pair him with an elite power forward. He can actually be pretty valuable if you need to offset an Iverson/Arenas type in your backcourt.


----------



## Sham

Yes but with no three's, a mediocre free throw shooting percentage, no assists or steals, a disppointing number of blocks and inconsistent rebounding, he only really provides points at a decent percentage. You can offset the points with one of many guards. It's always best to go for the quiet double double guys, i.e. PJ Brown.


----------



## truebluefan

Curry get hurt in tonights game? Box score shows him playing just 6 minutes.


----------



## El Chapu

Knicks down 15, 6 minutes left.....good news.

Edit: Calf injury for Eddy....day to day.


----------



## truebluefan

thanks. I knew something was wrong.


----------



## Soulful Sides

ScottMay said:


> he's decent as long as you pair him with an elite power forward.


I know yer talking fntasy, but it looks like Fry might be that elite power forward. 

In the real NBA.


----------



## bullsville

With Eddy's 6 minutes and Sweets' 42 minutes tonight, they are now averaging the same minutes for the season.

EC- *23.8 min*, .488 FG, .643 FT, 2.0 off, 6.8 reb, 0.3 ast, 3.22 TO, 0.4 stl, *1.44 blk*, 3.44 pf, *12.7 pts*

MS- 23.4 min, .529 FG, .731 FT, 3.1 off, 8.1 reb, 1.0 ast, 1.50 TO, 0.4 stl, 0.75 blk, 3.0 pf, 11.6 pts

To make it easy, I bolded the categories that Eddy leads in. 

Sweets continues to just impress the hell out of me, he's going to turn into a very poor man's Brand if he isn't careful. He now has 3 double-doubles in 8 games despite playing just under 24 minutes/game.


----------



## BenDengGo

he has double the to's too


----------



## kukoc4ever

Sweets is playing well.

Lets hope we can be a winning team like we were last year. Yah, we were not a winning team at this time last year, but if we added a better player than the one we lost and all our young players matured we should be able to beat the Blazers and Sonics.

We're the 3rd best team in the East dammit!


----------



## giusd

Yo,

I was too tried to stay up and watch the end of the knicks game last night (and the bulls) can someone tell me why EC only played 6 minutes?

david


----------



## BG7

giusd said:


> Yo,
> 
> I was too tried to stay up and watch the end of the knicks game last night (and the bulls) can someone tell me why EC only played 6 minutes?
> 
> david


Larry Brown's stupid?

Too bad Paxson couldn't finagle Channing Frye out of the trade, kid looks good.

Nice to Sweetney in the starting lineup finally, now Skiles just needs to move Tim Thomas in there, and trade for a Chandler replacement, Chandler is being exposed offensively and defensively without Curry down there.


----------



## DaBullz

FWIW

The Knicks just finished their 6-game west coast road trip (sound familiar?) with a 2-4 record.


----------



## truebluefan

sloth said:


> Larry Brown's stupid?
> 
> Too bad Paxson couldn't finagle Channing Frye out of the trade, kid looks good.
> 
> Nice to Sweetney in the starting lineup finally, now Skiles just needs to move Tim Thomas in there, and trade for a Chandler replacement, Chandler is being exposed offensively and defensively without Curry down there.


EC had a calf strain. Out day to day.


----------



## giusd

TBF,

thanks

david


----------



## truth

*Curry and the 3 BB deadly sins*

As A Bull,was Curry as fundamenatlly inept as he is demonstrating in NY????

To the casual observer,he look pretty good,but if you look at his game and the numbers,you realise,hes not really producing...

Heres what i see..The guy is verrry talented,no doubt...In fact he commands a double team almost every time he touches the ball...But he commits 3 deadly sins...Hes a turnover machine,commits too many fouls and the next time he passes out of a double team will be his first.The beast is avg .3 assists per game!!!!!!

If you look at his numbers per 48,they arent too shabby..But he cant play 48,cause he always in foul trouble.So in 23 minutes,he avg 12 pts per game and .3 assists.He also commit 3 TO in that time and 3 fouls.Lets make believe the turnovers and assists lead to opponents scoring 6 points againt the Knicks...If he avg 5 apg,it wouldn be so bad..When you put it all together,he is delivering 6 points per game...

Its a good thing hes so dominant on the defensive end...... :angel:


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: Curry and the 3 BB deadly sins*



truth said:


> As A Bull,was Curry as fundamenatlly inept as he is demonstrating in NY????
> 
> To the casual observer,he look pretty good,but if you look at his game and the numbers,you realise,hes not really producing...
> 
> Heres what i see..The guy is verrry talented,no doubt...In fact he commands a double team almost every time he touches the ball...But he commits 3 deadly sins...Hes a turnover machine,commits too many fouls and the next time he passes out of a double team will be his first.The beast is avg .3 assists per game!!!!!!
> 
> If you look at his numbers per 48,they arent too shabby..But he cant play 48,cause he always in foul trouble.So in 23 minutes,he avg 12 pts per game and .3 assists.He also commit 3 TO in that time and 3 fouls.Lets make believe the turnovers and assists lead to opponents scoring 6 points againt the Knicks...If he avg 5 apg,it wouldn be so bad..When you put it all together,he is delivering 6 points per game...
> 
> Its a good thing hes so dominant on the defensive end...... :angel:


Yes.


----------



## truebluefan

*Re: Curry and the 3 BB deadly sins*

truth, you got it! Just look at his career stats. 

He is good for points early on. That does help a team. But he does turn the ball over. The three sins are the very same things we talk about on here! 

At least, early on, he is rebounding better than he did here. One rebound more in 5 less minutes a game is huge for Eddy. That was another gripe we had! 

I am also glad to see the fact that he is getting more blocks per game. 

IMO, the way his game is today, he does not deserve his contract. (neither does chandler but that's another story) However, Larry Brown may get him to be the player he can be in a year or two, then the Knicks may be happy with him. Until then, you will experience the frustration that many Bulls fans have experienced in Eddy. He has the tools, it's just a matter of Eddy putting it all together day in and day out.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Curry and the 3 BB deadly sins*



truth said:


> Heres what i see..The guy is verrry talented,no doubt...In fact he commands a double team almost every time he touches the ball...But he commits 3 deadly sins...Hes a turnover machine,commits too many fouls and the next time he passes out of a double team will be his first.The beast is avg .3 assists per game!!!!!!
> 
> If you look at his numbers per 48,they arent too shabby..But he cant play 48,cause he always in foul trouble.



You have just condensed four + years of Bulls Boards Eddy Curry analysis into fewer than 100 words. Well done.


----------



## truth

*Re: Curry and the 3 BB deadly sins*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You have just condensed four + years of Bulls Boards Eddy Curry analysis into fewer than 100 words. Well done.


I will add this.

If you were watching the Knick game yesterday,Jamal Crawford caught the ball on the break at the 3 point line.There wasnt a defender within 10 feet.And he was starting to heat up offensively.JC actually brought the ball back out and set the offense up and the fans moaned in dissapointment and the bench broke up laughing in a very close game..Thats right....Shake and bake,Mr crossover and hoistem passed on an open shot and set the offense up!!!!!!!!

If you were watching the Knick game yesterday,and later heard coach Brown speak of the human highlight reel,Nate actually resembled something of a thinking man...There were signs of BB intelligence

You know where i am going..It may take the greatest coach in BBall on Curry, like white on Rice,
24/7,but I do believe there is a chance for him..

The biggest challenge will be to get him to pass out of the double..and not to the opponents.You simply can not have your most dominant inside presence who should touch the ball every possesion,avg .3 assists.....

Not too mention a .1 A/TO ratio....

Time will tell

There may actually be hope for Curry...


----------



## anorexorcist

^^Speaking of curry updates, hasn't he missed the last 3 games with a calf injury?

and you guys seem to be winning them

hmm

-Z-


----------



## truth

anorexorcist said:


> ^^Speaking of curry updates, hasn't he missed the last 3 games with a calf injury?
> 
> and you guys seem to be winning them
> 
> hmm
> 
> -Z-


I think we are .500 without him......

Its an interesting point,but a bit premature,,I think for now Frye starts at the 4 and Eddy at the 5...I think


----------



## NYKBaller

that should be the starting lineup but larry wouldnt do that


----------



## giusd

He is still injured but he is also off to a pretty weak start. His shot percentage is down, cant hit his FT, weak D, and is still not in shape. Same thing every year. come febuary we should know what he's not.

david


----------



## ace20004u

giusd said:


> He is still injured but he is also off to a pretty weak start. His shot percentage is down, cant hit his FT, weak D, and is still not in shape. Same thing every year. come febuary we should know what he's not.
> 
> david


Umm, have you been watching the Knick games? Sure Eddy is injured right now but he has been playing huge for them prior to his injury, he has been dunking over people like they stole from him, jumping for rebounds, BLOCKING shots. Your criticism seems like one of those "I looked over the box scores" type statements to me, no offense.


----------



## truebluefan

I wouldn't say playing huge, but that's me. A person can come to his or her conclusion even before he or she looks at a box score. A box score just helps solidify their arguement.

His scoring is way down. Everything is down except for rebounding, (1 more a game) and blocks. +.40 blocks a game. Minutes is down, t/o is up, pct is down ft pct is down, fouls is up, but all of that could be contributed to the fact that he is still out of shape and I called for him to have a bad season. I said that numerous times before and after the trade. 

Next year is the year I am most interested in seeing Eddy play. Maybe later on this year, closer to deadline. We all know it takes Eddy a while to get in a grove.


----------



## Da Grinch

truebluefan said:


> I wouldn't say playing huge, but that's me. A person can come to his or her conclusion even before he or she looks at a box score. A box score just helps solidify their arguement.
> 
> His scoring is way down. Everything is down except for rebounding, (1 more a game) and blocks. +.40 blocks a game. Minutes is down, t/o is up, pct is down ft pct is down, fouls is up, but all of that could be contributed to the fact that he is still out of shape and I called for him to have a bad season. I said that numerous times before and after the trade.
> 
> Next year is the year I am most interested in seeing Eddy play. Maybe later on this year, closer to deadline. We all know it takes Eddy a while to get in a grove.


you have to remember he has left a couple of games early due to injury, so he is avg. 5.5 less minutes a game
, on a per minute rate he is scoring, boarding and blocking at a higher rate than last year ...but i wouldn't exactly say he was playing huge either , but pretty well.

he always seems to get a leg injury about this time of the season , slowing his progress to get back in shape just a bit before he is in gear around january-febuary.

i wouldn't call his season a failure just yet.


----------



## narek

Another column from Sam talking with Eddy (and another exceptional piece):

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...1,7021761.column?page=1&coll=cs-bulls-utility



> MIAMI -- Here's Eddy Curry's problem: He's too normal.
> 
> Which is why when all around him were losing their heads—and their tempers—last summer amid Curry's refusal to take a DNA test to address his heart issues, the lies and darned lies, Curry just went bowling every day.
> 
> 
> "By my mom's house in Steger," Curry said here the other day. "It was the one place I could go where people really didn't know who I was."
> 
> Yes, we'll get past the part about just another 6-foot-11-inch, 300-pound bowler and continue. It's Eddy's story and he was sticking to it before his Knicks returned home for Curry's expected return to the lineup from injury Wednesday against the Bulls in New York.
> 
> "I'm a real good bowler," Curry said happily. "I have my own bowling ball and everything. Had a 215 game."
> 
> Whatever his game, Eddy's really no turkey, even if he's never going to become the next Shaquille O'Neal. There's a little crazy, a little anger in all the superstars of sport. Michael Jordan taunted teammates, Isiah Thomas fought with them, Larry Bird taunted and tormented opponents, Magic Johnson took chances, Wilt Chamberlain took liberties, Bill Russell seethed anger, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar made the condescending sneer his business card.
> 
> Curry's not angry with anyone, including media members who once advocated his trade weekly. Or with fans who enjoyed the occasion boo.
> 
> "I realized early on [the media] have got to create scenarios and stuff. It's not my job to be mad," Curry said. "It's my job to be respectful and talk to you guys. As far as the fans go, they deserve to see a good game. If I wasn't giving them a good game, they had a right to boo. If I was giving them a great game, they'd cheer for me.
> 
> *"[General manager John] Paxson is an emotional person," Curry said of the seemingly bitter [trade] in early October. "It's a situation he felt he had to make a move that maybe he might not have wanted to. There never were any bad words between me and Paxson. I think they knew I wanted to come back. …
> 
> "It's not going to do me any good to sit back and wonder what could have been. … I always wanted to just sit back and play basketball and stay out of the way of everybody and get along. … I never really expressed how I felt. I always just felt things would work out."*
> 
> Curry's 'crazy' world
> 
> And so the world of Eddy continues to spin in New York, perhaps really the perfect place for the agreeable Curry.
> 
> "It's crazy," Curry said, using his favorite expression. "I grew up hating New York teams. I didn't even know why. It's like playing for the enemy now. It's a lot of fun there. But they boo us like four times a game. It's crazy. We could be winning and then the other team could go on a run and they're booing. It's crazy."
> 
> When the Bulls come to New York on Wednesday, Curry is hopeful about returning to the lineup to face his old friends after being out three games with a left calf strain. He went through a full practice Tuesday and is expected to play, though he's listed as questionable.
> 
> Last year when Jamal Crawford was out injured for the first meeting with the Bulls, Curry gave his buddy a hard time.
> 
> No, he doesn't have Chandler-itis, Curry says. Though he is worried about his former co-Baby Bull Tyson Chandler.
> 
> "I talked to him when we were out West and they were," Curry said. "He was upset [about losing]. I said it was just the eighth game."
> 
> That's Curry, don't worry, don't hurry, take the path of least resistance and smell the roses along the way. Strikes are good in his life.
> 
> That doesn't add up to sports immortality, although Knicks coach Larry Brown says Curry is the most athletic big man he ever has coached—and that includes David Robinson. But it also doesn't lead to disruption or problems. The Bulls always yearned for more from Curry, and perhaps there is more there to give. For now, the Knicks will take what they can.


----------



## spongyfungy

*Curry Wants a Chance to Face His Former Team*

* Curry Wants a Chance to Face His Former Team*


GREENBURGH, N.Y., Nov. 29 - With their season lurching between splashes of promise and longer stretches of listlessness, the Knicks tried to regroup after a dreary loss Monday night dimmed the memory of a last-second victory Saturday. 

On Tuesday afternoon, the Knicks, whose only area of consistency this season has been their number of injured players, enjoyed a rare practice in which everyone played. This included Eddy Curry, the center, who has not played a game since Nov. 20 because of a strained left calf muscle.


Curry, who had not been in shape since reporting to training camp after a heart arrhythmia ended his season prematurely last spring, was listed as questionable for Wednesday night's game against his former team, the Chicago Bulls, but said that he hoped to play. 

Curry and Coach Larry Brown said that he would play if practice did not lead to significant soreness Wednesday. Brown added that Curry would have to use game time to round into playing shape.

More is at stake for Curry than the precise healing rate of a strained leg muscle. Curry, who grew up in the Chicago area and was drafted by the Bulls out of high school, left the team in October under contentious and peculiar circumstances, when talk of genetic codes held sway over drop-step moves. 

John Paxson, the Bulls' general manager, wanted Curry to take a DNA test to determine whether his arrhythmia was a symptom of a life-threatening heart condition. Curry refused before being dealt to the Knicks, who did not ask for the test. 

"When I came, I was honestly kind of scared a little bit, I didn't know what to expect," he said.


----------



## narek

*Re: Curry Wants a Chance to Face His Former Team*

I posted this link in the Curry update thread, but I'll put it here, too:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...9smith,1,7021761.column?coll=cs-bulls-utility



> When the Bulls come to New York on Wednesday, Curry is hopeful about returning to the lineup to face his old friends after being out three games with a left calf strain. He went through a full practice Tuesday and is expected to play, though he's listed as questionable.
> 
> Last year when Jamal Crawford was out injured for the first meeting with the Bulls, Curry gave his buddy a hard time.
> 
> No, he doesn't have Chandler-itis, Curry says. Though he is worried about his former co-Baby Bull Tyson Chandler.
> 
> "I talked to him when we were out West and they were," Curry said. "He was upset [about losing]. I said it was just the eighth game."


----------



## truebluefan

Da Grinch said:


> you have to remember he has left a couple of games early due to injury, so he is avg. 5.5 less minutes a game
> , on a per minute rate he is scoring, boarding and blocking at a higher rate than last year ...but i wouldn't exactly say he was playing huge either , but pretty well.
> 
> he always seems to get a leg injury about this time of the season , slowing his progress to get back in shape just a bit before he is in gear around january-febuary.
> 
> i wouldn't call his season a failure just yet.


I know. I was not calling it a failure. I said he was going to have a bad year but that does not mean he fails. He should give them what he gave us, this year. I know he is playing less minutes, I mentioned that. I also don't think he has been huge either.


----------



## kukoc4ever

truebluefan said:


> I know. I was not calling it a failure. I said he was going to have a bad year but that does not mean he fails. He should give them what he gave us, this year. I know he is playing less minutes, I mentioned that. I also don't think he has been huge either.


So far he has a PER of 18.1, in 23.1 minutes played per game.

That is a significant improvement over last season and would be the 2nd highest PER on our team, behind Sweetney.


----------



## narek

Lacy Banks writes again (with John Jackson): Friends off the court, rivals on it  



> That goes for both Curry and his ex-teammates. Before the October trade that sent Curry and Antonio Davis to the Knicks for Michael Sweetney, Tim Thomas, Jermaine Jackson and draft picks, Curry was one of the more popular players in the Bulls' locker room.
> 
> ''It's going to be pretty weird seeing him on the other side and going opposite ways before the game,'' said center Tyson Chandler, who was Curry's closest friend on the Bulls. ''It's going to be weird going up against [both of] those guys, but we do have benefits. I've been with them a couple of years, so I know what they like to do. I'm looking forward to the challenge.''
> 
> Chandler and Curry were drafted out of high school the same year and played together for four seasons before the trade. Their careers always will be linked, but Chandler said he thinks losing Davis is something the Bulls still are adjusting to.
> 
> ''Antonio was great for the whole team,'' Chandler said of Davis, who is averaging 4.2 points and 5.2 rebounds. ''He had a good relationship with all the players and staff and everyone in the whole organization. He's one of those guys you really get along with, and he has great character.''
> 
> Of the three players the Bulls acquired in the deal, only Sweetney remains on the active roster. Jackson was waived during training camp, and operations chief John Paxson announced Monday that Thomas likely won't play for the Bulls again.
> 
> Sweetney said he's looking forward to seeing his former teammates.
> 
> ''It's going to be pretty cool,'' he said. ''I played with those guys for two years, and it's going to be good to go back and play.''
> 
> Sweetney also said he doesn't hold anything against the Knicks and won't be looking to prove they made a mistake.
> 
> ''No, I'm just going to go in there and play to win,'' he said.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

*Curry Gets Thumbs Up From Shaq*



> Shaquille O'Neal believes Knicks center Eddy Curry will one day emerge as a dominating center.
> 
> "He's a good player, plays hard, plays aggressive," O'Neal said of Curry. "He has plenty of time to get to the Shogun level. By that time I'll be done.
> 
> "He has to go through the trials and tribulations of a big man. Not many guys came in at 22 and dominated." Curry looks like Shaq when he gets the ball low, but he has been turnover-prone. "No, impossible," Shaq said when told Curry shows flashes of Shaq's low-post power. "There's only certain moves a big, strong man can do. He plays like a real big man. He has a lot of work, a lot of guys to go up against before getting the title of 'dominant.' He's a real solid, double-respectable, big man."


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/58113.htm


----------



## USSKittyHawk

*Curry Gets Thumbs Up From Shaq*



> Shaquille O'Neal believes Knicks center Eddy Curry will one day emerge as a dominating center.
> 
> "He's a good player, plays hard, plays aggressive," O'Neal said of Curry. "He has plenty of time to get to the Shogun level. By that time I'll be done.
> 
> "He has to go through the trials and tribulations of a big man. Not many guys came in at 22 and dominated." Curry looks like Shaq when he gets the ball low, but he has been turnover-prone. "No, impossible," Shaq said when told Curry shows flashes of Shaq's low-post power. "There's only certain moves a big, strong man can do. He plays like a real big man. He has a lot of work, a lot of guys to go up against before getting the title of 'dominant.' He's a real solid, double-respectable, big man."


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/58113.htm


----------



## The Truth

*Re: Curry Gets Thumbs Up From Shaq*



Kitty said:


> http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/58113.htm


should this thread be moved? or at least merged with the *OT* Curry thread.


----------



## ace20004u

*Re: Curry Gets Thumbs Up From Shaq*



The Truth said:


> should this thread be moved? or at least merged with the *OT* Curry thread.



I don't think so since it is new, relevant, and just prior to our game with them. But, if one of the other mods wishes to move it they may. I think it is an interesting topic to discuss. Shaq once said Curry was one of three centers in the league behind himself and Yao and now he goes on to praise Curry some more. What does everyone think about that?


----------



## mizenkay

*Re: Curry Gets Thumbs Up From Shaq*



ace20004u said:


> I don't think so since it is new, relevant, and just prior to our game with them. But, if one of the other mods wishes to move it they may. I think it is an interesting topic to discuss. Shaq once said Curry was one of three centers in the league behind himself and Yao and now he goes on to praise Curry some more. What does everyone think about that?




i think we need to leave you two alone in a secluded corner so you can make out.

:makeout: 




(while i quietly merge it into the eddy omnibus)

:angel:


----------



## bullsville

*Re: Curry Gets Thumbs Up From Shaq*

I think Shaq is developing a memory loss problem, he seems to have completely forgotten how dominant he was at age 23.

"Not many guys came in at 22 and dominated"- that's true, Shaq, only the great ones did that. Eddy isn't, and never will be, one of the great ones.


----------



## ace20004u

*Re: Curry Gets Thumbs Up From Shaq*



mizenkay said:


> i think we need to leave you two alone in a secluded corner so you can make out.
> 
> :makeout:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (while i quietly merge it into the eddy omnibus)
> 
> :angel:



Definitley not my thing. I guess SOMEONE did feel it needed to be merged lol. It's all good.


----------



## bullsville

> So far he has a PER of 18.1, in 23.1 minutes played per game.
> 
> That is a significant improvement over last season and would be the 2nd highest PER on our team, behind Sweetney.


Yet the Bulls, who "lost" Eddy (and AD), and had no draft picks, are already winning at a higher percentage than they did last season, despite having faced the 7th toughest schedule in the league.

And the Knicks, who "gained" Eddy and a top-10 draft pick and the "greatest coach who ever lived", are much worse than the .402 team they were last season while having faced the 9th toughest schedule.

The Bulls are actually playing *better* without Eddy? Who would've thunk it? :biggrin:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

bullsville said:


> The Bulls are actually playing *better* without Eddy? Who would've thunk it? :biggrin:


Did you thunk it? I don't think I quite got the message yet...


----------



## DaBullz

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryed01.html

<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="92%"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="4">*Most Similar Season at Age*

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>19.</td><td>Tyson Chandler (795)</td><td>Jermaine O'Neal (785)</td><td>Kwame Brown (757)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>20.</td><td>Al Jefferson (857)</td><td>Shawn Kemp (840)</td><td>Amare Stoudemire (823)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>21.</td><td>Drew Gooden (851)</td><td>Shawn Kemp (840)</td><td>Al Harrington (838)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>22.</td><td>Maurice Taylor (869)</td><td>Sharone Wright (856)</td><td>Alonzo Mourning (854)</td></tr></tbody> </table>


----------



## Sham

Eddy Curry is nothing like Alonzo Mourning.


Now Maurice Taylor, on the other hand........


----------



## bullsville

EC at 22: 28.7 min, 16.1 pts, 5.4 reb, 0.9 blk, 0.6 ast, 2.6 TO

Zo at 22: 33.9 min, 21.0 pts, 10.3 reb, 3.5 blk, 1.0 ast, 3.0 TO

I don't know what kind of ratings system basketball-reference uses, but I am failing to see any similarities between those 2 sets of numbers.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

career per 48 comparison of Curry to Sweetney:

http://www.basketball-reference.com...mi01:Mike+Sweetney&y2=&s=r&t=m&submit=Compare

Compare Eddy Curry to Mike Sweetney
Per 48 Minutes (Regular Season)
Name Year G MP FG FGA TP TPA FT FTA ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS 
Eddy Curry 289 6683 9.58 18.10 0.01 0.01 5.35 7.98 3.49 6.67 10.16 1.20 0.57 1.84 3.92 6.17 24.52 
Mike Sweetney 119 2003 7.33 14.04 0.00 0.05 5.22 7.02 5.68 8.10 13.78 1.39 1.08 0.96 3.35 6.73 19.89 
Difference 170 4680 2.25 4.06 0.01 -0.04 0.13 0.96 -2.19 -1.43 -3.62 -0.19 -0.51 0.88 0.57 -0.56 4.63


----------



## ace20004u

I'm pleased that the Bulls are winning but without Eddy they are working that much harder to do it. Of course, the ultimate goal here is to win a championship and that is harder to do IMO without a dominating 7'er like Curry. Incidentally, NY may not be playing so great right now but it really uis to be expected given the number of new players in their system and the new coach. One thing that is significant is that they are playing defense and thats going to ultimately help them.


----------



## GB

ace20004u said:


> I'm pleased that the Bulls are winning but without Eddy they are working that much harder to do it.


A new and interesting angle.

Please tell us more about why you believe this is so.


----------



## ace20004u

GB said:


> A new and interesting angle.
> 
> Please tell us more about why you believe this is so.



Well, I think the Bulls ARE a good team mostly because of hard work. They outwork the other team almost every game and that results in the win. Of course, working harder does wear guys down faster too. Obviously having a 7 foot guy in the post who can score easily, fill up the lane, etc... can take some pressure off of you. Defenses sag on him leaving perimeter guys open, he gets double teamed, sometimes even without the ball. I don't want to sit here and praise Eddy because a lot of people simply won't agree no matter what is said. But, I do think that having him on the team makes things easier on guys, they still have to work hard but they also have a little bit more to throw at teams.


----------



## ace20004u

ace20004u said:


> Well, I think the Bulls ARE a good team mostly because of hard work. They outwork the other team almost every game and that results in the win. Of course, working harder does wear guys down faster too. Obviously having a 7 foot guy in the post who can score easily, fill up the lane, etc... can take some pressure off of you. Defenses sag on him leaving perimeter guys open, he gets double teamed, sometimes even without the ball. I don't want to sit here and praise Eddy because a lot of people simply won't agree no matter what is said. But, I do think that having him on the team makes things easier on guys, they still have to work hard but they also have a little bit more to throw at teams.



Oh, and let me add...God forbid we get a serious injury to anyone as we are sort of stretched thin.


----------



## jbulls

ace20004u said:


> Well, I think the Bulls ARE a good team mostly because of hard work. They outwork the other team almost every game and that results in the win. Of course, working harder does wear guys down faster too. Obviously having a 7 foot guy in the post who can score easily, fill up the lane, etc... can take some pressure off of you. Defenses sag on him leaving perimeter guys open, he gets double teamed, sometimes even without the ball. I don't want to sit here and praise Eddy because a lot of people simply won't agree no matter what is said. But, I do think that having him on the team makes things easier on guys, they still have to work hard but they also have a little bit more to throw at teams.


We do work hard, but I think the fact that Skiles plays everyone and nobody plays more than 35 MPG helps offset that in terms of wearing guys down.


----------



## GB

ace20004u said:


> Well, I think the Bulls ARE a good team mostly because of hard work. They outwork the other team almost every game and that results in the win. Of course, working harder does wear guys down faster too. *Obviously having a 7 foot guy in the post who can score easily, fill up the lane, etc... can take some pressure off of you.* Defenses sag on him leaving perimeter guys open, he gets double teamed, sometimes even without the ball. I don't want to sit here and praise Eddy because a lot of people simply won't agree no matter what is said. But, I do think that having him on the team makes things easier on guys, they still have to work hard but they also have a little bit more to throw at teams.



Obviously. But what percentage of what Curry did will you give the shorter Meathook, uh, Sweetney credit for filling up in this regard?

60%? 70%?

I wouldn't think we were significantly worse in that area if thats the case. What about Meathook and some of the other bigs we have combined?


----------



## GB

ace20004u said:


> Oh, and let me add...God forbid we get a serious injury to anyone as we are sort of stretched thin.



My major concern with sending Tim Thomas home.


----------



## fl_flash

ace20004u said:


> Oh, and let me add...God forbid we get a serious injury to anyone as we are sort of stretched thin.


Just about every team in the league is in the same situation. Look at the Heat without Shaq. They're pretty average. The Rockets without T-Mac. They're pretty bad. Take most any team in the league and take out their "star" player and all of a sudden, that team would be average to poor. The only player I think this team would really miss would be Chandler and only because of his rebounding and pretty decent weak-side defense. Even if Hinrich went down, I think there are enough players to step in and fill the void.

Injuries are a concern for every team - not just the Bulls.


----------



## DaBullz

bullsville said:


> EC at 22: 28.7 min, 16.1 pts, 5.4 reb, 0.9 blk, 0.6 ast, 2.6 TO
> 
> Zo at 22: 33.9 min, 21.0 pts, 10.3 reb, 3.5 blk, 1.0 ast, 3.0 TO
> 
> I don't know what kind of ratings system basketball-reference uses, but I am failing to see any similarities between those 2 sets of numbers.


Near as I can tell, he uses percentiles for 13 categories of comparison. So looking at the raw numbers isn't going to do much.

In other words, if Curry's 16.1 pts is 95th percentile for guys near 6'11" 285 lbs and Zo's 21.0 pts is 95th percentile, they're really close.


----------



## NYKBaller

curry will play hopefully on friday


----------



## bullsville

Curry has now missed 5 consecutive games with a calf injury.

Any word on when he plans to suit up again?


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Any word on when he plans to suit up again?


Before Tim Thomas.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Before Tim Thomas.


Should I take that as a "I have no clue when Eddy plans to suit up again"?

I'm sorry, I just don't see what Tim Thomas has to do with Eddy Curry's calf injury.


----------



## truebluefan

bullsville said:


> Should I take that as a "I have no clue when Eddy plans to suit up again"?
> 
> I'm sorry, I just don't see what Tim Thomas has to do with Eddy Curry's calf injury.


I cannot speak for kk4e but maybe he was saying TT is not going to play until deadling because Pax is not going to be in a hurry to trade him? I dont know. 

He never really answered your question just saying he will play before TT does.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I think K4E's point is whatever Eddy contributes to the Knicks and whenever he suits up, it will be more than TT does for us ever...unless, I guess, he is a key part of a big trade or a FA signing. And Eddy's overall contribution to NYK is likely to be more valuable than Sweetney's contribution to the Bulls this year, overall (those early bad*** Sweetney contributions notwithstanding).

Here's to best of luck to EC, because he is a good kid, and here's to best of luck to the Bulls with those draft picks.


----------



## bullsville

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> *I think K4E's point is whatever Eddy contributes to the Knicks and whenever he suits up, it will be more than TT does for us ever*...unless, I guess, he is a key part of a big trade or a FA signing. And Eddy's overall contribution to NYK is likely to be more valuable than Sweetney's contribution to the Bulls this year, overall (those early bad*** Sweetney contributions notwithstanding).
> 
> Here's to best of luck to EC, because he is a good kid, and here's to best of luck to the Bulls with those draft picks.


Eddy is also going to contribute more to us than Jermaine Jackson did, what's the point?

I still don't see how a question on when Eddy is going to suit up again- appropriately asked in the "Eddy Curry Update" thread, no less- turned into yet another "Thomas won't contribute" comment?

Eddy will also eventually contribute more to the Knicks this season than the 1st-round pick we are getting from them next summer is going to contribute to the Bulls this season. Again, so what?


----------



## Sham

> Eddy is also going to contribute more to us than Jermaine Jackson did,



Intriguing slip of the tongue.....well, finger.


----------



## bullsville

ShamBulls said:


> Intriguing slip of the tongue.....well, finger.


LOL, good one Sham. :banana:


----------



## Wynn

bullsville said:


> Curry has now missed 5 consecutive games with a calf injury.
> 
> Any word on when he plans to suit up again?


I think it's inappropriate for you to ask questions about Eddy on the "Eddy update thread"....


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

bullsville said:


> Eddy is also going to contribute more to us than Jermaine Jackson did, what's the point?
> 
> I still don't see how a question on when Eddy is going to suit up again- appropriately asked in the "Eddy Curry Update" thread, no less- turned into yet another "Thomas won't contribute" comment?
> 
> Eddy will also eventually contribute more to the Knicks this season than the 1st-round pick we are getting from them next summer is going to contribute to the Bulls this season. Again, so what?





Huh?


----------



## bullsville

Maybe I should make my questions more specific? It seemed like a rather simple question, and while there have been several posts about the question, the question itself remains completely unanswered.

I'll try again, only simpler:

*The New York Knicks play a basketball game tomorrow (Sunday, December 4th, 2005) versus the Boston Celtics.

Does anyone know if Eddy Curry will be in uniform for the New York Knicks, or will he be sitting out a 6th straight game due to a calf injury?*

(And I am already aware that Eddy will appear in another game before Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Wilt Chamberlin, and George Mikan.)


----------



## bullsville

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Huh?


Exactly.


----------



## bullsville

Eddy returned to the lineup today at home vs the Celtics, coming off the bench for 14 minutes with 3 pts (1-2 FG, 1-2 FT), 1 reb, 1 TO, 1 stl and 2 PF as the Knicks lose to fall to 5-11.

The sad thing is, the Knicks' 5-11 record leaves them only 2 games out of 1st place in the Craplantic Division.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Thank goodness the Bulls don't need a center.


----------



## bullsville

The truly hilarious thing is, the Knicks just traded away a first-round pick and paid out $80-$90 million in contracts for Jerome James and Eddy Curry, and they STILL need a center, apparently. And they also threw in a post player who is giving us almost identical production as what Eddy and Jerome are giving the Knicks COMBINED.

At least the Bulls are on a 46 win pace "without a center", the Knicks just got 2 centers- one an alleged All-Star- and they are on pace to win 29 games.

Thanks again, Isiah!!! Bulls fans love you!!!


----------



## kukoc4ever

40 wins, 44 wins, 46 wins, 50 wins.... does not really matter if you can't win in the playoffs.

We should have Deng healthy this year... and Curry is off the team... so we should be better in the post season this year.


----------



## truebluefan

kukoc4ever said:


> 40 wins, 44 wins, 46 wins, 50 wins.... does not really matter if you can't win in the playoffs.
> 
> We should have Deng healthy this year... and Curry is off the team... so we should be better in the post season this year.


That is true.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> 40 wins, 44 wins, 46 wins, 50 wins.... does not really matter if you can't win in the playoffs.


Very true.



> We should have Deng healthy this year... and Curry is off the team... so we should be better in the post season this year.


A healthy Deng will be huge, and having Sweets coming close to matching the numbers in the low post that Eddy gave us (as opposed to last postseason when we had to play Reiner and Funderburke) will be just as huge.

But this is my last comment on the Bulls' playoff chances in this thread, this is the Eddy Curry Thread and he isn't a Bull.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> But this is my last comment on the Bulls' playoff chances in this thread, this is the Eddy Curry Thread and he isn't a Bull.


But its a Bulls message board.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago

Glad to see Eddy Curry getting as many minutes as Jackie Butler


----------



## bullsville

Eddy's latest line last night vs Seattle

16 min
2-2 FG
2-8 FT
1 reb
0 ast
3 TO
1 stl
0 blk
5 PF
6 pts

Another stellar performance by the future All-Star.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

ShamBulls said:


> Intriguing slip of the tongue.....well, finger.


That reminds me: I had a date end very abruptly once, when...


Well, no need to go off topic with that story.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I haven't watched the Knicks since Eddy came back. What is going on that EC isn't scoring?


----------



## ace20004u

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I haven't watched the Knicks since Eddy came back. What is going on that EC isn't scoring?


EC isn't in game shape yet! He only got to scrimmage 3 weeks before the season started and recently he couldn't run on that calf muscle strain so Brown is, quite naturally, bringing him back slowly. Of course the people hoping and waiting for him to fail will draw the conclusion that he just isn't very good. Incidentally, weight wise, Eddy is in really good shape this season, he just needs to get his legs under him.


----------



## MikeDC

Hopefully we can all keep doing our part to change the tone of the board.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Curry has really stepped up his rebounding this season.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_Knicks.htm
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_ALL_REB.htm

Curry's rebound rate is currently 15.8, which would place him in the top 30 players in the NBA, ahead of Yao, Brand and KG.


----------



## GB

>> If Brown sticks to form, Channing Frye and Eddy Curry will start together for the first time when the Knicks play the Phoenix Suns. Regardless of the outcome, it could be a historic moment in the evolution of the new-millennium Knicks.

Frye is the sleek, jump-shooting power forward, and Curry the brawny low-post scorer. Both are 22, teeming with potential and under contract for a few years. Each has All-Star potential, and if they both reach it, the Curry-Frye tandem should be one of the top center-power forward combinations in the league for years to come.

Injuries and Brown's incessant tinkering have kept Curry and Frye apart through the first 18 games. That should change Friday. Brown has been starting players in games in their hometowns, and Frye has lived most of his life here. Curry, back in the lineup after a five-game injury absence, had his best game as a Knick on Wednesday, collecting 24 points and 11 rebounds in an 84-79 loss to the Los Angeles Clippers.

Brown has a tendency to change his mind several times each day, but he sounds ready to give the Curry-Frye pairing a test run.

"I think more and more you're going to see those two on the court together more and more," Brown said Thursday, after a practice at Arizona State.
--
...Eddy Curry missed 7 of 13 free throws against the Clippers, sinking his foul-shooting percentage to .573. "It's definitely not mechanics. I can make free throws all day in practice," said Curry, indicating that the problem was mental.
<<

nytimes.com


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=228042

Always nice to get some fresh perspective...


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

We really did. I believe Curry is/was one of those "danger players" that tend to demand huge contracts despite the fact that they don't deserve them. He was convinced, probably rightfully so, that he was going to get big money from someplace or another. So even with medical questions aside, Pax was headed towards trouble with Curry. He was either going to have to pay him near-max money and saddle the team with a bad contract or watch him take the QO and leave for nothing.

The fact that Paxson managed to get the 1st-round pick for him was excellent, not to mention the other acquisitions. The short term got hurt a little bit, but the long-term outlook on the deal looks great.

Curry may still prove me wrong someday, but that's looking increasingly unlikely...


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

Yet our team is much worse than last season. The leading excuse for the losing is "lack of size."

I wonder how many Bulls games the members of the Nets board tune in to?

Back to the lottery! Familiar territory. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yet our team is much worse than last season. The leading excuse for the losing is "lack of size."
> 
> I wonder how many Bulls games the members of the Nets board tune in to?
> 
> Back to the lottery! Familiar territory. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


Seriously, dude. Don't you think its just a little too early to declare a 12-15 team lottery bound at this stage of the season? 

Though the 4 game skid is discouraging, the Bulls are still only .5 games out of the 8th seed right now. Lets try to keep it in perspective until we get a little further down the road.

Almost every single person on this board (not to mention the GM of the team) thought that the Curry trade would lead to a short term step back. I don't know why its such huge news now that the Bulls may have, in fact, taken a step back (though I'm personally not prepared to concede that yet).


----------



## bullsville

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

The sad thing is, we'd probably be 17-10 if we still had Curry- 17-0 with him and 0-10 in all the games he has already missed due to injury. After all, he's on his way to the All-Star game according to 42% of the voters on ESPN.com and that's what is important, because I'm sure all of those people watched each and every Bulls game last season.

At least 12-15 is better than the 10-17 we were after 27 games last season.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> We really did. I believe Curry is/was one of those "danger players" that tend to demand huge contracts despite the fact that they don't deserve them. He was convinced, probably rightfully so, that he was going to get big money from someplace or another. So even with medical questions aside, Pax was headed towards trouble with Curry. He was either going to have to pay him near-max money and saddle the team with a bad contract or watch him take the QO and leave for nothing.
> 
> The fact that Paxson managed to get the 1st-round pick for him was excellent, not to mention the other acquisitions. The short term got hurt a little bit, but the long-term outlook on the deal looks great.
> 
> Curry may still prove me wrong someday, but that's looking increasingly unlikely...





kukoc4ever said:


> Yet our team is much worse than last season. The leading excuse for the losing is "lack of size."
> 
> I wonder how many Bulls games the members of the Nets board tune in to?
> 
> Back to the lottery! Familiar territory. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


If it is indeed true that Eddy was/is one of those "danger players" then the fact that we did not commit to a long term, major contract for him is a reason to praise Pax, not to damn him. It would be best if he had been able to immediately replace him with an effective big, but a short term setback, while short term frustrating, is an overall better move than committing to six years for a player you aren't sure about, healthwise, skills-wise -- heartwise (from a health and skills standpoint).

And again, while we are not as strong as we were last year, the early returns are indicating that Curry was not worth a major, long term commitment. 

And here is the real rub -- IF we had re-signed Eddy, and the Bulls were still no better off than they are now, or if they were only slightly better than we are now (and I have no reason to believe we would be any more than slightly better, if that) than we would STILL be hearing the Meet the Same Boss cries, only it would be condemning Pax for not having moved that Curry guy when he had the chance.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> And again, while we are not as strong as we were last year, the early returns are indicating that Curry was not worth a major, long term commitment.


If you subscribe (as I do) to the theory that a bird in hand beats two in the bush, I would say it's not unreasonable to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion. And it seems almost impossible to me to argue that a long-term investment in Curry would have been more risky than the one we made in Chandler.

Curry's struggles in NY have done absolutely nothing to convince me that he didn't have a lot to do with the team's success last season. He provided us with several skills that are exceptionally difficult to replace, even with two lottery picks and oodles of cap space.

12-15 and a half game out of the playoffs isn't cause for alarm in and of itself. But as I've been saying for a while now, we're actually lucky to be 12-15, considering our point differential. And we're not competitive with *good* teams -- 1-8 vs. Sagarin's top 10 and a dismal 3-11 vs. his top 16. 

I'm not saying Curry's absence has everything to do with what's becoming a pretty dramatic drop-off -- we lost AD's 7 and 6 and THE HAWK'S intangibles and Skiles/Chandler/Gordon are having off years so far. But I think it's pretty clear that the short-term setback has been worse than anyone would have guessed/feared. It's tougher to gauge what'll happen in the longer term, but my guess is that it's not going to be as easy to discretely replace Curry as many had assumed.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> Curry's struggles in NY have done absolutely nothing to convince me that he didn't have a lot to do with the team's success last season. He provided us with several skills that are exceptionally difficult to replace, even with two lottery picks and oodles of cap space.
> 
> 12-15 and a half game out of the playoffs isn't cause for alarm in and of itself. But as I've been saying for a while now, we're actually lucky to be 12-15, considering our point differential. And we're not competitive with *good* teams -- 1-8 vs. Sagarin's top 10 and a dismal 3-11 vs. his top 16.
> 
> I'm not saying Curry's absence has everything to do with what's becoming a pretty dramatic drop-off -- we lost AD's 7 and 6 and THE HAWK'S intangibles and Skiles/Chandler/Gordon are having off years so far. But I think it's pretty clear that the short-term setback has been worse than anyone would have guessed/feared. It's tougher to gauge what'll happen in the longer term, but my guess is that it's not going to be as easy to discretely replace Curry as many had assumed.


Eddy WAS a big part of our success last year. When circumstances were exactly right, he was capable of dropping a lot of points very quickly -- usually in the first quarter, which gave us a nice cushion for the rest of the game. And even when he wasn't dropping those points, he was a disruptive presence, since teams had to worry about him. He was also a good man defender. We sure could have used him against Big Z.

But bird in hand is one thing, a $60M investment in a bird with such major flaws -- rebounding, passing, shooting, help defense, basketball IQ -- where that investment effectively ties our other hand behind our back for many future moves, is another -- he helped our team, but really not enough to warrant that kind of major, long term commitment. Was Tyson worth franchise type money? Maybe, maybe not. Another question for another thread.

Until then, we wait to see what we come up with for those 2 in the bush. Here's hoping its something good.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

Oh good, we really needed another thread like this. It's certain to bring out fresh perspective.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*


----------



## NetIncome

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yet our team is much worse than last season. The leading excuse for the losing is "lack of size."
> 
> I wonder how many Bulls games the members of the Nets board tune in to?
> 
> Back to the lottery! Familiar territory. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


Better than having Curry on your team, overpaid or dead.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



NetIncome said:


> Better than having Curry on your team, overpaid or dead.


The odds of him dropping dead from a heart condition are seemingly very, very low, since several doctors have examined him and cleared him.

If Curry played for the Bulls like he did last season, he would not be overpaid.


----------



## DareToBeYinka

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

Guys, a top 3 pick will make you forget all about a one-dimensional out of shape, overhyped player. I watch him on the Knicks on occassion, and so far he has been exactly when I expected - a low post threat woefully inadequate in all other areas of the game to justify his contract.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> The odds of him dropping dead from a heart condition are seemingly very, very low, since several doctors have examined him and cleared him.
> 
> If Curry played for the Bulls like he did last season, he would not be overpaid.


IF he did what he did well last year for the Bulls this year, AND starting improving on his major skills deficiencies for the Bulls this year, he would indeed, not have been overpaid.

However, I have no reason to expect he would be playing better for us this year than he is playing for the Knicks this year. And if he was playing for us this year the way he has played for the Knicks, then he would be overpaid.

And the same people who are calling for Pax's head now would be calling for his head still.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> IF he did what he did well last year for the Bulls this year, AND starting improving on his major skills deficiencies for the Bulls this year, he would indeed, not have been overpaid.
> 
> However, I have no reason to expect he would be playing better for us this year than he is playing for the Knicks this year. And if he was playing for us this year the way he has played for the Knicks, then he would be overpaid.
> 
> And the same people who are calling for Pax's head now would be calling for his head still.
> 
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Injuries aside, if Curry played for the Bulls this season like he was playing for the Knicks, it would have likely been an improvement. His rebound rate is up, the Knicks defense was not awful at all and his PER is an above average 16.9. He's been effective when in there for the Knicks.

We're going to have to burn a large chunk of Cap Space/lotto picks to make up for his loss. Then we'll most likely have to play the development game again for a few years, since there are not many good FA big men.

As for Paxson… how many years do you get to collect paychecks while not accomplishing much before its time to go? I guess a GM always gets two coaches… and the blame is starting to shift Skiles’ way so it seems like he’s safe.

If the Bulls were playing like they were the last 3/4 of the season last year... winning lots of games even against the good teams... I don't think there would be many complaints. Most were prepared to leave the FIRE PAX club if he resigned the towers, Du and Skiles if I remember correctly.

Oh well. Back to the drawing board.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> As for Paxson… how many years do you get to collect paychecks while not accomplishing much before its time to go?


To go from a team with the worst stretch of basement seasons to a serious contender? Ohh, I don't know...more than 2 1/2 years, I suppose. But I'm only guessing. What's your estimate for a reasonable amount of time before the headhunters start howling?


----------



## truebluefan

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

Eddy would not have helped us this year. Our record would be worse than it is now. Why? Eddy missed 10 games. You scratch any productivity Sweetney gave us and you more than likely have 10 losses. 

Eddy was not in shape. He would not have been in shape with us and animosity over the negotiations could have surfaced and eddy could have played even worse than he is now! (Not that he is playing bad now. NY is not Paxson and the Bulls)

I think we did well in the trade but not short term.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



DareToBeYinka said:


> Guys, a top 3 pick will make you forget all about a one-dimensional out of shape, overhyped player. I watch him on the Knicks on occassion, and so far he has been exactly when I expected - a low post threat woefully inadequate in all other areas of the game to justify his contract.


If the top 3 pick turns out to be a player similar to Dwight Howard, Yao, Gasol, Brand, Duncan, Webber, etc., then yeah, I agree we'll forget all about Curry.

If the top 3 pick turns out to be a player similar to Darko, Kwame Brown, Stromile Swift, Michael Olowokandi, Keith Van Horn, Joe Smith, Shawn Bradley, etc., then no, I won't be forgetting about Curry.

The top of the draft is surprisingly hit-or-miss when it comes to bigs, and we are in a position where we almost have to take the best BIG available, not just the best player available. 

Trust me, there were plenty of times throughout Eddy's career where I would have been thrilled to trade him for what looks to be a top-5 2006 draft pick. But that was before last season and what we've seen so far this season without him.


----------



## Sham

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

Since within about three posts this thread had gone the same way as the Eddy Curry update thread, why not merge it with the Eddy Curry update thread?


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> To go from a team with the worst stretch of basement seasons to a serious contender? Ohh, I don't know...more than 2 1/2 years, I suppose. But I'm only guessing. What's your estimate for a reasonable amount of time before the headhunters start howling?


I disagree with the overall jib over talent vision, so I'm howling now.

Most people seem to like what he's doing though and where the team is going... so I don't think there will be much howling anytime soon. The people I hear on the radio complain about Chandler a lot and say "Curry's not doing much in NYC."


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



> We're going to have to burn a large chunk of Cap Space/lotto picks to make up for his loss. Then we'll most likely have to play the development game again for a few years, since there are not many good FA big men.


A large chunk of that capspace and the superior lottery pick were acquired *by* trading Curry. And we were playing the "development game" with Curry. Just like the Knicks are now. 



> As for Paxson… how many years do you get to collect paychecks while not accomplishing much before its time to go? I guess a GM always gets two coaches… and the blame is starting to shift Skiles’ way so it seems like he’s safe.


Yes, he is safe. As for how many years, Krause got six consecutive years of abject failure. I'd say that Paxson is pretty safe considering he has significantly improved the team from what he was handed and obtained significant flexibility to improve the team yet again going forward.

Paxson is secure, to say the least.



> If the Bulls were playing like they were the last 3/4 of the season last year... winning lots of games even against the good teams... I don't think there would be many complaints.


You complained. You complained about Paxson all year last season. 



> Oh well. Back to the drawing board.


We get it, K4E. 27 games into the season and its a wash. I understand your position. 

Do you really need to beat us over the head with it in virtually every thread? I mean, there is a thread limited to the team's response to a players-only-practice and your last post in it is about how the team isn't relevant any more. 

Lets at least try to maintain some topic segragation if we can. I think we can all agree that it makes the board a better place when we do.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Ron Cey said:


> A large chunk of that capspace and the superior lottery pick were acquired *by* trading Curry. And we were playing the "development game" with Curry. Just like the Knicks are now.


Curry was already effective for us last season. There was still upside for him to be an elite player, but he already was an above average player, especially for a big man.

We'll be lucky to turn Cap Space/lotto pick into an Eddy Curry. If we're looking for a big man, Paxson is going to have to take a gamble, IMO, which he's loathe to do. Not many starting caliber 7 footers coming out the NCAA final four with proven track records. Plenty of undersized guards.




> Yes, he is safe. As for how many years, Krause got six consecutive years of abject failure. I'd say that Paxson is pretty safe considering he has significantly improved the team from what he was handed and obtained significant flexibility to improve the team yet again going forward.
> 
> Paxson is secure, to say the least.


And Krause built up the necessary capital by winning 6 titles.

Paxson has a losing record and has yet to win a playoff series.

He should have a shorter leash, IMO.


----------



## truebluefan

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

:sigh: The sky is not falling yet. 

Cavs had a 6 game losing streak earlier. We will regroup. No I am not saying we are as good as the cavs, just using their example to show that teams go through this. Look at LA. They stumbled out the gate. 

We had a 4 game win streak earlier, yet no one was ready to say the season was a success. Now we lose some games and all of sudden the season is over with.


----------



## BG7

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

Don't put too much stock into what the Nets fans are saying, yes Curry did poorly last night against them, but it must be taken into account that it was his first game back from injury. Once he gets the rust off, he'll be putting up those 20 point games again, just like before he got the knee injury in practice.


----------



## Kneepad

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

I can't believe there are still some here who think the Bulls are worse off after the Curry trade. I know it's hard for some fans to think beyond the current season, but we're talking two probable top 10-- possible top 5-- picks here (in addition to Sweetney). Is Eddy Curry signed to a long term, $60M contract really worth a handful more wins this season?

The Bulls have unbelievable flexibility this coming off-season. I think it's safe to say the moves Paxson makes this coming summer-- draft picks, trades, and free agent signings-- will be critical in determining the fate of the franchise for the next several seasons.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Ron Cey said:


> We get it, K4E. 27 games into the season and its a wash. I understand your position.


BTW, this is not my position. If it was, I'd say that.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree with the overall jib over talent vision, so I'm howling now.


Somewhere along the line, this argument got skewed -- jib and talent are not mutually exclusive concepts. Consider San Antonio and Detroit. I think they have a high level of talent and excellent overall readings on the jib-o-meter (occasional temper flashes from Sheed aside).

And while I understand the gist of the argument -- we've dumped some players who were, at times, exciting to watch, and occasionally helped us win a game -- the players we've given up were dumped only partly due to "character" jib issues (except for Ron Ron). Instead, they were dumped primarily (IMO) because of "talent" jib issues -- they were one dimensional players who helped us in one way, but hurt us in other ways. Cases in point, Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford, who each played offense like a Harlem Globetrotter and defense like a Washington General.

There is this perception that we dropped allstar calibur players and did so because they weren't apple polishers, or throwbacks to the brush cut kids from Hoosiers. I think the central point of "jib" IS talent -- and skill. The concept is the sail has to fill at both ends of the floor.

Clearly, we do NOT have all the pieces in place. I understand that you disagree, but I still think the overall concept of what we are doing is sound.


----------



## Petey

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



sloth said:


> Don't put too much stock into what the Nets fans are saying, yes Curry did poorly last night against them, but it must be taken into account that it was his first game back from injury. Once he gets the rust off, he'll be putting up those 20 point games again, just like before he got the knee injury in practice.


With Curry this year, without Curry this year, the Knicks have been one of the 5 worst teams in the league. If the Knicks lose their pick this year... how much better will they be outside of a major deal, or a major FA willing to take the MLE or less to be a Knick? Similar spot the Bulls are in this year. Without getting a player to help, that swapping of the picks looks like it works out nicely too.

-Petey


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford,


What about Eddy and Donyell?

Also, the "exciting to watch" thing bothers me as well. Rose *was* the top EFF player on a NBA Finals team and a very good player on a successful NCAA team. Crawford was obviously brimming with potential.... you could see the makings of a very good player there. As it stands now, he's an effective NBA G (PER:16.4).

Yah, the Knicks are a sub-.500 team right now, but so are our jibby Bulls.

And, the Knicks are sitting on Frye and Curry. 

Paxson does have tons of flexibility. I hope he uses it well, since this is it, IMO, this is what will shape this team going forward. History indicates he may wait until the last minute, befuddled with indecision, and end up making a move that does not make the team better.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Kneepad said:


> I can't believe there are still some here who think the Bulls are worse off after the Curry trade. I know it's hard for some fans to think beyond the current season, but we're talking two probable top 10-- possible top 5-- picks here (in addition to Sweetney). Is Eddy Curry signed to a long term, $60M contract really worth a handful more wins this season?
> 
> The Bulls have unbelievable flexibility this coming off-season. I think it's safe to say the moves Paxson makes this coming summer-- draft picks, trades, and free agent signings-- will be critical in determining the fate of the franchise for the next several seasons.


In other words, we're about to embark on yet another rebuilding plan. 

Let's just call it what it is.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Somewhere along the line, this argument got skewed -- jib and talent are not mutually exclusive concepts. Consider San Antonio and Detroit. I think they have a high level of talent and excellent overall readings on the jib-o-meter (occasional temper flashes from Sheed aside).


The argument isn't that skewed, because we don't actually make the best use of our jib.

Detroit took on a player who, at the time, was considered to be every bit as much of a basket case as guys like Rodman or Artest. He was uncoachable. He would destroy your team. Portland couldn't be happier to get rid of him.

Yet he turned out to be exactly the thing that pushed Detroit over the top, and he's responded positively to being welcomed by a character-emphasizing organization.

San Antonio has taken on any number of bad-jib guys -- Horry, Brent Barry, Nick Van Exel, Glenn Robinson, etc. Anything it takes to win -- check your past and your ego at the door, know your role, and get on board for what'll likely be a ride to the NBA finals.

The Bulls? We look down our noses at adding a guy like Sprewell. We banish Tim Thomas outright. We give the impression that winning comes second to jib, imo.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> What about Eddy and Donyell?


both had decent character jib -- does anyone question that?

Eddy has serious skill issues. We do miss his presence at the moment, but given his lack of development in his fundamental flaws, I can't disagree with the decision to not commit to him with a long term, major contract. As I said on another thread, we do miss the 15 1Q points he gave us, on the nights the wind was blowing the right way (he certainly didn't have those games every night). We also miss his disruptive presence -- the big body, the worry that maybe he _will_ drop one of those scoring bursts if not given special attention. But we've also covered Eddy's numerous holes in his game over and over in posts over the years. Plus, I think there are still questions about his health. Yes, I know he's been cleared. Its still a gamble. Overall, I don't think losing Eddy was a jib thing as the term has been come to be known on this board. We didn't just drop a bad egg for the sake of some principle about attitude. And as I say, I think the concept that we do that as a primary motivation in moving a player is more a fan invention than reality.

As to Yell, I think we let him go to make that trade package work. And I wish we hadn't let him go. I always liked the cut of his...

you know.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> In other words, we're about to embark on yet another rebuilding plan.
> 
> Let's just call it what it is.


I don't think getting rid of one player from a team's core constitutes rebuilding. Unless you believe said player is a franchise player.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Kneepad said:


> I can't believe there are still some here who think the Bulls are worse off after the Curry trade. I know it's hard for some fans to think beyond the current season, but we're talking two probable top 10-- possible top 5-- picks here (in addition to Sweetney). Is Eddy Curry signed to a long term, $60M contract really worth a handful more wins this season?


If we turn those picks into Hinrich and Gordon type players, than yah, I'd rather have Curry.

We've moved from relevance to lotto. Perhaps we'll squeak in to the #8 seed, but we'll still need the Knicks lotto pick to take us further.

Sorry if I'm being shortsighted... but I thought we had the makings of a very good team last season.

It know it was a lot more fun going to the games... what with all the cheering and fist pumping and playoffs games and all. 

Maybe we'll hit the lotto and be there again someday.


----------



## Kneepad

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Somewhere along the line, this argument got skewed -- jib and talent are not mutually exclusive concepts. Consider San Antonio and Detroit. I think they have a high level of talent and excellent overall readings on the jib-o-meter (occasional temper flashes from Sheed aside).
> 
> And while I understand the gist of the argument -- we've dumped some players who were, at times, exciting to watch, and occasionally helped us win a game -- the players we've given up were dumped only partly due to "character" jib issues (except for Ron Ron). Instead, they were dumped primarily (IMO) because of "talent" jib issues -- they were one dimensional players who helped us in one way, but hurt us in other ways. Cases in point, Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford, who each played offense like a Harlem Globetrotter and defense like a Washington General.
> 
> There is this perception that we dropped allstar calibur players and did so because they weren't apple polishers, or throwbacks to the brush cut kids from Hoosiers. I think the central point of "jib" IS talent -- and skill. The concept is the sail has to fill at both ends of the floor.
> 
> Clearly, we do NOT have all the pieces in place. I understand that you disagree, but I still think the overall concept of what we are doing is sound.


Very well said, Tom.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> The argument isn't that skewed, because we don't actually make the best use of our jib.
> 
> Detroit took on a player who, at the time, was considered to be every bit as much of a basket case as guys like Rodman or Artest. He was uncoachable. He would destroy your team. Portland couldn't be happier to get rid of him.
> 
> Yet he turned out to be exactly the thing that pushed Detroit over the top, and he's responded positively to being welcomed by a character-emphasizing organization.
> 
> San Antonio has taken on any number of bad-jib guys -- Horry, Brent Barry, Nick Van Exel, Glenn Robinson, etc. Anything it takes to win -- check your past and your ego at the door, know your role, and get on board for what'll likely be a ride to the NBA finals.
> 
> The Bulls? We look down our noses at adding a guy like Sprewell. We banish Tim Thomas outright. We give the impression that winning comes second to jib, imo.


There comes a time when the team is solid enough to absorb a bad jib guy and turn him into an asset -- witness Rodman in Chicago. There are times when such a project is a bad idea for a team. Witness Rodman in San Antonio. As you point out, San Antonio reached the point they could do that. The Rodman era was not that time.

Are the Bulls established enough to demand a leave your ego at the door approach to a player like TT? I don't know. Frankly, I would have liked to find out. 


I do agree that the handling of the Thomas affair was horrible.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> If we turn those picks into Hinrich and Gordon type players, than yah, I'd rather have Curry.
> 
> We've moved from relevance to lotto. Perhaps we'll squeak in to the #8 seed, but we'll still need the Knicks lotto pick to take us further.
> 
> Sorry if I'm being shortsighted... but I thought we had the makings of a very good team last season.
> 
> It know it was a lot more fun going to the games... what with all the cheering and fist pumping and playoffs games and all.
> 
> Maybe we'll hit the lotto and be there again someday.


Is Eddy *that* good?


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Babble-On said:


> Is Eddy *that* good?


We seemed like a better team with him on it than off it, wouldn't you say?

The only time I've seen this Bulls team look good post-MJ is when he's our starting center and effective. Last season and the end of 2002-2003. 

Ideology over victories.

That should be the new forum slogan.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> We seemed like a better team with him on it than off it, wouldn't you say?


_Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_?


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> _Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_?


What's the latin phrase for the "He's not helping the Knicks" argument?

What else changed? AD?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Mikedc said:


> Oh good, we really needed another thread like this. It's certain to bring out fresh perspective.


Really, my initial intention was for our posters to add to the discussion (and fresh perspectives) on the Nets thread and for the Nets posters to jump over here and add to the discussion.

You are right, as usual, I guess. I blew it again. Didn't work out the way I hoped, from a perspective situaion.

Same old, same old -- myself included.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Babble-On said:


> I don't think getting rid of one player from a team's core constitutes rebuilding. Unless you believe said player is a franchise player.


I don't think Eddy's a franchise player. I do think that we are going to be exceptionally hard-pressed to find a single player who can do what he did for us and who will mesh as well with the rest of our personnel.

I think that when you combine the fact that we have taken a pretty big step backward as a team with our desperate need for size, we are about to make some giant, sweeping moves that will result in what amounts to a rebuilding.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> What's the latin phrase for the "He's not helping the Knicks" argument?
> 
> What else changed? AD?



Second question: 

A lot of other things have changed. The players don't seem to be responding to Skiles as eagerly as last year. Teams have adjusted to Ben, and we haven't effectively counter adjusted. Chandler is learning a new position and is not progressing as quickly as we need him to. We have had more injuries and illnesses so far this year than last year. AND we lost Eddy Curry and AD, and we don't have enough big bodies.

first question:

Probably the same false cause and effect argument applies. Eddy Curry is not the sole blame for NY's woes. Eddy isn't dragging that team down. I don't think anyone would argue that getting rid of Eddy is the answer to the Knicks problems. They would be as bad, or worse without him. And for all of the above reasons, and probably others, we would be as bad, or only slighly better, with him.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> We seemed like a better team with him on it than off it, wouldn't you say?
> 
> The only time I've seen this Bulls team look good post-MJ is when he's our starting center and effective. Last season and the end of 2002-2003.
> 
> Ideology over victories.
> 
> That should be the new forum slogan.


We were better last season. Even when Eddy was out we were better.

Again, I must ask: How good do you think the guy is? You think we would've been contending for titles if we still had him, but now that he's gone, we're doomed to also ran status? Seems extreme. I think he brings value to the table, but to suggest the loss of him will result in such a drastic change in fortunes is to put him on a pedestal like he's a franchise player. 

Now, the assertion " We would've had a decent chance to make it to the second round this year with Eddy as opposed to most likely a first round exit now", I can accept and agree with that. But this whole back to the drawing board retoric is amazing for a guy who's maybe a little better than servicable.


----------



## Sham

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> In other words, we're about to embark on yet another rebuilding plan.
> 
> Let's just call it what it is.




Taking out one core player, replacing him with a near equal, and giving yourselves the assets to add 3 more core players, does not constitute rebuilding.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

More Nets based input on Eddy



> From Filip Bondy, Daily News, today:
> 
> In 15-plus minutes, Curry looked rusty as an old saltwater dock. He led with his elbows, which is not allowed. He got knocked off on pick and rolls. He was outfinessed often by Nenad Krstic.
> 
> This should be plenty depressing for Knick fans, who probably don't want to read that Krstic is less than eight months older than Curry, but looks like Tim Duncan by comparison.



Here is a link to the Daily News Article


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Babble-On said:


> We were better last season. Even when Eddy was out we were better.


True, but the effectiveness of the frantic play that led us to those improbable victories when Deng and Curry were out was not sustainable. The Wizards series showed that, IMO.




> Again, I must ask: How good do you think the guy is? You think we would've been contending for titles if we still had him, but now that he's gone, we're doomed to also ran status? Seems extreme. I think he brings value to the table, but to suggest the loss of him will result in such a drastic change in fortunes is to put him on a pedestal like he's a franchise player.


I think he's an above average NBA center. We are in desperate, desperate need of an above-average NBA center.



> Now, the assertion " We would've had a decent chance to make it to the second round this year with Eddy as opposed to most likely a first round exit now", I can accept and agree with that. But this whole back to the drawing board retoric is amazing for a guy who's maybe a little better than servicable.


Making the 2nd round this year would be progress in the right direction. What we've seen so far is the wrong direction, IMO. If we miss the playoffs and have to go back to developing big men or raw draft picks to get back there, then yah, its back to the drawing board.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ShamBulls said:


> Taking out one core player, replacing him with a near equal, and giving yourselves the assets to add 3 more core players, does not constitute rebuilding.


How is Sweetney a near equal, again? He's consistently outproduced by his counterpart, and by a wide margin.

http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHIH.HTM

The Bulls are on pace to win 36 games. A return to the lottery, a bunch of new faces coming in and old ones headed out (most likely), and a resetting of the clock (after all, we need time for the draft picks to grow and get to know one another) seems like a rebuild to me, especially coming off 47 wins and a team that was playing as if the sky was the limit.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> I don't think Eddy's a franchise player. I do think that we are going to be exceptionally hard-pressed to find a single player who can do what he did for us and who will mesh as well with the rest of our personnel.
> 
> I think that when you combine the fact that we have taken a pretty big step backward as a team with our desperate need for size, we are about to make some giant, sweeping moves that will result in what amounts to a rebuilding.


I do think it'll be hard to find a guy that will do exactly what Eddy does. There aren't a lot of guys out there that have Eddy's strange mix of strengths and weaknesses. At the same time, I also don't think its all that hard to imagine a combination of players we can aquire with the assets we got for Eddy that could result in something even better than what we had with him.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Babble-On said:


> I do think it'll be hard to find a guy that will do exactly what Eddy does. There aren't a lot of guys out there that have Eddy's strange mix of strengths and weaknesses. At the same time, I also don't think its all that hard to imagine a combination of players we can aquire with the assets we got for Eddy that could result in something even better than what we had with him.


But that's the rub -- finding the approximate production and getting it to work with the rest of your players. On paper, Songaila and Sweetney are doing a more-than-adequate job of replacing Curry's offense. But there's obviously more to it than that.

I'm not crazy -- if we get lucky with the lottery and it turns out that Aldridge or another guy is the second coming of Wilt Chamberlain, then we're all set, obviously. The problem I have is that we're back to relying on uncertainties and hoping that things pan out. First we need to end up in the appropriate draft slot to get the guy we want. Then we need to hope the guy we want is worth a damn. 

Personally, I've had enough of that the last seven years to last me a lifetime.


----------



## Sham

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> How is Sweetney a near equal, again? He's consistently outproduced by his counterpart, and by a wide margin.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHIH.HTM




I knew if I slipped that bit in, it'd be the first thing picked up on.


But I'll play.



Sweetney PER = 16.7
Curry PER = 17.9


Sweetney +/- : -4.7
Curry +/- : -6.0


Sweetney PPG: 11.4
Curry PPG: 12.6


Sweetney RPG: 6.2
Curry RPG: 5.9


Sweetney APG: 1.0
Curry APG: 0.2


Sweeteny BPG: 0.6
Curry BPG: 1.1


Sweetney StPG: 0.4
Curry StPG: 0.5



Sweetney FG%: 49%
Curry FG%: 53%


Sweetney TO-PG: 1.8
Curry TO-PG: 2.6


Sweetney fouls per game: 3.3
Curry fouls per game: 3.1





Equal? Pretty much. 

The single biggest difference is the thing you yourself mentioned, with that word "consistently". Sweetney has not missed a game, and Curry has missed a third of his teams.



I slipped the "near" tag in to try and prevent the debate that I got anyway.







> The Bulls are on pace to win 36 games. A return to the lottery, a bunch of new faces coming in and old ones headed out (most likely), and a resetting of the clock (after all, we need time for the draft picks to grow and get to know one another) seems like a rebuild to me, especially coming off 47 wins and a team that was playing as if the sky was the limit.




Right, and 6 days ago, we were on pace for 41 wins, and a playoff spot. Demonstrates the value of 4 game streaks early in the regular season.


The Bulls have not, and are not about to, go rebuilding. With the trade combined with the Songaila signing, we went sideways, whilst other Eastern Conference teams around us improved. That's why we've dropped a bit, as I think everyone with a sensible logical case predicted. 


The thing is, and this is something that you already know, is that now we have a far effing rosier future. You can look to the future without rebuilding, you know. We can look to the Knicks picks, and we can be happy we have them. But we do not rely upon them. We can look to the cap space, and be excited by the possibilities it brings. But we do not rely upon it.


We DO rely on some improvement of the team. But we also have a good many ways to go and get that. Which we did not have as near as much of as we do right now.


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> The Bulls? We look down our noses at adding a guy like Sprewell. We banish Tim Thomas outright. We give the impression that winning comes second to jib, imo.


Sprewell and Thomas today cannot be compared to Rasheed when acquired from Atlanta. Rasheed was at the time, and is now, an excellent basketball player being added to a team that was already a 55 win club.

Sprewell is in massive decline. No one has signed him. That says a lot more to me about talent than it does attitude. Tim Thomas just isn't very good. And he's certainly not anywhere even close to Rasheed-level good. 

Paxson has repeatedly, consistently, and even recently, noted this team's talent deficiency and his need to get more talent. That is a fact.

Jib and talent are only mutually exclusive concepts to disgruntled fans. They are not mutually exclusive concepts to Paxson, by his own statements. Paxson has tons of chips in the game, he's going to cash some of them in at some point. But I think its best - and I think based on many of your posts that you agree - to be patient and wait for that to happen. 

Some fans (not you Scott), in the understandable frustration of an embarrassing losing streak, are losing sight of the big picture. We all knew coming into this season that we are in the midst of an incomplete process.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> True, but that type of frantic play that propelled us to those improbable victories when Deng and Curry were out was not sustainable. The Wizards series showed that, IMO.


I'd say that same frantic play was what we used to win that entire season. Frantic effort was what made our undersized backcourt so effective defensively, and allowe us to overcome the fact that one of those guys was an inconsistent shooter and the other for the most part was a consistently horrible shooter. Frantic effort (and the big fourth quarters of Gordon) overcame the facts that we lacked a go to scorer. Frantic effort overcame the fact that our center was a poor rebounder. Frantic effort overcame the fact that we turned the ball over more than any team, and were overall a poor offensive team.

Somehow I don't think that having Eddy would make up for our guards' frequent inability to cut off penetration or Tyson not providing the same presence, or lapses in defensive rotations. 






> I think he's an above average NBA center. We are in desperate, desperate need of an above-average NBA center.


A guy who is simply above average(especially at the center spot, where being above average doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in this era) isn't difference between championship and lottery. And I'd say we are in desperate need of a consistent solid performance at any of the big man spots.





> Making this 2nd round this year would be progress in the right direction. What we've seen so far is the wrong direction, IMO. If we miss the playoffs and have to go back to developing big men or raw draft picks to get back there, then yah, its back to the drawing board.


If we have to result to go back to the drawing board, that would just go to show that last year's team really wasn't that good to begin with. I personally feel that signing a servicable center, adding an a good player in free agency or trade, plus a lotto pick or two will propel make an even better team next year than we were in 04-05.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Babble-On said:


> If we have to result to go back to the drawing board, that would just go to show that last year's team really wasn't that good to begin with. I personally feel that signing a servicable center, adding an a good player in free agency or trade, plus a lotto pick or two will propel make an even better team next year than we were in 04-05.


Meanwhile, we're clearly worse off than last season.

Let's hope we hit the lotto.

The Towers led us production wise last season. Now that one is gone and the other isn't very effective, you see what we have.

IMO, of course.

I'm hoping for another miracle turnaround. There are many more games ahead.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> But that's the rub -- finding the approximate production and getting it to work with the rest of your players. On paper, Songaila and Sweetney are doing a more-than-adequate job of replacing Curry's offense. But there's obviously more to it than that.
> 
> I'm not crazy -- if we get lucky with the lottery and it turns out that Aldridge or another guy is the second coming of Wilt Chamberlain, then we're all set, obviously. The problem I have is that we're back to relying on uncertainties and hoping that things pan out. First we need to end up in the appropriate draft slot to get the guy we want. Then we need to hope the guy we want is worth a damn.
> 
> Personally, I've had enough of that the last seven years to last me a lifetime.


Well, I can agree with a lot of this. Really, the best part is we are actually discussing Eddy in the only context that really matters. Forget jib. Forget DNA. 

Eddy is a player that brings incredible strengths -- huge mass, great low post game, above average man defender. He is also a player that brings incredibly frustrating weaknesses -- no offense outside of the low post, no passing skills, inability to work his way out of the double team, no help defense, below average rebounding skills for a 7 footer, chronic fould trouble, etc.

Now, I would contend that Eddy's presence could not carry us much further than it did, unless he addressed his weaknesses, post haste. Even last year, there were signs that teams were beginning to figure out how to limit the touches that would maximize his strengths and exlpoit his weaknesses. That trend has continued.

Therefore, there was a gamble either way. There was a gamble whether Eddy's improvement would continue, and his weaknesses addressed, and there is the gamble that we don't know what we are going to get with the picks, etc.

So far, I don't see much by way of improvement in Eddy's flaws, and the result of the trade from the Bulls perspective is still undetermined.

Frankly, I'm with you with this whole cycle is old, and 7 years is enough. The only question is what is/was the proper way to give us the best chance to get out of the cycle for good. 

A lot of things are going wrong this year, and I was hoping as much as everyone else that our momentum from late last season would continue.

I'm afraid, though, that this bump may be a rough one, and it may not be over real soon.

I'm still hoping this is a bump in an otherwise overall up cycle.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ShamBulls said:


> I knew if I slipped that bit in, it'd be the first thing picked up on.
> 
> 
> But I'll play.
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetney PER = 16.7
> Curry PER = 17.9
> 
> 
> Sweetney +/- : -4.7
> Curry +/- : -6.0
> 
> 
> Sweetney PPG: 11.4
> Curry PPG: 12.6
> 
> 
> Sweetney RPG: 6.2
> Curry RPG: 5.9
> 
> 
> Sweetney APG: 1.0
> Curry APG: 0.2
> 
> 
> Sweeteny BPG: 0.6
> Curry BPG: 1.1
> 
> 
> Sweetney StPG: 0.4
> Curry StPG: 0.5
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetney FG%: 49%
> Curry FG%: 53%
> 
> 
> Sweetney TO-PG: 1.8
> Curry TO-PG: 2.6
> 
> 
> Sweetney fouls per game: 3.3
> Curry fouls per game: 3.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal? Pretty much.
> 
> The single biggest difference is the thing you yourself mentioned, with that word "consistently". Sweetney has not missed a game, and Curry has missed a third of his teams.
> 
> 
> 
> I slipped the "near" tag in to try and prevent the debate that I got anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and 6 days ago, we were on pace for 41 wins, and a playoff spot. Demonstrates the value of 4 game streaks early in the regular season.
> 
> 
> The Bulls have not, and are not about to, go rebuilding. With the trade combined with the Songaila signing, we went sideways, whilst other Eastern Conference teams around us improved. That's why we've dropped a bit, as I think everyone with a sensible logical case predicted.
> 
> 
> The thing is, and this is something that you already know, is that now we have a far effing rosier future. You can look to the future without rebuilding, you know. We can look to the Knicks picks, and we can be happy we have them. But we do not rely upon them. We can look to the cap space, and be excited by the possibilities it brings. But we do not rely upon it.
> 
> 
> We DO rely on some improvement of the team. But we also have a good many ways to go and get that. Which we did not have as near as much of as we do right now.


re the "Sweets" / Curry comparison -- wouldn't it be much fairer and informative to compare Sweetney's current stats with Curry's from last year? 

"Sweets" is getting out-PER'd by his cover 20.0 (yikes) to 16.7. 82 games didn't track head-to-head PER last season, but I would be shocked if Eddy didn't comfortably outperform his counterpart last year.

Curry and "Sweets" do seem to be very similar players in terms of on-off numbers. But Sweetney is far less consistent on the offensive end, far less likely to have big games, and quite a bit more likely to give up a big game to the player he's covering. I don't think it's a wash at all.

As far as the team stuff goes, I guess I just thought more highly of last year's team than most. I think that that team, with a tweak here or there, could have repeated or even improved upon a 47-win season. We wouldn't have had the draft picks, and we wouldn't have had as much cap room with a resigned Chandler + Curry, but we would have had (I think) a good 2-3 year window to evaluate and see what we have in Deng and Gordon. If it didn't work out, we'd have a ton of young, marketable, quality players on reasonable deals that could traded for different players or for Cap Space or whatever.

I do realize that we have plenty of outs. The problem is, while Paxson has brought us a chance to be better than that 47-win team, he's also introduced a chance that we'll be worse than it, too. Note, though, that I am not a big believer in what Cap Space will bring us in the offseason, so to me, it pretty much comes down to the draft picks.


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> *The problem I have is that we're back to relying on uncertainties and hoping that things pan out.* First we need to end up in the appropriate draft slot to get the guy we want. Then we need to hope the guy we want is worth a damn.
> 
> Personally, I've had enough of that the last seven years to last me a lifetime.


And that is the key difference between me and some of you. Trade or no trade, I'd be "relying on uncertainties and hoping that things pan out" by operation of the fact that I'd be relying on Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler to pan out. I think we've already seen this season that neither is a "certainty".

Any team that is relying on either tower going forward is relying on an uncertainty. 

In fact, twisted though it may sound to many of you, I'm probably even MORE comfortable looking at draft picks and capspace than I would be looking at this season's versions of Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler on twin 6 year, $60 Million contracts.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> But that's the rub -- finding the approximate production and getting it to work with the rest of your players. On paper, Songaila and Sweetney are doing a more-than-adequate job of replacing Curry's offense. But there's obviously more to it than that.
> 
> I'm not crazy -- if we get lucky with the lottery and it turns out that Aldridge or another guy is the second coming of Wilt Chamberlain, then we're all set, obviously. The problem I have is that we're back to relying on uncertainties and hoping that things pan out. First we need to end up in the appropriate draft slot to get the guy we want. Then we need to hope the guy we want is worth a damn.
> 
> Personally, I've had enough of that the last seven years to last me a lifetime.


I don't think thats anymore too much more of an uncertain quantity to count on than giving Tyson 60 mil or giving Eddy the max type money he wanted from us. Unless you're of the belief that those guys proved worthy of that type of money already. Me, I think either way, getting where we wanna get was gonna be difficult thing to pull off. And that now we're a bit better off, as we have more opions, and more flexibilty to make big moves if this current core not good enough. As it was, with both Eddy and Tyson stagnating or worse, we'd be pretty much set in stone and hoping for tham to one day be worth it to go to the next level.


----------



## kukoc4ever

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

In the end, there is no way to prove the cause and effect of the Curry move. It seems pretty clear to me, and the conventional wisdom is that our team "lacks size," but fine.

If you enjoy watching this losing but jibby team and looking forward to Cap Space and draft picks, then more power to you.

For me, its a disappointment, given the success we had last season.

I’ve had my fill of Cap Space and draft picks.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Ron Cey said:


> And that is the key difference between me and some of you. Trade or no trade, I'd be "relying on uncertainties and hoping that things pan out" by operation of the fact that I'd be relying on Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler to pan out. I think we've already seen this season that neither is a "certainty".
> 
> Any team that is relying on either tower going forward is relying on an uncertainty.
> 
> In fact, twisted though it may sound to many of you, I'm probably even MORE comfortable looking at draft picks and capspace than I would be looking at this season's versions of Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler on twin 6 year, $60 Million contracts.


When Chandler and Curry were finally surrounded by a critical mass of real, live, actual NBA talent, and coached by a real, live, actual NBA coach, they were #1 and #2 in PER on a 47-win team that when totally healthy was a pretty damn good bet to beat any team, anywhere, any night. 

I have absolutely no doubt that if Curry and Deng were healthy, we would have easily beaten the Wiz and gone on to give the Heat all they wanted and then some. That's purely guesswork on my end, I realize.

6 year, 60 million contracts aren't an albatross when they're handed out to 22 year olds. It's the Allan Houston / Jalen Rose / Peja Stojakovic (his next deal) contracts that kill a team. Barring some unforeseen injury, there'll always be a market for twenty-something 7 footers who bring fairly rare talents to the table (Chandler's game-changing D, Curry's post O). 

As for the "uncertainty" issue, every team that doesn't have one of the core elite of the league -- a Shaq, a Duncan, a LeBron -- faces that (well, except the Pistons). I think that last year we were able to make a unique and successful marriage of "win now" with "keep future options open." The assets gained in the Curry trade do, in theory, give us better future options, though I can't state enough how leery I am of the draft route. But we also took a bigger hit in the "win now" department than Paxson imagined, I suspect.


----------



## BenGordonsDefense

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

Let me give you guys some perspective from a Pistons fan who has lived in Chicago for almost 20 years and watched way too much Bulls basketball for my liking hehe. Mind you this is unbiased since my hatred of the Bulls left with Jordan.

I was more afraid of your team last year after Curry went out than when he was playing as the Playoffs neared. Curry may have great low post moves moves, but that doesn't make up for the weak rebounding, inability to cover the pick n roll, poor weak side defense, questionable work ethic and the foot speed of a sloth. Everyone keeps concentrating on Curry, but from what I've seen what has hurt this team the most has been the following.

--Ben Gordon's major sophmore slump. The Bulls really depended on his amazing 4th quarters last year.

--Chandler's production issues this season.

--Nocioni or however you spell it isn't playing like the guy I saw last season.

Paxon was dealt a big pile of crap when he took over this team so give the man some time. I watched the Pistons suffer through crap seasons and mediocrity. A team loaded with bad contracts and bad players that had to be reworked which is what Joe Dumars did. I believe Paxon can fix the team with some time. I know it's tough to have patience, but you guys were in awful shape before Pax took over and then he was dealt the no win situation with Curry. Just hafta weather the crap all.


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> If you enjoy watching this losing but jibby team and looking forward to Cap Space and draft picks, then more power to you.


Glass half full: This was a "winning but jibby team" a mere 9 days ago and the effort and focus finally seemed to return last night. According to ScottMay's recent post about strength of schedule, we've played the 5th toughest schedule in the league to date.

A quick look at January and February show some tough games, but by and large a far easier schedule than what we had in November/December. Lets just take one of these next two games, for starters, and see what happens from there. 

Personally, I'm still convinced that this is a "barely make it in" playoff team. If it can accomplish that, then I will consider the season to be an unmitigated success. 

As for the "looking forward to capspace and draft picks" part of it, that fits me to a "T". I'm giddily looking forward to that part and I can't think of one good reason why I shouldn't be.


----------



## RoRo

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

eddy gets double teamed and he can draw fouls. we seriously miss those attributes. sweetney doesn't bring those things to the table, no one is afraid of sweetney beating them. teams can put 1 guy on him and live with that match up. it also means defenses can now focus on keeping hinrich and gordan in check.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



kukoc4ever said:


> In the end, there is no way to prove the cause and effect of the Curry move.


Agree.



> It seems pretty clear to me, and the conventional wisdom is that our team "lacks size," but fine.


FWIW, we do lack size, at present -- a problem, but not necessarily one solved by a half-decade $60M commitment to a partially talented, but seriously flawed player. Or maybe it was? We can go in circles forever. We need to get some bulk, somehow, pronto, if this season is going to mean anything.



> If you enjoy watching this losing but jibby team


I don't. Not really.



> and looking forward to Cap Space and draft picks, then more power to you.


We have problems. Some see the Eddy as hald full, some see him as half empty. The converse is true for C Space and draft picks. You say tomato...



> For me, its a disappointment, given the success we had last season.


Overall, agreed. But I see the disappointment as resulting froma whole variety of causes, many of which were predicted on this board, even during the heady run of success in the second half of last season.



> I’ve had my fill of Cap Space and draft picks.


Me too. But I've also had my fill of one dimensional players who help us on one end of the court and hurt us on the other. _C'est la vie._


In the end, we all want the Bulls to win.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> When Chandler and Curry were finally surrounded by a critical mass of real, live, actual NBA talent, and coached by a real, live, actual NBA coach, they were #1 and #2 in PER on a 47-win team that when totally healthy was a pretty damn good bet to beat any team, anywhere, any night.


I'll be honest and say that I don't know what PER is and that I've never cared, so I've never taken into account that type of thing in my evaluations of players. However, I don't think that stat would override my personal observations that Tyson, while definitely valuable still was very lacking offensively and still was far too prone to making silly fouls and mentally taking himself out of games or that Eddy still for the most part didn't rebound, didn't give as much to the team defense as he was capable, and that he was starting to get exposed as overrated offensively as more teams scouted out the fact that he really possessed one post move, and couldn't handle double teams. I enjoyed watching the Bulls last year, but I at the same time saw a lot of flaws in the team that to me showed that they were perhaps plying above their heads and were a couple big moves away.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> In other words, we're about to embark on yet another rebuilding plan.


What were you _expecting_ the Bulls to do this year, compete for the championship? I don't see how that would be a realistic scenario.

Well, the semantics of "rebuilding" have already been addressed, but yeah, obviously Pax's plan for the Bulls this year is to try to build assets. Currently that takes the form of developing the kids, accumulating draft picks, and freeing up cap space. Some of those are working out better than others at the moment, but what was Pax supposed to do with Curry? Sign him to $60 million? Imagine the gnashing of teeth and wailing that would have occurred if he'd done that. Like TomB said, Pax just can't win.



ScottMay said:


> [Last year, the team was] ...playing as if the sky was the limit.


I don't remember it that way. The consensus towards the end of the season was that they _might_ win a first-round series if they got a weak opponent. That team, for all its moxie, wasn't a serious contender. Don't you remember everyone saying that they were just going to get bounced by the Heat in the second round if they got past the Wizards?

I realize you're trying to say that this Bulls team is much worse than last year's, but I just don't believe it, and I don't think it has very much to do with Curry. I tend to think it's just the surprisingly average defense and the fact that the Bulls are haven't gotten much yet from from Chandler and Gordon (who seemed to have a 4th-quarter attack every fourth or fifth game last season).

Now, I don't blame Curry for New York's lousy record either, since I think that team is a mess from top to bottom. But I don't think he'd really have been helping us this season anyway, and I think Pax got a huge amount of stuff for a guy that was eventually going to put us in a lose-lose situation (sign a bloated, unwarranted contract or fly the coop for no returns).


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



Babble-On said:


> I'll be honest and say that I don't know what PER is and that I've never cared, so I've never taken into account that type of thing in my evaluations of players. However, I don't think that stat would override my personal observations that Tyson, while definitely valuable still was very lacking offensively and still was far too prone to making silly fouls and mentally taking himself out of games or that Eddy still for the most part didn't rebound, didn't give as much to the team defense as he was capable, and that he was starting to get exposed as overrated offensively as more teams scouted out the fact that he really possessed one post move, and couldn't handle double teams. I enjoyed watching the Bulls last year, but I at the same time saw a lot of flaws in the team that to me showed that they were perhaps plying above their heads and were a couple big moves away.


Here's a good primer on stats in general and a non-technical explanation of PER from its creator.

http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/stats101.html

http://www.alleyoop.com/prates.shtm

I don't think PER is the be-all, end-all. But it does back up my belief that Chandler and Curry were our night-in, night-out workhouses last year, along with Hinrich.

And I think some of your observations regarding Curry smack of revisionism. A quick glance at his game logs from his past two months as a Bull certainly don't show opposing coaches getting hip to his game and beginning to stifle him. 

I totally agree that the Bulls were probably a player or two away from being a title contender. I just happen to think that it might have been possible to have our cake and eat it too, and that sometimes when you intentionally take a step back, it's hard to get things moving forward again. Especially if the talent we bring in isn't ready to contribute from the get-go.


----------



## bullsville

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*

Wow, so people agree to stop posting in the "Eddy Curry Update" thread so it will fall off the front page and die, and yet here we are with another Eddy Curry thread.

Big surprise.

At least this one actually says "Eddy Curry" in the title, that way it didn't need to be hijacked.

Which it was, anyway- but obviously some posters can do that whenever they want without being called out in public for it. I need to get me some of those naked pictures of the site's administrators.


----------



## Sham

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> wouldn't it be much fairer and informative to compare Sweetney's current stats with Curry's from last year?



No?

The Curry of this year is the Curry we would have had, had he been resigned. 






> but we would have had (I think) a good 2-3 year window to evaluate and see what we have in Deng and Gordon. If it didn't work out, we'd have a ton of young, marketable, quality players on reasonable deals that could traded for different players or for Cap Space or whatever.




How is that scenario different to now?






> The problem is, while Paxson has brought us a chance to be better than that 47-win team, he's also introduced a chance that we'll be worse than it, too.



Accepted, but that's the risk. A calculated one at that. A short term drop off is not something anyone wants, or is exactly enamored with. But it is acceptable if it pays dividends. And by that, I do not mean win the lottery. The lottery isn't interesting or important. It's merely a bonus should it happen. If the moves Paxson made meant a small backwards step for one season, if it means the team is then able to take the next steps forward to surpass it's prevous best, that being the 47 wins and playoff first round.......cushty. And what I'm saying is that that, to me, is the way things will pan out.

And of course, if the sky does fall and it does go absolutely tits up for this season and for the future, we have the assets to start again, should we need to. Which it won't, but hey. 







> Note, though, that I am not a big believer in what Cap Space will bring us in the offseason, so to me, it pretty much comes down to the draft picks.



The draft being the strength of the GM that assembled the current team. Not too bad, really.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ShamBulls said:


> No?
> 
> The Curry of this year is the Curry we would have had, had he been resigned.


Yours is a disingenuous comparison, and I think you know that.



> How is that scenario different to now?


Exactly . . . it's not different at all, except we were a pretty good team then and we're not that now.



> The draft being the strength of the GM that assembled the current team. Not too bad, really.


Ben Gordon? 

Don't get me wrong, I like him a lot and the jury is most definitely still out, but that's a pretty big matzoh ball hanging out there for anyone to be proclaiming Paxson king of the draft. It's great that he snagged a guy at 34 who produces more than the guy drafted at 3, but not so great when you're the same GM who drafted at 3.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> And I think some of your observations regarding Curry smack of revisionism. A quick glance at his game logs from his past two months as a Bull certainly don't show opposing coaches getting hip to his game and beginning to stifle him.


First off thanks for the links.

Looking at Eddy's game logs fromlast year, I see a 4-11 performance against Houston, 4-12 against Cleveland, 5-13 against Charlotte, against 1-4 against Washington in February. March was a strong moth for him. But I still stand by my assertion. He's never looked as good offensively as he did at the end of 02-03, even when he's had a in the couple of big months he had had the following two seasons, though before he went down he looked close to eclipsing that time. But I don't think isolating a single month would give an accurate showing of where his game was. Plus, both my observations and the stats(72% of his points assisted I think?) show that the strong majority of Eddy's scoring was done not with his post game but from plays that utilized his abilty as a finisher(and I think he is one of the best handful of finishers in the league) as opposed to his abilty to create his own offense.


----------



## Sham

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



> Yours is a disingenuous comparison, and I think you know that.



They are both exaggerated "if's". Mine and yours. I guess we'll never know.





> Ben Gordon?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like him a lot and the jury is most definitely still out, but that's a pretty big matzoh ball hanging out there for anyone to be proclaiming Paxson king of the draft. It's great that he snagged a guy at 34 who produces more than the guy drafted at 3, but not so great when you're the same GM who drafted at 3.




I agree with the second part but won't agree with the first. I'm not in love with Ben Gordon, either. I trapsed around with "what's so special about Ben Gordon?" in my sig for a while. But I took it out, and for a reason. He's not special, and he's not worthy of a three pick. Not yet. He's also not the finished article. I am impressed with what he can do, and oft-frustrated at what he can't. But I like what I see more than what I saw. I always feared he was a one trick pony - a shooter with an impressive ability to get his shot off at any point, and with some big cajones. Yet now, I see more. I still don't particularly like the guy, but if you draft someone who wins an award in their first year, that's not a bad start. If Gordon never truly merits the 3 pick at the end of his career, then oh well. But Paxson, as a whole, is a good drafter.


We could always adopt the Hawks fans ideal from last year: "Since we got Childress at 6 who was worthy of 17, and Smith at 17 who was worthy of 6, we did OK". Don't actually agree with that stance, particularly with those examples, but it's a viewpoint, I suppose. :whoknows:


----------



## mizenkay

eddy's official update thread was getting very jealous of the new thread, in a huffy kind of way, so i merged them.



:biggrin:


credit to shambalamba for the suggestion.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: Nets Board thinks we "Made out like bandits" in the Curry trade*



ScottMay said:


> When Chandler and Curry were finally surrounded by a critical mass of real, live, actual NBA talent, and coached by a real, live, actual NBA coach, they were #1 and #2 in PER on a 47-win team that when totally healthy was a pretty damn good bet to beat any team, anywhere, any night.
> 
> I have absolutely no doubt that if Curry and Deng were healthy, we would have easily beaten the Wiz and gone on to give the Heat all they wanted and then some. That's purely guesswork on my end, I realize.
> 
> 6 year, 60 million contracts aren't an albatross when they're handed out to 22 year olds. It's the Allan Houston / Jalen Rose / Peja Stojakovic (his next deal) contracts that kill a team. Barring some unforeseen injury, there'll always be a market for twenty-something 7 footers who bring fairly rare talents to the table (Chandler's game-changing D, Curry's post O).
> 
> As for the "uncertainty" issue, every team that doesn't have one of the core elite of the league -- a Shaq, a Duncan, a LeBron -- faces that (well, except the Pistons). I think that last year we were able to make a unique and successful marriage of "win now" with "keep future options open." The assets gained in the Curry trade do, in theory, give us better future options, though I can't state enough how leery I am of the draft route. But we also took a bigger hit in the "win now" department than Paxson imagined, I suspect.


This is about what I think as well. 



kneepad said:


> I can't believe there are still some here who think the Bulls are worse off after the Curry trade. I know it's hard for some fans to think beyond the current season, but we're talking two probable top 10-- possible top 5-- picks here (in addition to Sweetney). Is Eddy Curry signed to a long term, $60M contract really worth a handful more wins this season?


Is there any certainty that those picks net us anything all that great?

The value of a draft pick is really quite hard to predict. But if we were going to do it with standard probabilities though it's far from a certainty we get a useful Curry replacement.

What's the probability the Knicks pick ends up being the top pick or close? Pretty good, but certainly not 100%. What's the probability there's a player there at the right position. What's the probability he can actually play? What's the probability we actually pick him? Some of those probabilities are high, some are quite a bit lower. The accurate probability for the Bulls is to multiply all of those together.

So lets try that. We'll say the probability the Knicks don't significantly improve is pretty high. Let's say 90%. I'll even say let's assume they have the worst record, which guarantees them a top 4 pick and gives them a 25% chance at the 1st pick.

Are there any players in this draft that appear to fit the needs we have both in the shorter and longer run? Aldridge sort of does. Besides him I'm not too confident in anyone. Splitter's threatened to come out for several years, and then everyone sees him and decides he needs another year. In any case, Aldridge looks like the can't miss guy, but he looks like a clear to be the #1 pick. In reality, maybe there's a 90% chance he is.

So as a rough guess, I'd figure we have .9*.9*.25 = 20.25% chance of getting him. That's 1 in 5, with 4 in 5 we don't.

Now obviously, we get something no matter what, but that something could be Marcus Fizer or Jay Williams or Jamal Crawford or even Ben Gordon (who's been good, but I think is heading toward disappointment) as much as it could be Luol Deng or an immediate Eddy Curry (even Eddy Curry wasn't an immediate Eddy Curry). Bottom line is that a top 10 or even top 5 pick could mean very little.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

ScottMay said:


> When Chandler and Curry were finally surrounded by a critical mass of real, live, actual NBA talent, and coached by a real, live, actual NBA coach, they were #1 and #2 in PER on a 47-win team that when totally healthy was a pretty damn good bet to beat any team, anywhere, any night.
> 
> I have absolutely no doubt that if Curry and Deng were healthy, we would have easily beaten the Wiz and gone on to give the Heat all they wanted and then some. That's purely guesswork on my end, I realize.


I agree with this as well. We were on a tear, and it was a joy to behold.

This year, I am disappointed with what I see in the Bulls, and I am disappointed in what I see of Curry, and I'm not convinced that seeing the whole gang back together would have made a difference.


----------



## Vintage

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I agree with this as well. We were on a tear, and it was a joy to behold.
> 
> This year, I am disappointed with what I see in the Bulls, and I am disappointed in what I see of Curry, and I'm not convinced that seeing the whole gang back together would have made a difference.


Exactly.

Having Curry this season wouldn't necessarily transform us into a better team.

Whose to say we'd be better? 

But hey....keep this on the hush TB#1. We don't need this kind of logic circulating the forums. Because clearly, Eddy Curry was taking us to another title.


----------



## TheMo

As a Net fan and neutral observer I would like to say you guys made out like bandits. Curry for *Knicks * 2006 unprotected pick and 2007 swap option. In addition Tim thomas is basically going to be free cap space by next year and Sweetney is a decent role player. Good luck guys I am sure you will play out of this rough patch.

-TheMo

*btw sweet avatar vintage


----------



## SeaNet

TheMo said:


> As a Net fan and neutral observer I would like to say you guys made out like bandits. Curry for *Knicks * 2006 unprotected pick and 2007 swap option. In addition Tim thomas is basically going to be free cap space by next year and Sweetney is a decent role player. Good luck guys I am sure you will play out of this rough patch.
> 
> -TheMo
> 
> *btw sweet avatar vintage


Agreed. Curry has the low post tool set, but the directions must be written in Japanese because he can't figure out what to do w/ it for the life of him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Curry has 16 points and 6 rebounds at the end of the 1st half.

5-10FG, 6-7 FT, 6 rebounds, 15 minutes of play.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry has 16 points and 6 rebounds at the end of the 1st half.
> 
> 5-10FG, 6-7 FT, 6 rebounds, 15 minutes of play.


Nice numbers.

The AST/TO numbers are starting to get comical for Eddy though. I believe he's up to 47 turnovers on the season, with 4 dimes. There's no denying he can draw double teams consistently, but an AST/TO ratio of 1 to 12? Yikes.


----------



## bullsville

Usual strong D by Eddy as well, the immortal Tony Battie with 11 pts, 8 reb, 2 blk and a steal in 20 minutes.


----------



## jbulls

bullsville said:


> Usual strong D by Eddy as well, the immortal Tony Battie with 11 pts, 8 reb, 2 blk and a steal in 20 minutes.


Nearly as good as Primo Brezec's 15 and 8 through 14 minutes for the Bobcats.


----------



## Sham

jbulls said:


> Nice numbers.
> 
> The AST/TO numbers are starting to get comical for Eddy though. I believe he's up to 47 turnovers on the season, with 4 dimes. There's no denying he can draw double teams consistently, but an AST/TO ratio of 1 to 12? Yikes.



I think it's more impressive when you write it as 0.2/2.7. Not too good, really.


Tell you what, though. Since he joined the Knicks, he's improved as an offensive rebounder. Haven't seen enough to know exactly how or why, but he's there more often.


18/9 now.


----------



## bullsville

jbulls said:


> Nearly as good as Primo Brezec's 15 and 8 through 14 minutes for the Bobcats.


:topic:

I don't know what Primoz Brezec has to do with Eddy Curry, since Eddy and the Knicks are playing the Magic tonight, but whatever.


----------



## Sham

Curry now up to 28/9. He might get his career high here.


----------



## BG7

Eddy's the best player on the Knicks now, but he is just a contributor right now, not a guy that they can base their offense around. Why? He plays great defense, rebounds good, and scores good, but he isn't setting up the offense, they can't go into him and have him dribble some, and then draw a double team and pass out for the easy score for 2 reasons. 1. the knicks have awful outside shooters 2. Eddy brings the ball down to his knees causing turnovers. Between those 2, assists become seldom for Eddy. I don't think Eddy will ever be a star in the league until he can keep control of the ball under double and triple teams, he can be a damn good role player, but that is it until he learns how to pass out of double and triple teams better, when he turns it over while being double/triple teamed, he either brings it down to his knees, or he goes strong to pass it out (or go in for a score) and gets called for an offensive foul. The latter is something that players like Amare and Shaq don't have to deal with since the refs fold like a folding table to those guys, and let them get away with those calls. Eddy just doesn't have the quick thinking needed to make quick decisions to get out of the situations fast, it also doesn't help that he can't get away with things that Shaq and Amare get away with. But at the very least, Eddy is heading in the right direction, and has improved every year since being in the league.

btw, we are set for the #2 pick right now with the Knicks!!! Damn, their guards are awful! Rudy Gay!


----------



## jbulls

bullsville said:


> :topic:
> 
> I don't know what Primoz Brezec has to do with Eddy Curry, since Eddy and the Knicks are playing the Magic tonight, but whatever.


Comparing Curry's defensive performance vs. Battie to that of the Bulls' bigs vs. Brezec seems pretty relevant to me.

Back to your initial point though...how much have Battie and Curry even matched up tonight? Battie started, Eddy didn't. You don't have to like him, but give him his due - he's got 28 and 9 in 24 minutes.


----------



## Sham

Brown just inexplicably took Curry out with 6 minutes left for Jerome James. This after Curry carries them for 28 minutes.


:whoknows:


----------



## bullsville

jbulls said:


> Comparing Curry's defensive performance vs. Battie to that of the Bulls' bigs vs. Brezec seems pretty relevant to me.
> 
> Back to your initial point though...how much have Battie and Curry even matched up tonight? Battie started, Eddy didn't. You don't have to like him, but give him his due - he's got 28 and 9 in 24 minutes.


This is the "Eddy Curry Update" thread, and since Eddy isn't a Bull I don't think comparing his defense to that of the Bulls current big men is relevant to the thread in the least. 

If you think it is, I guess it's also relevant that Eddy's season total of 4 assists is right around the one-game season high for our big men, but that's really not relevant.

Battie played 20 minutes in the first half, Eddy 15 and James 9.

Assuming that James guarded Battie for his entire 9 minutes, Eddy had to guard him for 11 minutes at the very least.


----------



## jbulls

bullsville said:


> This is the "Eddy Curry Update" thread, and since Eddy isn't a Bull I don't think comparing his defense to that of the Bulls current big men is relevant to the thread in the least.
> 
> If you think it is, I guess it's also relevant that Eddy's season total of 4 assists is right around the one-game season high for our big men, but that's really not relevant.
> 
> Battie played 20 minutes in the first half, Eddy 15 and James 9.
> 
> Assuming that James guarded Battie for his entire 9 minutes, Eddy had to guard him for 11 minutes at the very least.


Okay. If that's your stance go back and erase all of your posts in this thread comparing Curry to Sweetney. The idea that an Eddy Curry update thread should be totally void of comparisons or references to his former team and it's players is idiotic. It would work out well for you though. You could bash him to your heart's content and not have to deal with the fact that our bigs aren't very good.

Also, I just posted in this thread about half an hour ago noting Curry's low assist total, so thanks for the heads up there. I'm interested in the positive and the negative aspects of Eddy's play this year, obviously you're far more concerned with the latter - concerned is being somewhat generous here, consumed might be the more apt word.


----------



## bullsville

Eddy had a very, very good game tonight offensively, no doubt about it.

I think the fact that despite his offensive heroics Brown pulled him down the stretch speaks volume about his lack of defense and defensive rebounding tonight, because I can't see why else Brown would take him out in that spot?


----------



## Sham

> I think the fact that despite his offensive heroics Brown pulled him down the stretch speaks volume about his lack of defense and defensive rebounding tonight, because I can't see why else Brown would take him out in that spot?




Apparently his ankle tweaked.


----------



## bullsville

ShamBulls said:


> Apparently his ankle tweaked.


OK, thanks.

Stupid me, I should have known that if it wasn't his lack of defense and defensive boards, it was an injury. Doh!


----------



## spongyfungy

I watched the knicks-magic game because a) I couldn't stand watching the bulls b) I was recording it.

Eddy was very good offensively but his defense was as poor as ever, forcing his teammates to cover up for his mistakes. The lane was wide open for his opponents.

However his offense was key to pacing the Knicks team. I'm not saying Curry's defense is why they lost. The fourth quarter was awful for them..like us tonight

Jamal, on the other hand, played pretty good defense.


----------



## ScottMay

spongyfungy said:


> I watched the knicks-magic game because a) I couldn't stand watching the bulls b) I was recording it.
> 
> Eddy was very good offensively but his defense was as poor as ever, forcing his teammates to cover up for his mistakes. The lane was wide open for his opponents.
> 
> However his offense was key to pacing the Knicks team. I'm not saying Curry's defense is why they lost. The fourth quarter was awful for them..like us tonight
> 
> Jamal, on the other hand, played pretty good defense.


Spongy, is it fair to say that a team could make very effective use of Curry's offense if they surrounded him with staunch defenders and made strong team defense a priority? 

Never mind -- don't answer that.

And guys, Bullsville's right. A Sweetney-Curry comparison is way out of place in this thread. Those belong in the Michael Sweetney Update thread, which for some reason hasn't gotten updated lately. 

Anyway, all you need to know is that tonight wasn't atypical: in an average game, Eddy Curry will outproduce his cover by a solid margin, and "Sweets's" cover will outproduce "Sweets."


----------



## spongyfungy

ScottMay said:


> Spongy, is it fair to say that a team could make very effective use of Curry's offense if they surrounded him with staunch defenders and made strong team defense a priority?
> 
> Never mind -- don't answer that.
> 
> And guys, Bullsville's right. A Sweetney-Curry comparison is way out of place in this thread. Those belong in the Michael Sweetney Update thread, which for some reason hasn't gotten updated lately.
> 
> Anyway, all you need to know is that tonight wasn't atypical: in an average game, Eddy Curry will outproduce his cover by a solid margin, and "Sweets's" cover will outproduce "Sweets."


 I was contemplating that as I was typing.

Eddy was explosive, active on both ends. Doesn't mean he played great defensively but he was trying. He was doing his best to get his team back into it. He had heart [no pun], something we lacked.


----------



## MikeDC

spongyfungy said:


> I was contemplating that as I was typing.
> 
> Eddy was explosive, active on both ends. Doesn't mean he played great defensively but he was trying. He was doing his best to get his team back into it. He had heart [no pun], something we lacked.


Well, one thing about Eddy is that as far as I can tell he was always a positive guy and a good locker room guy. His Bulls teammates clearly liked being around him a lot and that kind of good chee is something that'd be helpful. The current Bulls look like a bunch of morticians walking up to a cadaver when they take the court.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Let's be honest with ourselves.

Eddy and Jamal are crap.

Our great team would have no use for them.

How many years will it be until our starting center scores 29 points with 9 rebounds?

1? 2? 3? 

Vanilla Gorilla? Chris Wilcox? LOL.

Thank goodness Paxson got rid of this guy.

Our killer Bulls defense is much better off.


----------



## step

> How many years will it be until our starting center scores 29 points with 9 rebounds?


Wow, Curry had a good game, quick lets renege the trade and be done with it! Oh wait that won't happen, perhaps you could move on.


----------



## ace20004u

step said:


> Wow, Curry had a good game, quick lets renege the trade and be done with it! Oh wait that won't happen, perhaps you could move on.



Or he could call Paxson out for making a mistake, maybe we all should?


Eddy played very well last night, as did Crawford (another mistake?) Curry did have a lot of difficulty defending the pick and roll but I attribute that as much to his not being up to speed playing with the Knicks because of those nagging injuries as anything else. Also, as much as we questioned his toughness as a Bull, he played in obvious pain last night.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> Let's be honest with ourselves.
> 
> Eddy and Jamal are crap.
> 
> Our great team would have no use for them.
> 
> Thank goodness Paxson got rid of this guy.
> 
> Our killer Bulls defense is much better off.


You are finally starting to talk sense.


----------



## Sham

> Eddy played very well last night, as did Crawford (another mistake?)




:banghead:


And so we go on........


----------



## ace20004u

ShamBulls said:


> :banghead:
> 
> 
> And so we go on........



So if I read you right we should just never second guess any moves that the Bulls make...ever? Is that what your saying?


----------



## Sham

ace20004u said:


> So if I read you right we should just never second guess any moves that the Bulls make...ever? Is that what your saying?




You got all that from :banghead: ?


----------



## ace20004u

ShamBulls said:


> You got all that from :banghead: ?



yup. Is that a correct interpretation or am I missing something? Sometimes the queens English and our English are totally different ya know? :biggrin:


----------



## Sham

> yup. Is that a correct interpretation or am I missing something? Sometimes the queens English and our English are totally different ya know?




The :banghead: was in no way indicative of my opinion on this, or either, subject. It was my expression of mild annoyance at the whole "Jamal and Eddy played good games, dammit Pax" scenario we have after a good game, in conjunction with the "ROFL, Eddy's not playing, here comes the Knicks lottery pick!" mentality we have after a bad game.


Seems, I dunno, a trifle petty. Everyone has their opinion on the subject, but both sides only choose to express it when their side of the debate comes to the fore.


----------



## ace20004u

ShamBulls said:


> The :banghead: was in no way indicative of my opinion on this, or either, subject. It was my expression of mild annoyance at the whole "Jamal and Eddy played good games, dammit Pax" scenario we have after a good game, in conjunction with the "ROFL, Eddy's not playing, here comes the Knicks lottery pick!" mentality we have after a bad game.
> 
> 
> Seems, I dunno, a trifle petty. Everyone has their opinion on the subject, but both sides only choose to express it when their side of the debate comes to the fore.



Thats a valid point. Of course it is hard to call the trade much of a mistake when Curry sits on the bench with a calf or ankle injury a lot. And a lot of folks assume that because the Knicks are bad that we made a good trade and that isn't neccessarily so either. It makes judging the merits of this trade very difficult. Of course my opinion is well documented, I think following a good game or a bad game that the trades (yes both of them) were still foolish. Not that I don't like a lot of Pax's moves I just dislike those particular two. On the positive side, the wheels DO appear to be falling off in NY and perhaps ouor pick with the Knicks will be a very good one. Will that give us what we need? Perhaps. Will it give us a player that is ultimately better than Curry? I sort of doubt it but it is not inconcievable by any means. I tend to think that this trade will be a lot easier to judge in a couple of years from now than it is now. I do hope that what Pax ultimately gets back in this deal will make the loss of Curry and his eventual emergence elsewhere more palatable.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Curry's PER is now a very good 18.5.

Center type players that have better PERs than Curry at this point.

Tim Duncan
Marcus Camby
Z
Yao
Channing Frye
Okur
Sheed
Ben Wallace

That's it.


----------



## giusd

Come I watched the game last night and curry was non-existent on the defensive end and orlando went through the knicks and thier low post defensive like butter. And now he is out again. I like EC and still wish he was here but 1/3 of the way into this season he is a FLOP.

david


----------



## Vintage

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry's PER is now a very good 18.5.
> 
> Center type players that have better PERs than Curry at this point.
> 
> Tim Duncan
> Marcus Camby
> Z
> Yao
> Channing Frye
> Okur
> Sheed
> Ben Wallace
> 
> That's it.



Huh. The Knicks must have one of the best frontcourts in the league then.

Combine that with Marbury and Crawford (whom many here are still fascinated with) AND QRich, you'd think they could muster a few more wins.

Especially with that frontcourt.....

Huh.

PER Ratings.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Vintage said:


> Combine that with Marbury and Crawford (whom many here are still fascinated with) AND QRich, you'd think they could muster a few more wins.


QRich has been abysmal.

Jamal and Marbury only slightly above average.

The rest of the team average to poor.

Curry out for several games with an injury.

Their best player is a rookie.

You're surprised they are not winning?


----------



## Vintage

kukoc4ever said:


> QRich has been abysmal.
> 
> Jamal and Marbury only slightly above average.
> 
> The rest of the team average to poor.
> 
> Curry out for several games with an injury.
> 
> Their best player is a rookie.
> 
> You're surprised they are not winning?



No. I am not surprised they are not winning.

I think you missed the point of my post.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Vintage said:


> No. I am not surprised they are not winning.
> 
> I think you missed the point of my post.


No, I don't think I did.

Looks like we both share the same lack of surprise.

PER is not the end all and be all, but your argument does nothing to invalidate it. 

Frye is playing well, yes? You would have to at least agree with this.

Curry played well last night, yes? Even though the Knicks lost. That's the type of game that raises a player's PER. If we're looking to assign blame for that loss, I think perhaps the direction of STARbury is the proper one to look towards.


----------



## Vintage

kukoc4ever said:


> No, I don't think I did.
> 
> Looks like we both share the same lack of surprise.
> 
> PER is not the end all and be all, but your argument does nothing to invalidate it.
> 
> Frye is playing well, yes? You would have to at least agree with this.
> 
> Curry played well last night, yes? Even though the Knicks lost. That's the type of game that raises a player's PER. If we're looking to assign blame for that loss, I think perhaps the direction of STARbury is the proper one to look towards.


I was just making sure you knew I wasn't at all surprised....I didn't want you to actually think I was actually surprised (which is what it sounded like to me.)

PER is not the end all. I can't really invalidate it because I really don't know what it measures and what is included in it. 

*Brain fart....Player Efficiency Rating....duh

Frye is playing extremely well; better than I thought he would do. Curry played well, as you said, *last night*. 

But he's been oft injured this season. So having him in Chicago, thus far, would likely have made little difference. And the fact is, when he does play, doesn't look/sound (sound in my case; I've watched only one NY game) like he has improved at all....and might be playing worse (like Chandler).


----------



## ace20004u

Vintage said:


> I was just making sure you knew I wasn't at all surprised....I didn't want you to actually think I was actually surprised (which is what it sounded like to me.)
> 
> PER is not the end all. I can't really invalidate it because I really don't know what it measures and what is included in it.
> 
> *Brain fart....Player Efficiency Rating....duh
> 
> Frye is playing extremely well; better than I thought he would do. Curry played well, as you said, *last night*.
> 
> But he's been oft injured this season. So having him in Chicago, thus far, would likely have made little difference. And the fact is, when he does play, doesn't look/sound (sound in my case; I've watched only one NY game) like he has improved at all....and might be playing worse (like Chandler).



I have seen Curry play in every NY game that he has played in this year and he definitley looks "sound". He has been attacking the basket like it stole something from his mother, jumping for rebounds, giving effort on defense. The change is marked to anyone who has watched much of him I think. BUt you are correct that he has struggled with injuries. It makes one wonder what he will do once he is completely healthy and in game shape.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

ace20004u said:


> I have seen Curry play in every NY game that he has played in this year and he definitley looks "sound". He has been attacking the basket like it stole something from his mother, jumping for rebounds, giving effort on defense. The change is marked to anyone who has watched much of him I think. BUt you are correct that he has struggled with injuries. It makes one wonder what he will do once he is completely healthy and in game shape.


I haven't seen EVERY Knicks game, but I've seen most, and I don't see that great a change. I see the same flashes of low post brilliance that thrilled us and the same lapses that caused us frustration -- except that he is indeed putting more effort into rebounding. But mostly its Eddy being Eddy, the way we always have known him.

At least that is what _I_ see watching the games. No mistake though -- he does still have enormous p...p...p...otential.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Its not just potential. He's in the top 50 in PER in the league.

He's in the top 40 in rebound rate.

He's in the top 30 in eFG.

That's not just potential.

That's actual production. Good production.

The possibility that there is still upside is even more promising.


----------



## ace20004u

kukoc4ever said:


> Its not just potential. He's in the top 50 in PER in the league.
> 
> He's in the top 40 in rebound rate.
> 
> He's in the top 30 in eFG.
> 
> That's not just potential.
> 
> That's actual production. Good production.
> 
> The possibility that there is still upside is even more promising.



So K4e have YOU noticed an improvement in his game or is it just crazy old Ace?


----------



## ScottMay

ace20004u said:


> So K4e have YOU noticed an improvement in his game or is it just crazy old Ace?


It's not just you; I've seen him a couple times this year and felt he was playing with extra gusto and attitude. He's definitely rebounding the ball better and he's even taking better care of the ball (I think the overwhelming majority of his TOs are on offensive fouls). 

But it still boils down to the fact that, despite his many flaws, there aren't a lot of guys with his combination of size, quickness, hands, and ability to finish around the basket. I mean, on the one hand, it's bad that he tries to force things when he's triple-teamed, but on the other, it's impressive that he can be triple-teamed and end up dunking the ball.


----------



## ace20004u

ScottMay said:


> It's not just you; I've seen him a couple times this year and felt he was playing with extra gusto and attitude. He's definitely rebounding the ball better and he's even taking better care of the ball (I think the overwhelming majority of his TOs are on offensive fouls).
> 
> But it still boils down to the fact that, despite his many flaws, there aren't a lot of guys with his combination of size, quickness, hands, and ability to finish around the basket. I mean, on the one hand, it's bad that he tries to force things when he's triple-teamed, but on the other, it's impressive that he can be triple-teamed and end up dunking the ball.



Ok I am glad to hear I am not the only one who has noticed a difference. I keep thinking, he is also doing it not in the best of condition AND with nagging injuries. I'd be curious to hear anyone else's insights who has seen Curry in more than a couple of games.


----------



## RoRo

i've seen about 8 games and his game has indeed matured. the posted observations are consistent with what i've seen. his biggest weakness is his conditioning, but considering his controversial summer i think he'll get stronger as the season goes on.

a couple things i'll add:
free throws are up to a shaq-like 7 attempts per game. that's pretty good considering eddy's at 25 mpg (last year he was at 5 fta's in his 30mins). it's a good indicator that he's finishing stronger and not settling for baby hook shots, etc.

regardless of his acutal production or performance eddy sees alot of double teams. that's such a great bonus to have. even if he's having an off night he'll still be a defensive concern just because of his size/athletic advantage as a center.


----------



## Sham

Eddy just had his fifth assist of the season in his latest start vs Bucks tonight. Go on that man.


----------



## jbulls

ShamBulls said:


> Eddy just had his fifth assist of the season in his latest start vs Bucks tonight. Go on that man.


I can finally end my hunger strike.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Curry is feasting on venison tonight.

mid-2nd
5 points, 5 boards, 2 blocks, 1 assist.


----------



## Sham

Yes those numbers are truly mesmeric.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Double - Double with two blocks from the center position?

I know our team could use it.

Or... we could just talk about the assist to turnover ratio for a center, now that the rebounds and defense are no longer glaring problems.

AD, the guy we really, really miss, had 7 points, 3 rebounds and 4 fouls in 14 minutes.


----------



## Sham

I said this......




> Eddy just had his fifth assist of the season in his latest start vs Bucks tonight. Go on that man.



And you turned it into this......




> Double - Double with two blocks from the center position?
> 
> I know our team could use it.
> 
> Or... we could just talk about the assist to turnover ratio for a center, now that the rebounds and defense are no longer glaring problems.
> 
> AD, the guy we really, really miss, had 7 points, 3 rebounds and 4 fouls in 14 minutes.





:whoknows:


I think this place has got you making knee jerk reactions, you know.


----------



## kukoc4ever

I was not directly responding to anyone.

More than one poster has decided to concentrate on Eddy's assists, now that the rebounding numbers are respectable.


----------



## spongyfungy

AD was making up for Eddy's poor defense all night. One such instance happened when Magloire was posting up on Eddy and he just blew by him. AD had to foul Magloire going for the easy layup. This was happening all night. 

When LB needed defense, he'd bring in Rose and take out Eddy. His offense didn't justify him staying. He didn't have a terrible game though. Jamal did. That was the worst I've seen Jamal in a while.


----------



## Sham

kukoc4ever said:


> I was not directly responding to anyone.
> 
> More than one poster has decided to concentrate on Eddy's assists, now that the rebounding numbers are respectable.




There is no "now than" involved.


----------



## futuristxen

spongyfungy said:


> AD was making up for Eddy's poor defense all night. One such instance happened when Magloire was posting up on Eddy and he just blew by him. AD had to foul Magloire going for the easy layup. This was happening all night.
> 
> When LB needed defense, he'd bring in Rose and take out Eddy. His offense didn't justify him staying. He didn't have a terrible game though. Jamal did. That was the worst I've seen Jamal in a while.


Yeah I felt bad for how bad Jamal was playing. It was embarrassing. Like every possible thing you could do wrong in front of Larry Brown he was doing. single handedly lost the game at the end with an amazing string of bad plays. And he knew it. Jamal doesn't respond well to adversity.


----------



## kukoc4ever

I didn't see the Knicks game, but it certainly does not seem like Jamaal and Bogut are who killed the Knicks tonight. 

Williams, Redd and Simmons seem like better suspects.

Maglorie did get to the line a lot though....


----------



## Sham

kukoc4ever said:


> it certainly does not seem like Jamaal and Bogut are who killed the Knicks tonight.



Well as long as that's OK, that's all that matters. :banana:


----------



## narek

kukoc4ever said:


> I didn't see the Knicks game, but it certainly does not seem like Jamaal and Bogut are who killed the Knicks tonight.
> 
> Williams, Redd and Simmons seem like better suspects.
> 
> Maglorie did get to the line a lot though....


The Bulls inside game doesn't dominate, strange is it seems. It's been Ford, Williams and Redd who've been the key to their games all year. And they're a totally different team with Williams at point instead of Ford.


----------



## RoRo

jamal took 2 really bad jump shots in a crucial stretch at the end of the game. one was an airball and on another he missed and ran for the rebound. he was last man back and should stayed on transition defense, the bucks got the board and a fast break layup. one mental breakdown, but it was at a terrible juncture.

marbury in the closing minutes over dribbled a bit and those times ended badly as well. both did so well until the last minutes of the game too.

oh yeah this thread is about ec. ec was really aggressive and seemed like he was getting a layup/dunk attempt or to the free throw line everytime he touched the ball. a (questionable) box out offensive foul put him in the bench too soon though. he defintely looked angry about getting hacked too. rebounding was ok and defense was ok - both teams didn't really focus on it tho so compared to everyone else is was par for the course.


----------



## Sham

Knicks, up at 12 at half vs the Suns, managed to piss it away in the fourth. Suns took the lead on an alleyoop, setting up the Knicks' final play. Marbury missed an easy one, but they called a loose ball foul ont he rebound, and Curry went to the line needing to hit them both to tie the game.

And he did.

:| Blimey. Atta boy.


----------



## Sham

Double OT now. Suns have been stuck with playing Pat Burke for the whole of OT since pretty much everyone else has fouled out.


----------



## ScottMay

I really, really wish Eddy was still on the Bulls.


----------



## Sham

Christ this game won't end. Triple OT now. Pat Burke taking Phoenix's last two shots.


----------



## Sham

This game is fun. Diaw, Thomas, Bell and Burke have fouled out. The Suns now only have 6 playable players: Nash, House, Jackson, Jones, Marion, and Dijon Thompson. Three of those 6 have 5 fouls. I want to see the Knicks win this, but at the free throw line. Purely because I have no idea what happens if they have only 4 left available.


----------



## El Chapu

ScottMay said:


> I really, really wish Eddy was still on the Bulls.


Given that he wanted out, Im happy he isnt here. However, I dont like seeing him playing for the Knicks.


----------



## Sham

Knicks go up 9 with a minute left. Should be it now.


How they can score 140 points and miss 22 free throws is beyon dme. Still, whatever it takes.


----------



## El Chapu

Is there a before/after this game for the Knicks? Could it turn their season around? IMO the answer is No, No and No. But you never know. 
Nice game for Curry, he produced when it counted the most.


----------



## ScottMay

El Chapu said:


> Is there a before/after this game for the Knicks? Could it turn their season around? IMO the answer is No, No and No. But you never know.


That's what I'm worried about. It doesn't seem likely -- after all, even though they got the W, all of their weaknesses were on full display -- but the body language and chemistry and all that looked very good for them tonight.

And it is bad news. I don't want to Sweetney-bash too much, but he's not even a reasonable facsimile of Eddy. So how this deal works out in the long-term depends solely on what we get out of this pick, and it would suck if the Knicks improved out of the top 2 or 3 spots.


----------



## BG7

Wow, good game for Eddy tonight, 20 pts and 15 rebs in 42 minutes, and only 2 turnovers....I told you guys Eddy was a better rebounder than what was being displayed.

Even if the Knicks move out of the lottery, we'll still have a top 3 pick.


----------



## narek

ShamBulls said:


> This game is fun. Diaw, Thomas, Bell and Burke have fouled out. The Suns now only have 6 playable players: Nash, House, Jackson, Jones, Marion, and Dijon Thompson. Three of those 6 have 5 fouls. I want to see the Knicks win this, but at the free throw line. Purely because I have no idea what happens if they have only 4 left available.


Was the officiating consistent? 

I know a lot of players have fouled out before for a team, just can't remember when anymore.


----------



## Sham

narek said:


> Was the officiating consistent?
> 
> I know a lot of players have fouled out before for a team, just can't remember when anymore.




Reiner, Amare, Grant and Barbosa didn't dress, so they have a roster of only 14, and only 10 dressed. Now as far as I know, if in the event someone picks up their 6th foul but there's no one to sub in, they stay in the game, and have to play on. I don't know how true that is but I'd bloody love to have found out.


----------



## BG7

ShamBulls said:


> Reiner, Amare, Grant and Barbosa didn't dress, so they have a roster of only 14, and only 10 dressed. Now as far as I know, if in the event someone picks up their 6th foul but there's no one to sub in, they stay in the game, and have to play on. I don't know how true that is but I'd bloody love to have found out.


I can confirm thats what it does in videogames. Many times it happens in videogames (mainly on my attempt to see what happens) and the guy stays in.

I'd also love to see what ACTUALLY happens in this case.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Damn. Eddy is coming into his own. 20 points and 15 boards in a big win.

Is it time to bury the tired old saw "Eddy doesn't rebound?" 


That Jamal feller also had an OK game... 29-7-7. OK.

sigh.


----------



## ScottMay

sloth said:


> I can confirm thats what it does in videogames. Many times it happens in videogames (mainly on my attempt to see what happens) and the guy stays in.
> 
> I'd also love to see what ACTUALLY happens in this case.


If you're down to five guys and one fouls out, you play four on five. I think if another guy fouls out beyond that, it may be a forfeit. I'm looking through the rulebook now for the relevant passage.


----------



## DaBullz

ScottMay said:


> If you're down to five guys and one fouls out, you play four on five. I think if another guy fouls out beyond that, it may be a forfeit. I'm looking through the rulebook now for the relevant passage.


http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_3.html?nav=ArticleList

RULE NO. 3-PLAYERS, SUBSTITUTES AND COACHES

*Section I-Team* 

a. Each team shall consist of five players. No team may be reduced to less than five players. If a player in the game receives his sixth personal foul and all substitutes have already been disqualified, said player shall remain in the game and shall be charged with a personal and team foul. A technical foul also shall be assessed against his team. All subsequent personal fouls, including offensive fouls, shall be treated similarly. All players who have six or more personal fouls and remain in the game shall be treated similarly. 

b. In the event that there are only five eligible players remaining and one of these players is injured and must leave the game or is ejected, he must be replaced by the last player who was disqualified by reason of receiving six personal fouls. Each subsequent requirement to replace an injured or ejected player will be treated in this inverse order. Any such re-entry into a game by a disqualified player shall be penalized by a technical foul. 

c. In the event that a player becomes ill and must leave the court while the ball is in play, the official will stop play immediately when his team gains new possession. The player shall be replaced and no technical foul will be assessed. The opposing team is also permitted to substitute one player.


----------



## ScottMay

I was incorrect -- they do the summer-league thing if you're down to five players and someone fouls out (technical foul on all PFs).

In fact, if you're down to five players, and one of the five is injured, you get to bring back a guy who had previously fouled out!

Bottom line, the NBA doesn't let you play without five players. I'm pretty sure the rules are different for HS/NCAA.

FYI, the entire NBA rulebook is online now. It's great reading -- here's the page that defines the rules for foul-outs.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_3.html?nav=ArticleList


----------



## ScottMay

DaBullz said:


> http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_3.html?nav=ArticleList
> 
> RULE NO. 3-PLAYERS, SUBSTITUTES AND COACHES
> 
> *Section I-Team*
> 
> a. Each team shall consist of five players. No team may be reduced to less than five players. If a player in the game receives his sixth personal foul and all substitutes have already been disqualified, said player shall remain in the game and shall be charged with a personal and team foul. A technical foul also shall be assessed against his team. All subsequent personal fouls, including offensive fouls, shall be treated similarly. All players who have six or more personal fouls and remain in the game shall be treated similarly.
> 
> b. In the event that there are only five eligible players remaining and one of these players is injured and must leave the game or is ejected, he must be replaced by the last player who was disqualified by reason of receiving six personal fouls. Each subsequent requirement to replace an injured or ejected player will be treated in this inverse order. Any such re-entry into a game by a disqualified player shall be penalized by a technical foul.
> 
> c. In the event that a player becomes ill and must leave the court while the ball is in play, the official will stop play immediately when his team gains new possession. The player shall be replaced and no technical foul will be assessed. The opposing team is also permitted to substitute one player.


DaBullz beat me to it.


----------



## DaBullz

ScottMay said:


> DaBullz beat me to it.


Hehe

I was pretty sure the rules were player stays in and each PF is a technical (no two technical foul-out rule).

But I had to check so I didn't look like a fool


----------



## BG7

That sucks, I'd love to see 4 on 5, or 3 on 5


----------



## Diable

I saw it in college when Rick Barnes was coaching Clemson.He went to Chapel Hill and at the end he ran out of players.They finished the game playing four on five.Not that big a deal considering they've never won in Chapel Hill in about fifty tries.


----------



## ghoti

Diable said:


> I saw it in college when Rick Barnes was coaching Clemson.He went to Chapel Hill and at the end he ran out of players.They finished the game playing four on five.Not that big a deal considering they've never won in Chapel Hill in about fifty tries.


I remember that very well! 

Man, Rick Barnes was kind of a jerk, but I loved how much he hated Dean Smith.

I'm sure you can admire that, too!:biggrin:

(BTW, Clemson is 0-51 all time in Chapel Hill. That's almost impossible to believe. I keep watching every year to see if this is _the one_, but it never is.)


----------



## NYKBaller

Who said Eddy Curry couldnt rebound?


----------



## Sham

NYKBaller said:


> Who said Eddy Curry couldnt rebound?



Everybody who ever watched the last 4 years.


God knows where it's come from, but milk it.


----------



## ghoti

kukoc4ever said:


> Damn. Eddy is coming into his own. 20 points and 15 boards in a big win.
> 
> Is it time to bury the tired old saw "Eddy doesn't rebound?"
> 
> 
> That Jamal feller also had an OK game... 29-7-7. OK.
> 
> sigh.


There were 3 OTs and the Knicks scored 140 points.

That tends to make people's stats look good!


----------



## kukoc4ever

ghoti said:


> There were 3 OTs and the Knicks scored 140 points.
> 
> That tends to make people's stats look good!


Eddy and Jamal didn't play well?


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Curry has improved his rebounding, although he is still pretty terrible at it. 6.4 rebounds per game on the season.


----------



## ghoti

kukoc4ever said:


> Eddy and Jamal didn't play well?


They won, so sure.

Judging their play by a game against the defensively deficient Suns where the Knicks score 140 points is not really that meaningful, though.


----------



## Diable

I don't care how many times you repeat the same thing.I just don't think that Eddy Curry is ever going to be worth the type of money he's being paid and it was a smart move to ship him to the Knicks.If you keep him and Chandler that means you are never going anywhere unless the two of them take you there.You would be shackled to them for the foreseeable future like having 2 seven foot tall albatrosses around your neck.

Obviously looking at it now you might think it would have been better to have dumped Chandler instead.IMO it would have been wiser to have dumped both of them and used the money to sign productive players to highly inflated contracts.The mistake wasn't getting rid of Curry it was not getting someone who could go down in the post for a couple of years and do the same mediocre job he was doing.


----------



## narek

http://www.basketball.com/nba/records/NBAteamRegPF.shtml - lists most personal fouls in a game, modern era and pre-modern era, by quarter, for one team, for both teams, etc. Also the least. In 1982, Dallas vs. Denver, there were 32 fouls called in a quarter.


----------



## ace20004u

Eddy Curry is making VERY reasonable money for a player of his size with his abilities. There is no two ways about it in my mind, Paxson's rigidity on the DNA test is gonna come back to bite us on this one. ANd I don't want to hear all of that, "Well Eddy didn't want to be a Bull" stuff because it is a bunch of bunk. Curry DID want to be a Bull he just didn't want to take Pax's little invasive test which, from the looks of things in NY, wasn't ultimately needed anyway.


----------



## Vintage

ace20004u said:


> Eddy Curry is making VERY reasonable money for a player of his size with his abilities. There is no two ways about it in my mind, Paxson's rigidity on the DNA test is gonna come back to bite us on this one. ANd I don't want to hear all of that, "Well Eddy didn't want to be a Bull" stuff because it is a bunch of bunk. Curry DID want to be a Bull he just didn't want to take Pax's little invasive test *which, from the looks of things in NY, wasn't ultimately needed anyway.*



Hindsight is 20/20.


Looking back on it, Dallas should have never drafted Andre Gurode, Jacob Rogers, Stephen Peterman, Kevin Burnett, and Al Johnson. Instead, we should have drafted LeCharles Bentley(Gurode), Odell Thurman (Burnett), Boldin (Johnson), Starks (Rogers), and Kaeding (Peterman).

Maybe I should apply to be the GM of the Dallas Cowboys. I mean, now, in hindsight, I am batting 1.000 in landing good draft picks. I would make a great GM.


----------



## truth

Sir Patchwork said:


> Curry has improved his rebounding, although he is still pretty terrible at it. 6.4 rebounds per game on the season.


While Currys boardwork leaves a bit to be desired,the guy would be scoring 20+ if the Knicks had one guard who could make a decent interior entry pass..


----------



## lgtwins

kukoc4ever said:


> Damn. Eddy is coming into his own. 20 points and 15 boards in a big win.
> 
> Is it time to bury the tired old saw "Eddy doesn't rebound?"
> 
> 
> That Jamal feller also had an OK game... 29-7-7. OK.
> 
> sigh.


You must be very hapy fella tonight. Your buddies won...


----------



## kukoc4ever

lgtwins said:


> You must be very hapy fella tonight. Your buddies won...


Outrage would be a better description.


----------



## Vintage

kukoc4ever said:


> Outrage would be a better description.



Huh. Then one would think you would stop posting updates on Eddy every 5 seconds or so. I mean, if you are indeed outraged, why would you continually want to fascinate yourself on it; when its only going to make you mad?

Makes no sense to me.....

I can understand being upset by a trade; I am upset with the way the Brand for Chandler trade has worked out.

But I don't see you posting continual "Elton Brand" updates. Why is that? 

It all revolves around two players for you; Crawford and Curry. I am curious as to the reasoning behind that. They are nowhere near the player Brand is.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Vintage said:


> It all revolves around two players for you; Crawford and Curry. I am curious as to the reasoning behind that. They are nowhere near the player Brand is.


The difference is that the two Paxson trades were clearly dumps, IMO Steaming dumps. 

The Brand trade was at least an attempt at making the team better, albeit flawed.

Maybe I'm way off on the intent of the Brand trade as well. I was not outraged at the Brand trade when it happened, although, obviously, in hindsight I wish we hadn't made it.

I think the Brand trade is important to remember as we go forward evaluating the current players on the roster. A lot of people are turning big time on Chandler and its even starting for Hinrich, at least on the radio this morning. Sometimes good players are on bad teams. I think if we had last year’s roster, we’d be just as good if not better, and we’d all be giddy with Chandler and Hinrich and Curry.

I honestly can't see why a Bulls fan would not be pissed off when they see Curry getting 20 and 15 when our team obviously needs a center... and given the success we had last year. Man, it could be a long time until we get back to the state where we were last year. Last year *seemed* like a starting point. Sigh.


----------



## lgtwins

kukoc4ever said:


> Outrage would be a better description.


Relax, K4E, the way Knicks were playing, you deserve an occasional relief like yesterday. So good for you that Knicks won or JC & Curry won. But Knick still suck (although Bulls are doing their best to catch up Knicks in Suckometer scale lately).

There is a good chance as of now, you will be doubly pissed off at the end of the season. Bulls and Knicks both missing the playoff.

Although that mean two rotary pick for us.

Anyway I am happy for you for one day while I am pissed that we lost.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

kukoc4ever said:


> I honestly can't see why a Bulls fan would not be pissed off when they see Curry getting 20 and 15 when our team obviously needs a center... and given the success we had last year. Man, it could be a long time until we get back to the state where we were last year. Last year *seemed* like a starting point. Sigh.


I'm pissed off in the sense that the Bulls need ANYONE who qualifies as a living, breathing widebody in the middle. Not so much that Curry specifically isn't here, but that NO ONE is here. Chandler hasn't adapted to being more of a center, plus he seems to have a new health ailment weekly (I'll grant that it's extremely ironic that Chandler has been just as fragile as Curry since the trade). The rest of our roster is 6'7" or less it seems like. They fight hard a lot of the time, but come up short a little too often, pun intended.

I was wrong when I thought our lack of size was only a minor impediment. I thought Chandler was up to the task of growing into the role of interior anchor. Heck, signing a serviceable stiff like DeClercq would be met with thunderous applause by me at this point. I just hope that Paxson uses the resources at his disposal to bring us more size, hopefully inseason, but no later than next summer.


----------



## kukoc4ever

lgtwins said:


> Relax, K4E, the way Knicks were playing, you deserve an occasional relief like yesterday. So good for you that Knicks won or JC & Curry won. But Knick still suck (although Bulls are doing their best to catch up Knicks in Suckometer scale lately).
> 
> There is a good chance as of now, you will be doubly pissed off at the end of the season. Bulls and Knicks both missing the playoff.
> 
> Although that mean two rotary pick for us.
> 
> Anyway I am happy for you for one day while I am pissed that we lost.


You really are something else hulkster. :biggrin: 

You must be happy as well. Curry is no longer a Bull.


----------



## lgtwins

kukoc4ever said:


> You really are something else hulkster. :biggrin:
> 
> You must be happy as well. Curry is no longer a Bull.


I don't have any intention to hijack this thread but to answer your post... 

No, I am not happy just because Curry ia not a Bull any more. In fact I wanted him to be a Bulls but we all know what happended this past summer. 

On the other hand, if you were refering JC then I am .... :biggrin: :biggrin:


----------



## lgtwins

ViciousFlogging said:


> I'm pissed off in the sense that the Bulls need ANYONE who qualifies as a living, breathing widebody in the middle. <b>Not so much that Curry specifically isn't here, but that NO ONE is here. </b> Chandler hasn't adapted to being more of a center, plus he seems to have a new health ailment weekly (I'll grant that it's extremely ironic that Chandler has been just as fragile as Curry since the trade). The rest of our roster is 6'7" or less it seems like. They fight hard a lot of the time, but come up short a little too often, pun intended.
> 
> I was wrong when I thought our lack of size was only a minor impediment. I thought Chandler was up to the task of growing into the role of interior anchor. Heck, signing a serviceable stiff like DeClercq would be met with thunderous applause by me at this point. I just hope that Paxson uses the resources at his disposal to bring us more size, hopefully inseason, but no later than next summer.


My sentiment exactly.


----------



## NYKBaller

Curry having a good game today


----------



## NYKBaller

22pts, 5rebs, 1blk


----------



## Sham

22 points, 5 rebounds, 1 block, 5 turnovers?


That's kinda how we remember him.


----------



## kukoc4ever

ShamBulls said:


> 22 points, 5 rebounds, 1 block, 5 turnovers?
> 
> 
> That's kinda how we remember him.


Yah. That 47 win season was pretty sweet.


----------



## BG7

I really am diggin the New York style of ball. They have a young team with Nate/Frye/Curry/James/Quentin/Jamal, and then Marbury isn't just some old hogey. The team has a passion, and plays with a swagger. They are basically saying, you can't stop us on offense, so the only way to win is to run with us. The team is reminiscent of the high scoring teams of yesteryears.


----------



## lgtwins

I never expected one day I would read "Playing with swagger" to describe 10-21 team. There is always the first time for anything. :biggrin:


----------



## ztect

sloth said:


> I really am diggin the New York style of ball. They have a young team with Nate/Frye/Curry/James/Quentin/Jamal, and then Marbury isn't just some old hogey. The team has a passion, and plays with a swagger. They are basically saying, you can't stop us on offense, so the only way to win is to run with us. The team is reminiscent of the high scoring teams of yesteryears.


Too bad no one on the team plays defense


----------



## BG7

ztect said:


> Too bad no one on the team plays defense


But they are *winning* now.


----------



## lgtwins

sloth said:


> But they are *winning* now.


Key word here is "THEY". Not so much there to be excited about with "THEY". 

Now if you are talking about "THEM" losing, then we are onto something. 

Actually I care only two things. Whether we win and whether they lose. Playoff and rotary pick.


----------



## truth

ztect said:


> Too bad no one on the team plays defense


Enter Theo Ratliff for AD...Larrys latest wish


----------



## truth

sloth said:


> But they are *winning* now.


Not only are they winning,they are putting up the points,something larry is not known for...Now,you may think thats a bad thing,but sooner or later.larry will get them to play D as that is something he is known for..

And you really cant expect 3 rookies to be lockdown defenders......


----------



## truebluefan

truth said:


> Not only are they winning,they are putting up the points,something larry is not known for...Now,you may think thats a bad thing,but sooner or later.larry will get them to play D as that is something he is known for..
> 
> And you really cant expect 3 rookies to be lockdown defenders......


Normally you are right with your last statement but remember we had 4 rookies last year that was part of our lockdown defense we played. 

Overall our defense has slipped. The consistancy is not there, yet.


----------



## BG7

truebluefan said:


> Normally you are right with your last statement but remember we had 4 rookies last year that was part of our lockdown defense we played.
> 
> Overall our defense has slipped. The consistancy is not there, yet.


Actually we had 3 (Deng, Duhon, and Nocioni).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

sloth said:


> Actually we had 3 (Deng, Duhon, and Nocioni).


Actually, we had 4.

Gordon, Deng, Duhon, and Nocioni


----------



## ace20004u

What is getting lost in all of this is that in spite of the recent high scoring totals the Knicks ARE playing much better defense this season and they have been just about every game with only a couple of exceptions.


----------



## DaBullz

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Actually, we had 4.
> 
> Gordon, Deng, Duhon, and Nocioni


4 going once, going twice, sold to the tall level headed gentleman in the back row.


----------



## jbulls

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Actually, we had 4.
> 
> Gordon, Deng, Duhon, and Nocioni


Let's not forget Jared Reiner.


----------



## Wynn

sloth said:


> But they are *winning* now.


Nothing to worry about. As soon as Crawford gets back they'll start losing again.


----------



## step

> As soon as Crawford gets back they'll start losing again.


:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## ace20004u

Yeah because Crawford hasn't been helping them win games before his injury or anything...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Curry is improving imo at least . The little stuff he needed to improve upon you can see it developing.The rebounding is becoming more instinctual and he is starting to recognize the double teams but I still think he lacks confidence in his passing ability.He still has a way to go to improve on his pick and roll defense.The one thing that hasnt changed though is how much he gets fouled.This guy gets fouled ALOT and that to me is what we miss more than anything else.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> Nothing to worry about. As soon as Crawford gets back they'll start losing again.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2006011005


----------



## kukoc4ever

step said:


> :rofl: :rofl:


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2006011005


----------



## kukoc4ever

ace20004u said:


> Yeah because Crawford hasn't been helping them win games before his injury or anything...



Yah, never. That has never happened. 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2005113018

And it never, ever will.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2006011005


----------



## DaBullz

FWIW

The knicks are undefeated in 2006, and won their 4th straight.

They were 9 point underdogs to the Cavs and beat them outright.

Channing Frye is one of the hottest players in the league right now.

Crawford had 10 boards, the wimp.


----------



## truth

DaBullz said:


> FWIW
> 
> The knicks are undefeated in 2006, and won their 4th straight.
> They were 9 point underdogs to the Cavs and beat them outright.
> Channing Frye is one of the hottest players in the league right now.
> Crawford had 10 boards, the wimp.


I have some bad news for you guys..The knicks will make the playoffs....I dont know what Larry puts in Currys water,but its having some positive effects on the guy.He is actually showing a mild interest in rebounding and playing D...

As for the rocket scientist who ragged on JC...26 pts,10 boards and 4 assists..read em and weep


----------



## TripleDouble

DaBullz said:


> FWIW
> 
> Channing Frye is one of the hottest players in the league right now.
> 
> Crawford had 10 boards, the wimp.


1. Frye had 16 and 7 this game and 15 and 5 last game. Are the leagues stars slumping lately?

2. Rose has one good game last night and he's not old and washed up despite seasons worth of evidence and Crawford has one double digit rebounding game and he's not a wimp dispite a career of wimpdom?


----------



## Wynn

truth said:


> I have some bad news for you guys..The knicks will make the playoffs....I dont know what Larry puts in Currys water,but its having some positive effects on the guy.He is actually showing a mild interest in rebounding and playing D...
> 
> As for the rocket scientist who ragged on JC...26 pts,10 boards and 4 assists..read em and weep


All of you Knick fans posting in this thread need to look at these guys career stats and realize that this is nothing new for either of them. If anything, their numbers are down this year. Both have still left their best years so far in Chicago. I'll be impressed when either of them becomes consistent and brings the same thing to the court every night.


----------



## Wynn

TripleDouble said:


> 1. Frye had 16 and 7 this game and 15 and 5 last game. Are the leagues stars slumping lately?
> 
> 2. Rose has one good game last night and he's not old and washed up despite seasons worth of evidence and Crawford has one double digit rebounding game and he's not a wimp dispite a career of wimpdom?


Must spread rep and all that crap.....



(Though I really do like the future for Channing Frye!)


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> All of you Knick fans posting in this thread need to look at these guys career stats and realize that this is nothing new for either of them. If anything, their numbers are down this year. *Both have still left their best years so far in Chicago.* I'll be impressed when either of them becomes consistent and brings the same thing to the court every night.


Wrong.


Curry's PER

2002-03 17.48
2003-04 14.78
2004-05 16.22
2005-06 18.37

Crawford's PER

2002-03 15.33
2003-04 15.82
2004-05 15.15
2005-06 16.64


----------



## spongyfungy

I have to admit Jamal was hustling for the boards, including some impressive offensive boards tonight. He did well for a guy with a sprained ankle.

Quentin was just awful offensively, jacking up a couple threes but was pretty good defensively. However the Cavs overall were just playing like they were dead. Their offense has been so stagnant with Damon Jones playing horrendous basketball. Gooden and James were the ones actually trying to play.


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 
> Curry's PER
> 
> 2002-03 17.48
> 2003-04 14.78
> 2004-05 16.22
> 2005-06 18.37
> 
> Crawford's PER
> 
> 2002-03 15.33
> 2003-04 15.82
> 2004-05 15.15
> 2005-06 16.64


Jamal Crawford 

Ed Curry 

I'd be interested to see if you find any statistic that is significantly different from either player than their last season in Chicago.

I still haven't seen where this PER you keep listing is a valid statistical measure that has any reflection in reality. If, however, it allows you to justify your love for the Knick, feel free to keep using it.

I'm also amazed at how quiet these threads (this one and the "JC is glorious" thread) go eerily quiet for weeks at a time until one of these guys wakes up for a game or two...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> I still haven't seen where this PER you keep listing is a valid statistical measure that has any reflection in reality.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html



> I'm also amazed at how quiet these threads (this one and the "JC is glorious" thread) go eerily quiet for weeks at a time until one of these guys wakes up for a game or two...


I would not have replied to your Crawford post in the Curry thread from earlier, had you not posted it.




Wynn said:


> Nothing to worry about. As soon as Crawford gets back they'll start losing again.



But, you posted how the Knicks would start losing again once Crawford came back. Then they beat the Cavs on the road with Crawford being the MVP. Mere hours later.

Wow.

Why you wanted to fire up a Crawford discussion ... that's another good question.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Wynn said:


> All of you Knick fans posting in this thread need to look at these guys career stats and realize that this is nothing new for either of them. If anything, their numbers are down this year. Both have still left their best years so far in Chicago. I'll be impressed when either of them becomes consistent and brings the same thing to the court every night.


But Crawford has which is why all the remarks you guys make so funny. Crawford didnt just play good this game he played well before he was injured as well he had 29 off the bench.

Yes he will have the games where he doesnt shoot well but you know what ? Check the game play by plays and you will see the difference . 

last year you would see "missed three point shot jamal crawford" and he would have 9/10 threes 

Now you see "missed layup" or blocked layups attempts hes gotten the message no matter how long it took.I mentioned this before that if Jamal was on the Bulls he would be leading the team in ft attempts so when people say wimp and hes getting to the line more than than any Bulls player what does that say about our players ?

Crawford 140 fta 
Sweetney 134 fta 
Deng 108 fta 
Kirk 96 fta 
Noc 84 fta 
Ben 80 fta 
Duhon 58 fta


----------



## DaBullz

TripleDouble said:


> 1. Frye had 16 and 7 this game and 15 and 5 last game. Are the leagues stars slumping lately?
> 
> 2. Rose has one good game last night and he's not old and washed up despite seasons worth of evidence and Crawford has one double digit rebounding game and he's not a wimp dispite a career of wimpdom?


1. According to Yahoo! sports, Frye averaged 22.5 PPG over the last 7 days on 79% FG shooting
2. Crawford, for such a wimp, is outrebounding and getting to the FT line more than our golden boy. That's for the season, not for a game. He's outscoring him, too, and shooting better.

I'm not a big Crawford fan, but I do hate to see an ex-player outperforming the ones we have.

EDIT: what burns me more is that all we have to show for him is Pike.


----------



## BG7

Wynn said:


> Jamal Crawford
> 
> Ed Curry
> 
> I'd be interested to see if you find any statistic that is significantly different from either player than their last season in Chicago.
> 
> I still haven't seen where this PER you keep listing is a valid statistical measure that has any reflection in reality. If, however, it allows you to justify your love for the Knick, feel free to keep using it.
> 
> I'm also amazed at how quiet these threads (this one and the "JC is glorious" thread) go eerily quiet for weeks at a time until one of these guys wakes up for a game or two...



Just a thought, could it be becaue Curry was injured at weeks at a time....just a thought, just putting that out there, not that it has to do anything with why there were no posts in this thread for posts at a time.


----------



## Wynn

TRUTHHURTS said:


> But Crawford has which is why all the remarks you guys make so funny. Crawford didnt just play good this game he played well before he was injured as well he had 29 off the bench.


Most of their career highs were in the Bull uniform.

Both are putting up numbers very similar to the numbers they put up their last season with the Bull.

You really believe 29 points and 10 boards is a *consistent* line for Crawdaddy?

I don't really know how to dispute that...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ah so we'll rip Crawford for not *consistently* snagging 10 boards a game.

Scathing.


----------



## Wynn

DaBullz said:


> I'm not a big Crawford fan, but I do hate to see an ex-player outperforming the ones we have.


*JC EFF* 13.21
*Kirk EFF* 14.64

??

We are all willing to acknowledge that Kirk has not has his groove on.... yet we miss Crawdaddy?


----------



## BG7

Wynn said:


> *JC EFF* 13.21
> *Kirk EFF* 14.64
> 
> ??
> 
> We are all willing to acknowledge that Kirk has not has his groove on.... yet we miss Crawdaddy?


But Curry beats Chandler in the efficiency game by a bigger spread so do to basic math.

Eddy Curry + Jamal Crawford > Kirk Hinrich + Tyson Chandler

But the ideal duo would be:

Eddy Cury + Kirk Hinrich


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Wynn said:


> Most of their career highs were in the Bull uniform.
> 
> Both are putting up numbers very similar to the numbers they put up their last season with the Bull.
> 
> You really believe 29 points and 10 boards is a *consistent* line for Crawdaddy?
> 
> I don't really know how to dispute that...


So now its about the numbers ?


We all know they can put up numbers its how they do it and the other little things that was the complaint.

Jamal takes too many threes 

he doesnt get to the line 

afraid of the paint 

will be traded because Brown wont put up his stuff 

will never improve his shooting percentages 

etc etc 

his fta are up a ton 

his fg% is up a ton 

his defense is better 

his "numbers" that you are so worried about are actually been steadily on the rise across the board by the end of this year unless he gts injured jamal will be at his 17ppg average but with a higher fg% and more fta . 

Hes at 140 fta right now and he shot 216 all of last season . 


Its crazy that somehow you equate jamal becoming a better player with him putting up similar numbers to when he was on the Bulls.When the complaint when he was on the Bulls he got those numbers but he was inefficient. 

Hes becoming more effecient and his numbers are gone up . :clap:


----------



## kukoc4ever

TRUTHHURTS said:


> So now its about the numbers ?
> 
> 
> We all know they can put up numbers its how they do it and the other little things that was the complaint.
> 
> Jamal takes too many threes
> 
> he doesnt get to the line
> 
> afraid of the paint
> 
> will be traded because Brown wont put up his stuff
> 
> will never improve his shooting percentages
> 
> etc etc
> 
> his fta are up a ton
> 
> his fg% is up a ton
> 
> his defense is better
> 
> his "numbers" that you are so worried about are actually been steadily on the rise across the board by the end of this year unless he gts injured jamal will be at his 17ppg average but with a higher fg% and more fta .
> 
> Hes at 140 fta right now and he shot 216 all of last season .
> 
> 
> Its crazy that somehow you equate jamal becoming a better player with him putting up similar numbers to when he was on the Bulls.When the complaint when he was on the Bulls he got those numbers but he was inefficient.
> 
> Hes becoming more effecient and his numbers are gone up . :clap:




:clap: 

Can't argue with the haters. They will always hate.


----------



## Wynn

kukoc4ever said:


> :clap:
> 
> Can't argue with the haters. They will always hate.


True that.

Two Knick threads still the biggest -- by far -- on the Bull board. Keep the hate a comin'.

This place is a ghost town without it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Wynn said:


> True that.
> 
> Two knick threads still the biggest -- by far -- on the Bull board. Keep the hate a comin'.
> 
> This place is a ghost town without it.


Yah.. that's why you just bumped the Crawford thread from its long dormant state.

Nice one. 

Also, great prediction about Crawford’s return hurting the Knicks. That was a real winner.


----------



## ScottMay

Wynn said:


> I'm also amazed at how quiet these threads (this one and the "JC is glorious" thread) go eerily quiet for weeks at a time until one of these guys wakes up for a game or two...


I know, it's weird. Take the "Declare your unbridled love for Michael Sweetney" thread, for example. It hasn't been bumped in a LOOOONG time.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=204594&page=1&pp=15&highlight=Sweetney


----------



## Babble-On

Eddy has improved, definitely. He's had a number of games this season where he has been solid on the boards, and as far as I've seen, the valleys in that aspect haven't been as pronounced in the past when he'd have games where he'd be on the floor 30 minutes and have 3 boards. Lets see how far he can take it.

Jamal, ehh, they can have him. He's had some big games, but that isn't really anything new. He also has made some strides in some of the non-stat categories, but he still is crazy inconsistent. In 15 out of his 29 games his shooting percentage is .277, with his highest single game percentage in those games being .375. He's averaging 14.8 points, 3.2 rebounds, 3.6 assists, so seeing as how nothing else he does is gonna jump off the stat sheet at you, I'd say that he's still primarily a scorer. For a guy whose main job is to score, to do so poorly in that area in more than half his games isn't very good.


----------



## Babble-On

Oh, and as for PER, for those who don't know what it is here's a link Scott May gave me:
http://www.alleyoop.com/prates.shtm

If you don't feel like going to the link, here's the basics of it:


> Player Efficiency Rating (PER), adds the good (made shots, steals, assists, rebounds, blocked shots, free throws), and subtracts the bad (missed shots, turnovers, fouls) by assigning a point value to each item


Personally, I think its a needless shortcut for good statistical analysis. If you're really tryin to make an analysis of any value, all of those stats that are taken into account for PER are right there on the main statline of any player when you click on their name on NBA.com or espn.com.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

Wynn said:


> Nothing to worry about. As soon as Crawford gets back they'll start losing again.


Quote of the night. Too bad it didn't ring true for you.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Babble-On said:


> If you're really tryin to make an analysis of any value, all of those stats that are taken into account for PER are right there on the main statline of any player when you click on their name on NBA.com or espn.com.


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/carmelo_anthony/index.html

Where can I find the following on this page?

League Pace
Team Pace
Team Assists
Team FG
League Value of Possession
league DRB%
League FT makes per foul
League FT attempts per foul

And ESPN.com added PER to their statlines this year, and devoted a whole section of their site to Hollinger's stats/writing.


----------



## DaBullz

Wynn said:


> *JC EFF* 13.21
> *Kirk EFF* 14.64
> 
> ??
> 
> We are all willing to acknowledge that Kirk has not has his groove on.... yet we miss Crawdaddy?


I merely believe we got the raw end of the trade and that he'd look a lot better in the lineup than Pargo or Pike. I'd rather see him the subject of trade rumors than Deng (if he were still with us).

I'd like to think that under Skiles' coaching, he'd equally or even moreso be improving his game.


----------



## remlover

DaBullz said:


> I merely believe we got the raw end of the trade and that he'd look a lot better in the lineup than Pargo or Pike. I'd rather see him the subject of trade rumors than Deng (if he were still with us).
> 
> I'd like to think that under Skiles' coaching, he'd equally or even moreso be improving his game.


Pargo and Pike are making peanuts next to Jamal. And i doubt many teams will be breakign down the Knicks door for a player who is owed 50million over 6 years.


----------



## kukoc4ever

remlover said:


> Pargo and Pike are making peanuts next to Jamal. And i doubt many teams will be breakign down the Knicks door for a player who is owed 50million over 6 years.


The Bulls need every penny so Paxson can cut those checks to Tim Thomas.

Oh yah, we also have the exciting prospect of getting Pike off the books. Whee.


----------



## johnston797

remlover said:


> Pargo and Pike are making peanuts next to Jamal..


Pike makes 2/3rds what Crawford makes. I wouldn't call it peanuts.

Clearly, Pax measured it against next year's cap space. Let's hope he can use to land a much better player. But I bet he doesn't use all the space to go for 2 big contracts.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

remlover said:


> Pargo and Pike are making peanuts next to Jamal. And i doubt many teams will be breakign down the Knicks door for a player who is owed 50million over 6 years.


I dont know about that hes be jibbified if he was still a bull coming off a year in whioch the team made the playoffs. 

lets think about what the market says 

Radmon turned down 5 years 42 million 

Bobby simmons got 5 years 47 million 

Hughes 5 years 60 million 

joe johnson 5 years 70 million 

dunleavy 5 years 45 million ? 

Mobley 5 years 42 million 


Im not saying he wouldve been the most coveted player available but it justseems that everyone basically ignorers what players actually make in the nba today when itcomes to players they dont care for .After this season jamal would have 5 years left at around 42 million


----------



## Babble-On

kukoc4ever said:


> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/carmelo_anthony/index.html
> 
> Where can I find the following on this page?
> 
> League Pace
> Team Pace
> Team Assists
> Team FG
> League Value of Possession
> league DRB%
> 
> League FT makes per foul
> League FT attempts per foul
> 
> And ESPN.com added PER to their statlines this year, and devoted a whole section of their site to Hollinger's stats/writing.



Going by what I read,
"Player Efficiency Rating (PER), adds the good (made shots, steals, assists, rebounds, blocked shots, free throws), and subtracts the bad (missed shots, turnovers, fouls)"

All those statistical categories mentioned in that quote can be found on the main statline. Are those things used to determine point values? 

Do you have anyhting to say about my post before that?


----------



## Babble-On

DaBullz said:


> I merely believe we got the raw end of the trade and that he'd look a lot better in the lineup than Pargo or Pike. I'd rather see him the subject of trade rumors than Deng (if he were still with us).
> 
> I'd like to think that under Skiles' coaching, he'd equally or even moreso be improving his game.


Where would He fit into the rotation unless you'd like to see him take Duhon or Gordon's minutes?(I personally wouldn't) 

And what is the assumption that he'd be involved in trade rumors based on?


----------



## DaBullz

remlover said:


> Pargo and Pike are making peanuts next to Jamal. And i doubt many teams will be breakign down the Knicks door for a player who is owed 50million over 6 years.


To add to K4E's astute observation...

If Crawford signed a 6 year deal, he's got 4 plus the rest of this season left.

And he certainly would be better for us than Tim Thomas and Pike at 2x the price.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Babble-On said:


> Going by what I read,
> "Player Efficiency Rating (PER), adds the good (made shots, steals, assists, rebounds, blocked shots, free throws), and subtracts the bad (missed shots, turnovers, fouls)"
> 
> All those statistical categories mentioned in that quote can be found on the main statline. Are those things used to determine point values?
> 
> Do you have anyhting to say about my post before that?


You should read further... since its a little more complicated than that one sentence. That description above seems like it can define a poorer stat, IMO, like EFF.

PER combines all the better, IMO, stats like usage rate, rebound rate, assist ratio, turnover ratio and points per shot into one number. It takes the whole player into account... which I like. I don't think any of those stats are available at the NBA.com player page... and I think that taking pace, % of available rebounds, the effect of the 3 point shot, etc is a much better way to go than just looking at points/rebounds/assists. Obviously its not the end all/be all... but its a considerable improvement, IMO. PER is a meaningful statistical analysis, IMO... certainly much better than any I came up with on my own. Perhaps you have created a better thought out one that Hollinger's. I know a couple people on this board have come up with some very advanced techniques.


The rest of your post didn't interest me much, since you didn't provide any reasoning or alternatives.


----------



## Babble-On

kukoc4ever said:


> You should read further... since its a little more complicated than that one sentence. That description above seems like it can define a poorer stat, IMO, like EFF.
> 
> PER combines all the better, IMO, stats like usage rate, rebound rate, assist ratio, turnover ratio and points per shot into one number. It takes the whole player into account... which I like. I don't think any of those stats are available at the NBA.com player page... and I think that taking pace, % of available rebounds, the effect of the 3 point shot, etc is a much better way to go than just looking at points/rebounds/assists. Obviously its not the end all/be all... but its a considerable improvement, IMO. PER is a meaningful statistical analysis, IMO... certainly much better than any I came up with on my own. Perhaps you have created a better thought out one that Hollinger's. I know a couple people on this board have come up with some very advanced techniques.
> 
> 
> The rest of your post didn't interest me much, since you didn't provide any reasoning or alternatives.


The link I looked at didn't really get into the more complicated stuff,other than saying that it was a pain staking process that he'd get into in his book. I don't think its totally worthless, but I prefer looking at all specific aspects of the game separately to get a better picture, and don't think any one statistic is gonna give you a very good view of a players worth. I think it'd be great it could be broken down into a few separate stats. Maybe if you wanna have a quick reference to a player that you're not very familar with its a good thing, but when you're spend as much time discussing your view of a player's value as you have Jamal, it seems like cutting corner's. 

Also, I was talking about my post prior the one about PER, the one about where Jamal's shooting percentage for half of his games is <30%.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Babble-On said:


> I don't think its totally worthless, but I prefer looking at all specific aspects of the game separately to get a better picture, and don't think any one statistic is gonna give you a very good view of a players worth.
> 
> *I think it'd be great it could be broken down into a few separate stats.*


http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_Knicks.htm





> Also, I was talking about my post prior the one about PER, the one about where Jamal's shooting percentage for half of his games is <30%.


I've posted before about not knowing how much the variance of production a player has affects a team overall. It would be interesting to read about, IMO.

Are you even sure that Jamal's variance is significantly higher than other NBA SGs?

Even if it is, are you sure its a negative? How much of a negative? Why? Why only look at FG%, which does not take into account 3>2 and trips to the line? Why only talk about the variance of this one stat that tells you very little?


----------



## Babble-On

kukoc4ever said:


> http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_Knicks.htm


Thanks. Do they have it for all teams?






kukoc4ever said:


> I've posted before about not knowing how much the variance of production a player has affects a team overall. It would be interesting to read about, IMO.
> 
> Are you even sure that Jamal's variance is significantly higher than other NBA SGs?
> 
> Even if it is, are you sure its a negative? How much of a negative? Why? Why only look at FG%, which does not take into account 3>2 and trips to the line? Why only talk about the variance of this one stat that tells you very little?


I'd say that when a player who is primarily a scorer, who isn't a standout in any other category shoots that poorly in half of his games, that its a bad thing. Nothing I've seen has given me the impression that being inconsistent is good thing. I don't know how Jamal compares to other shooting guards, but I'll say that it is one of the things that has most jumped out to me when looking at Jamal's stats. I'd also say that if you shoot 27%, you've probably had a bad scoring game unless you shot very few times, and got to the line a good amount.


----------



## RoRo

Babble-On said:


> Thanks. Do they have it for all teams?


boom!
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/index.htm


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Babble-On said:


> Thanks. Do they have it for all teams?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that when a player who is primarily a scorer, who isn't a standout in any other category shoots that poorly in half of his games, that its a bad thing. Nothing I've seen has given me the impression that being inconsistent is good thing. I don't know how Jamal compares to other shooting guards, but I'll say that it is one of the things that has most jumped out to me when looking at Jamal's stats. I'd also say that if you shoot 27%, you've probably had a bad scoring game unless you shot very few times, and got to the line a good amount.


But jamals role is not primarly a scorer hes back at the pg position alot now and his role is that of a true combo guard in that he switches between both positions every other possessions almost.

You erase half the games to say he shot bad but I can just as easily take the other games and say he shot well thats why you take all the games on a whole basis .

But the argument around these parts about jamals goes deeper than just fg% 

How many threes did he take ? 

How many fta ?

How was his shot selection ?

If you didnt tale any of that into account then youve basically missed the entire debate and as punishment must go and read the enter jamal Crawford thread and report back here tomorrow for a short quiz. :biggrin: 


What some came to expect from a past jamal bad shooting night was 1-7 3p fga 2 fta and 5-16 shooting overall ? He tooks a ton of jump shots early in the clock and he settled for jumpshots . 

Jamals improvement is evident by the amount of fta he is taking now he is up to almost 5 per game when he was at 2 per game last year and his 3pt fga are down as well. Hes not just throwing up jumpshots and even when he has a off night he is not just settling for jumpers hes driving trying to get to the line sometimes he does and sometimes he doesnt.

Hes not totally there yet but hes doing things now that people have been debating and wanting him to do for years


----------



## ace20004u

TRUTHHURTS said:


> But jamals role is not primarly a scorer hes back at the pg position alot now and his role is that of a true combo guard in that he switches between both positions every other possessions almost.
> 
> You erase half the games to say he shot bad but I can just as easily take the other games and say he shot well thats why you take all the games on a whole basis .
> 
> But the argument around these parts about jamals goes deeper than just fg%
> 
> How many threes did he take ?
> 
> How many fta ?
> 
> How was his shot selection ?
> 
> If you didnt tale any of that into account then youve basically missed the entire debate and as punishment must go and read the enter jamal Crawford thread and report back here tomorrow for a short quiz. :biggrin:
> 
> 
> What some came to expect from a past jamal bad shooting night was 1-7 3p fga 2 fta and 5-16 shooting overall ? He tooks a ton of jump shots early in the clock and he settled for jumpshots .
> 
> Jamals improvement is evident by the amount of fta he is taking now he is up to almost 5 per game when he was at 2 per game last year and his 3pt fga are down as well. Hes not just throwing up jumpshots and even when he has a off night he is not just settling for jumpers hes driving trying to get to the line sometimes he does and sometimes he doesnt.
> 
> Hes not totally there yet but hes doing things now that people have been debating and wanting him to do for years



Thats absolutely right. Anyone actually watching Knicks games can see a pronounced improvement in both Crawford AND Curry. Crawford is taking better shots, playing better defense, and generally just playing a better floor game. Curry is rebounding better and still has that amazing post game and he is starting to get passing out of the double team.

The problem with the "haters" for lack of a better classification for them is that they said that these guys could not improve in those areas. Nesflash, they have. This team would look an awful lot better with Curry & Crawford on board and Pike & Sweetney elsewhere regardless of what is said. Crawford AGAIN won the game for the Knicks last night against a very good Cavalaiers team, granted the Cavs are missing Hughes. Still, it's a huge win and both guys deserve a pat on the back instead of a knee to the ground. Personally I do not think of them so much as Knicks as I do former Bulls, Bulls that SHOULD by all rights still be wearing Bulls uniforms.


----------



## Ron Cey

ace20004u said:


> This team would look an awful lot better with Curry & Crawford on board and Pike & Sweetney elsewhere regardless of what is said.


Crawford is improving, and more rapidly than he ever did before. I'm impressed by what I've seen of him this season. Jury's still out on Curry's improvement, in my book. He looks fine, though. 

But this part I isolated remains a dramatic oversimplification of the situation.

These trades are still *seasons* away from being adequately evaluated. If you are simply making a statement about *this season only* then you are right. But trading Curry and Crawford have afforded Chicago the expiring contracts, capspace, and draft picks (and Sweetney - since he's the only actually player that will be retained out of the deals) they now have. 

The measure of these trades will be: When it all shakes out, did the Bulls improve themselves for the long run in the process? 

That is what it is, "regardless of what is said".


----------



## ace20004u

Ron Cey said:


> Crawford is improving, and more rapidly than he ever did before. I'm impressed by what I've seen of him this season. Jury's still out on Curry's improvement, in my book. He looks fine, though.
> 
> But this part I isolated remains a dramatic oversimplification of the situation.
> 
> These trades are still *seasons* away from being adequately evaluated. If you are simply making a statement about *this season only* then you are right. But trading Curry and Crawford have afforded Chicago the expiring contracts, capspace, and draft picks (and Sweetney - since he's the only actually player that will be retained out of the deals) they now have.
> 
> The measure of these trades will be: When it all shakes out, did the Bulls improve themselves for the long run in the process?
> 
> That is what it is, "regardless of what is said".


I supposse that IS ultimately true. I guess I just don't think ANYONE we could get in the draft that we could add with Sweetney & Pike would be greater than Curry & Crawford. Still deals could be made...


----------



## Ron Cey

ace20004u said:


> I supposse that IS ultimately true. I guess I just don't think ANYONE we could get in the draft that we could add with Sweetney & Pike would be greater than Curry & Crawford. Still deals could be made...


Not just the draft. Free agency in addition to the draft. We re-sign Crawford and Curry to what they wanted and we aren't in any better cap position than simply having the MLE. 

And as you point out, trades as well. Draft picks and rookie contracts coupled with expiring contracts are easier to bundle in trades. They are far more appealing than sixth men with 5.5 years left on a $56 million dollar contract. 

Also, being under the cap means you can take on more salary in a trade and, therefore, many of the trade restrictions don't apply to you. Its a complex situation and it can go in a multitude of directions. 

Plus, at least in Crawford's case, you also have consider playing time and roster positions. Crawford is now part of a three-man guard rotation. Here, he would be part of a 4 man rotation and I don't know that this would work.


----------



## truth

I think there are better ways to look at C &C performance than PER and ERR...

In Crawfords case,just look at FG% and number of 3's hoisted vs FTA....The guy is flat out talented,he just confuses the NBA for AND1.But its clear by the number of FTA his game is rapidly changing for the better.Why??Because Larry is on him like white on rice every time he jacks up a perimeter shot early in the clock....

As for Curry,rebounding is really all you need to know....Rebounding =effort.Currys greatness will be based on his effort,not talent


----------



## ace20004u

Ron Cey said:


> Not just the draft. Free agency in addition to the draft. We re-sign Crawford and Curry to what they wanted and we aren't in any better cap position than simply having the MLE.
> 
> And as you point out, trades as well. Draft picks and rookie contracts coupled with expiring contracts are easier to bundle in trades. They are far more appealing than sixth men with 5.5 years left on a $56 million dollar contract.
> 
> Also, being under the cap means you can take on more salary in a trade and, therefore, many of the trade restrictions don't apply to you. Its a complex situation and it can go in a multitude of directions.
> 
> Plus, at least in Crawford's case, you also have consider playing time and roster positions. Crawford is now part of a three-man guard rotation. Here, he would be part of a 4 man rotation and I don't know that this would work.



true I just don't see anything we can do in FA AND the draft that would clearly have been better than retaining Curry & Crawford. I think Pax made a mistake. It is done and over with and I am not trying to belabor the point...thats just what my own personal instincts & observations tell me. Now if we draft Aldridge & he ends up being the next Amare and we sign AH & he ends up being the next Lamar Odom or something then clearly we got the better end of the trade, I just don't see that happening.


----------



## TripleDouble

I really don't think it is a suprise that Larry Brown may get more out of players then the rag-tag collection of coaches Curry and Crawford played for so I don't think their recent improvement (if sustained) would nececessarily have been replicated here.


----------



## ace20004u

TripleDouble said:


> I really don't think it is a suprise that Larry Brown may get more out of players then the rag-tag collection of coaches Curry and Crawford played for so I don't think their recent improvement (if sustained) would nececessarily have been replicated here.



I think it would have simply because skiles is a very good coach. He isn't tim Floyd or Bill Cartwright the man really knows how to coach...


----------



## Wynn

I guess what aurprises me the most is that people are still impressed when these guys put together two or three good games. We've seen this before. And again we are riddled with announcements that they FINALLY "get it". Pardon me for not falling for it again and again. This is a part of their normal tease every season. When either one is able to produce at this level for more than a month then I'll be impressed.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS

Wynn said:


> I guess what aurprises me the most is that people are still impressed when these guys put together two or three good games. We've seen this before. And again we are riddled with announcements that they FINALLY "get it". Pardon me for not falling for it again and again. This is a part of their normal tease every season. When either one is able to produce at this level for more than a month then I'll be impressed.



Wait a minute you fell for it once ? 

You just dont get it and probably never will. Its not that he hes had good games no one is saying ohhh jamal scored 26 pts hes a changed man .People are giving credit for changing his style of play and doing things that people said he couldnt,wouldnt ever do. 

Hes been playing smarter, harder, shooting, more fta, less threes,better defense and it has nothing to do with just last game its been happening all season long .Hes hasnt always had success and some nights he just hasnt shot well but the other things have stayed a constant . 

You keep trying to equate his improvement to numbers when we all know it goes much farther than that.Im talking a change in his mentallity and approach to basketball and its been there all season whether he has had a 20 pt game or not.

Now that doesnt mean hes the next Kobe and he has 10 years of potential left in him . But hes already given a solid mouth shot to plenty of posters on this board with there never,ever,wouldve couldves.


----------



## cima

Eh I still think trading them was a mistake. So what if we may have a lotto pick this year, the draft is weak. And so what if we have cap room for free agency, there aren't any good FAs out there this year that can help us.

Pax lost.


----------



## Ron Cey

CiMa said:


> Eh I still think trading them was a mistake. So what if we may have a lotto pick this year, the draft is weak. And so what if we have cap room for free agency, there aren't any good FAs out there this year that can help us.
> 
> Pax lost.


There is simply no way that an objective person could ever make this type of pronouncement, and really mean it, about those trades under *both* the current *and * as-yet-unknown future circumstances.


----------



## cima

Ron Cey said:


> There is simply no way that an objective person could ever make this type of pronouncement, and really mean it, about those trades under *both* the current *and * as-yet-unknown future circumstances.


??

Look at the draft, it's overall weak, especially in the big man department. We need a big body to clog the middle...not going to find one in the draft. So we look into free agency. I see Nene and Ben Wallace. Ben Wallace isn't coming here, and he's old anyway. Nene? Maybe, he's a big risk though coming off an ACL tear. Other than that, it's a wash. We were fine the way we were last year. Had Curry not had his problems, we would have made it to the 2nd round. This year, we'll be lucky to get into the first round. Next year, even if we got Nene, we'd be lucky to get out of the first round, even if we get there. Let's hope Pax has something up his sleeve, cause I don't like his plan so far.


----------



## Ron Cey

CiMa said:


> ??
> 
> Look at the draft, it's overall weak, especially in the big man department. We need a big body to clog the middle...not going to find one in the draft. So we look into free agency. I see Nene and Ben Wallace. Ben Wallace isn't coming here, and he's old anyway. Nene? Maybe, he's a big risk though coming off an ACL tear. Other than that, it's a wash. We were fine the way we were last year. Had Curry not had his problems, we would have made it to the 2nd round. This year, we'll be lucky to get into the first round. Next year, even if we got Nene, we'd be lucky to get out of the first round, even if we get there. Let's hope Pax has something up his sleeve, cause I don't like his plan so far.


These are generalities and declaring the glass-is-half-empty view as a currently existing fact. There are several "big bodies to clog the lane" in free agency that can be coupled with other players such as Harrington. 

The draft does not have to be solely limited to drafting "big men". We have two picks. I expect Paxson to draft the best players available (except short guards). For example, if its Ronnie Brewer instead of Sheldon Williams, I expect him to take Brewer and then throw free agent money at bigs like Nene, Pryzbila, Wright, and Nazr to clog that lane.

And regarding the best players available in the draft, who knows who those players will be? And who knows how they will pan out? The LeBron draft was considered to be 2 or maybe 3 deep, yet early returns indicate it may prove to be one of the best drafts ever.

Guys taken late in drafts that aren't considered "strong" turn out to be excellent players all the time. Look at Josh Howard. Paul Pierce went 10th. Joe Johnson went 10th. All well after the "strength" of the draft had supposedly been exhausted. And I'm not even talking about the crap shoot second round players that pan out sometimes. In short, no draft should ever be called "weak" in January. 

And this assumes that Paxson even relies on the draft or free agency. Perhaps he combines different assets and makes a couple of trades? Being under the cap facilitates trades in that the salary-equality restrictions are loosened.

This is my point. You can't look at the current situation and say its a "loss". There are *WAY* too many unknowns and options available at this point to do so.

Paxson may "lose" but no one at this point can objectively say he "lost". Like I wrote to Ace, its a complex situation with limitless unknown variables. (I didn't even talk about how Curry and Crawford will ultimately pan out, which is yet another can of worms that could go either way, or just stay the same.) 

Final note: dealing Curry wasn't part of Paxson's "plan." Lets be accurate. He wanted Curry but felt compelled to trade him under the circumstances. Now, we can all reasonably debate whether or not it was right for Paxson to feel that way, but it was nonetheless not part of a "plan" to proceed without Curry.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> Final note: dealing Curry wasn't part of Paxson's "plan." Lets be accurate. *He wanted Curry* but felt compelled to trade him under the circumstances.


To be perfectly objective, the assertion in bold is just as unproveable or as open to dispute as anything else you're talking about.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Currently, its a loss. Our team is currently worse off, as in tonight. I don't think many could debate that our team would not be better with Curry, Crawford and AD in Pike, Sweetney and say Malik Allen's place. Especially based on our success last season.

So far, we've lost.

The future is unclear. As Bulls fans, we've been sold "the future" for damn near a decade now. The only real success we had was last season, as insignificant as it was in the grand scheme of the NBA, and that team was promptly blown up. 

Its going to take some crafty maneuvers on Paxson’s part to get our team back to the state it was at the end of last season. If the Knicks keep winning, which they certainly have the talent to do, then its going to be that much harder.


----------



## kukoc4ever

If Paxson really wanted Curry, he could have resigned him.

The team would be currently better off, IMO.

The Knicks are the team that wanted Curry, not the Bulls.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

This team would be better with Curry/Davis at the five, but that's a lot of money. If Paxson doesn't get something better with all the cap space and the pick, then I'll admit the trade wasn't in our favor, but he'd have to screw up pretty badly for that to happen.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Sir Patchwork said:


> This team would be better with Curry/Davis at the five, but that's a lot of money. If Paxson doesn't get something better with all the cap space and the pick, then I'll admit the trade wasn't in our favor, but he'd have to screw up pretty badly for that to happen.


At the very least, even the most ardent Curry curmudgeon has to admit that our team would be better off *this* season with Curry on it.

If not, then its not going to take much of an acquisition on Paxson's part to satisfy you.

Whether we get back to 47 wins or 3rd in the East again... well... that will have to be explained as well....


----------



## cima

Okay then, Pax is losing. Hopefully he won't lose but I don't like what I see so far.


----------



## Ron Cey

CiMa said:


> Okay then, Pax is losing. Hopefully he won't lose but I don't like what I see so far.


Being that it was widely acknowledged by Paxson, Skiles and 95% of the fans that the Curry trade would lead to a step back, I think we all thought he'd be "losing" this season. 

But if we are looking purely at this season, its kind of hard to say the Knicks are "winning" the trade either.

Its a "time will tell" scenario for both teams.


----------



## Ron Cey

ScottMay said:


> To be perfectly objective, the assertion in bold is just as unproveable or as open to dispute as anything else you're talking about.


Okay. That part is an opinion.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> Its a "time will tell" scenario for both teams.


Perhaps the team marketing slogan should be changed from "You Gotta Be There" to "Time will tell." 

Or... "You gotta be there sometime in the future."

yah yah i know... patience and snakes and apples and all that....


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps the team marketing slogan should be changed from "You Gotta Be There" to "Time will tell."
> 
> Or... "You gotta be there sometime in the future."
> 
> yah yah i know... patience and snakes and apples and all that....


The present ability of this team, with this roster, is okay if they play with some effort and focus. I still consider it a playoff caliber team. Indeed, it is a playoff team right now even on the heels of an 8 game losing streak.

As for the future, I like the future of this team no matter what. Things would have to work out horribly for this collection of assets to not evolve into, at minimum, a consistent conference semi-finals to conference finals contender year in year out for quite some time. In my opinion.

The "time will tell" part was referring to the eventual "winner" of the Curry and Crawford trades (assuming there ever is an identifiable winner).


----------



## Sir Patchwork

kukoc4ever said:


> At the very least, even the most ardent Curry curmudgeon has to admit that our team would be better off *this* season with Curry on it.


Yeah, we'd be better off with him this year. Although we'll be better off every year after this season with what we got in return for him. So I'll take that trade.


----------



## cima

Ron Cey said:


> Being that it was widely acknowledged by Paxson, Skiles and 95% of the fans that the Curry trade would lead to a step back, I think we all thought he'd be "losing" this season.
> 
> But if we are looking purely at this season, its kind of hard to say the Knicks are "winning" the trade either.
> 
> Its a "time will tell" scenario for both teams.


The Knicks look like they may be getting the hang of things. They had a new coach and a bunch of new players, their issue isn't lack of talent, it's lack of cohesive team chemistry. Obviously if we had AD and EC, we wouldn't have any chemistry issues. But it looks like the Knicks are figuring things out, three straight wins. For their sake, I hope they have, for our sake I hope they haven't.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Sir Patchwork said:


> Yeah, we'd be better off with him this year. Although we'll be better off every year after this season with what we got in return for him. So I'll take that trade.


Who do you think that we'll get that will make us better off?

Pryzbilla?
Wilcox?


----------



## ace20004u

kukoc4ever said:


> Who do you think that we'll get that will make us better off?
> 
> Pryzbilla?
> Wilcox?


Thats what I was wondering too. No telling who we get for the pick and the cap we didn't use to sign him, hard to imagine it being better than Curry unless we draft a guy who turns out to be a total stud. Certainly can't imagine any of the FA options being better. Maybe a trade will go down and this time we will get the better end of it.


----------



## kukoc4ever

ace20004u said:


> Thats what I was wondering too. No telling who we get for the pick and the cap we didn't use to sign him, hard to imagine it being better than Curry unless we draft a guy who turns out to be a total stud. Certainly can't imagine any of the FA options being better. Maybe a trade will go down and this time we will get the better end of it.



Yah, and I have not been hearing a lot of trade rumbling in regards to trading for a big man.

Al Jefferson seems pretty good though. I'd consider that.

Our best hope, IMO, is the Knicks pick... and those big men coming out seem pretty raw.


----------



## Ron Cey

ace20004u said:


> Thats what I was wondering too. No telling who we get for the pick and the cap we didn't use to sign him, hard to imagine it being better than Curry *unless we draft a guy who turns out to be a total stud.* Certainly can't imagine any of the FA options being better. Maybe a trade will go down and this time we will get the better end of it.


Right. A trade could happen. 

And it isn't just "Pryzbila or Wilcox". Its the free agent signings (permitted by Curry's additional capspace) along with the Knicks pick (or what the Knicks and Bulls pick together can yield in trade or moving up in the draft), along with what we get in the pick swap in 2007 (if the picks are swapped) plus the multiple second round picks. Plus how good Sweetney can become or what inclusion of Sweetney in a trade helps us to acquire. 

There are a lot of assets to consider here. And they all must be considered in concert, not individually. That is why what you are saying and what K4E just said is an oversimplification of the scenario. 

Curry is an individual. These assets are not. They are a collection that can be used in a myriad of ways.

And I certainly don't understand why the measure of success would be acquiring "a total stud" since Curry most certainly has not proven to be that. He looks fine this year. But "total stud" he is not. If he becomes that, then lets call it the standard.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

kukoc4ever said:


> Who do you think that we'll get that will make us better off?
> 
> Pryzbilla?
> Wilcox?


A combination of Pryzbilla and Aldridge would be amazing.


----------



## ace20004u

Ron Cey said:


> Right. A trade could happen.
> 
> And it isn't just "Pryzbila or Wilcox". Its the free agent signings (permitted by Curry's additional capspace) along with the Knicks pick (or what the Knicks and Bulls pick together can yield in trade or moving up in the draft), along with what we get in the pick swap in 2007 (if the picks are swapped) plus the multiple second round picks. Plus how good Sweetney can become or what inclusion of Sweetney in a trade helps us to acquire.
> 
> There are a lot of assets to consider here. And they all must be considered in concert, not individually. That is why what you are saying and what K4E just said is an oversimplification of the scenario.
> 
> Curry is an individual. These assets are not. They are a collection that can be used in a myriad of ways.
> 
> And I certainly don't understand why the measure of success would be acquiring "a total stud" since Curry most certainly has not proven to be that. He looks fine this year. But "total stud" he is not. If he becomes that, then lets call it the standard.



I don't see how the collection of assetts is going to end up being beter than Curry myself. I mean it IS possible, just sort of doubtful from where I sit. Curry is a dominating force down low. Heck, it seems like every Knick broadcast I watch, even when the oppossing teams color man is doing the call, will talk about what a beast Curry is down low a "dominating" player and give him a verbal bj the whole game. I could understand the Knick crews doing it but every crew does it and it is for a reason. Curry is damn good, getting better, and has the potential to be awesome. I don't know that we can use the assetts we have gotten by not paying Curry to end up being greater than Curry, maybe we can? I'm just not convinced and it seems like a longshot to me.


----------



## ScottMay

Sir Patchwork said:


> A combination of Pryzbilla and Aldridge would be amazing.


Boy, I don't know about that one.

I've watched Pryzbilla carefully this year, and he's just not a very good basketball player. What's worse is that you'd be hard-pressed to conjure from scratch a player seemingly more ill-suited to play extended minutes alongside Tyson Chandler. 

And as I remarked in the draft thread, it's a stretch for me to see Aldridge being a dominant player in the NBA. I don't know that he'll be as good as Emeka Okafor, let alone Dwight Howard. 

It's that old "bird in the hand" chestnut again.


----------



## ace20004u

Sir Patchwork said:


> A combination of Pryzbilla and Aldridge would be amazing.



amazing? You really think so? I would suggest that they would be average. Pryz is good defensively but he has too many 5pt 3rebound nights for my taste and Aldridge has the potential to be very good but until he is IN the NBA we really have no idea how good he will be. I don't think this combination of players is better than Eddy and they would probably cost more too...even with Aldridge being on a rookie deal.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

ScottMay said:


> I've watched Pryzbilla carefully this year, and he's just not a very good basketball player. What's worse is that you'd be hard-pressed to conjure from scratch a player seemingly more ill-suited to play extended minutes alongside Tyson Chandler.


This is true about him and Chandler, but I think having one of them on the floor at almost all times would be beneficial. I wouldn't play them together very often. 



ScottMay said:


> And as I remarked in the draft thread, it's a stretch for me to see Aldridge being a dominant player in the NBA. I don't know that he'll be as good as Emeka Okafor, let alone Dwight Howard.


He doesn't have to be a superstar. Curry was a roleplayer, and I think Aldridge will be better than Curry, plus we'll have the cap space to hopefully fill some of the other holes on the team.


----------



## ace20004u

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is true about him and Chandler, but I think having one of them on the floor at almost all times would be beneficial. I wouldn't play them together very often.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have to be a superstar. Curry was a roleplayer, and I think Aldridge will be better than Curry, plus we'll have the cap space to hopefully fill some of the other holes on the team.


Curry is NOT a role player...he is a dominating 7' true low post center...a rarity these days.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

ace20004u said:


> Curry is NOT a role player...he is a dominating 7' true low post center...a rarity these days.


Curry scores 14 points per game, and scoring is his best quality. He is below average at every other aspect of the game. That is far from dominant. He is a roleplayer.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Curry is more than a role player. He was the leading scorer and had the 2nd highest MPG on a good BULLS team last year.

When he and a nearly 40 year old man were removed from the same team, and replaced with an average power forward, the team regressed.

Like ace said, he’s a 7 foot, very competent, center. Even if you consider his production to be of the “role player” variety… you’ll be hard pressed to find many other 7 footers in the world that can do what he does. If you feel his role is valuable... good luck finding a replacement. We needed to burn a #4 pick in the draft and spend 2-3 years of development time until we saw many returns.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Sir Patchwork said:


> Curry scores 14 points per game, and scoring is his best quality. He is below average at every other aspect of the game. That is far from dominant. He is a roleplayer.


Curry's rebound rate places him in the top 35 in the league.

Whatever term you want to use... Currys' was clearly an important role... given the Bulls success this season.

But….. Paxson knew this when he made the trade. Its why he was so angry and immediately got to work on reducing expectations.


----------



## ScottMay

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is true about him and Chandler, but I think having one of them on the floor at almost all times would be beneficial. I wouldn't play them together very often.


So then you'd have ~$120 million tied up in two limited players who don't complement each other at all, as opposed to ~$120 tied up in two limited players who might not necessarily complement each other perfectly, but at least bring unique skills to the team's defense AND offense.



> He doesn't have to be a superstar. Curry was a roleplayer, and I think Aldridge will be better than Curry, plus we'll have the cap space to hopefully fill some of the other holes on the team.


I won't hazard a guess as to whether Aldridge will be better than Curry in the long haul, and I can't argue the fact that Aldridge will be much cheaper over the next four years than Curry, but I think it is extremely -- maybe even preposterously -- far-fetched to think that Aldridge will be as good a low-post scorer in his first few seasons as Curry is right now.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

kukoc4ever said:


> When he and a nearly 40 year old man were removed from the same team, and replaced with an average power forward, the team regressed.


True, we lost our best post defender, and the strongest guy on the team. That's why our defense isn't as good this year, but our offense is better than last year, so we're doing fine without Curry. 96.1 points on 45.2% from the field this year, better than the 94.5 points on 43.2% from the field last year. So losing Davis did hurt, but it's my contention that he would be running out of gas at this point in his career anyways.


----------



## Ron Cey

ace20004u said:


> Curry is NOT a role player...he is a dominating 7' true low post center...a rarity these days.


Okay. If that is the description you are applying to what we lost, then you are right, he can't be replaced. I can't really argue with you, or convince you otherwise, if you think we traded away a "dominating 7' true low post center". Given that opinion, I can certainly see why you are so disappointed with the trade.

If we use my definition of "dominating", Eddy Curry would fall far short of that standard.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Sir Patchwork said:


> True, we lost our best post defender, and the strongest guy on the team. That's why our defense isn't as good this year, but our offense is better than last year, so we're doing fine without Curry. 96.1 points on 45.2% from the field this year, better than the 94.5 points on 43.2% from the field last year. So losing Davis did hurt, but it's my contention that he would be running out of gas at this point in his career anyways.


Yah, I agree about good 'ol AD being out of gas.

Just to make sure, you agreed that the Bulls would be better this year with Curry in an earlier post, right?


----------



## Sir Patchwork

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I agree about good 'ol AD being out of gas.
> 
> Just to make sure, you agreed that the Bulls would be better this year with Curry in an earlier post, right?


Yes, he would be another good asset in the rotation.


----------



## Wynn

ace20004u said:


> Curry is NOT a role player...he is a dominating 7' true low post center...a rarity these days.


77th in the league in PPG. 

50th in the league in RPG. 

I wanted us to keep Ed at a shorter contract with a complete health pass. I think he's what we miss inside. But would never characterize him as dominating. He's got the physique, just not the head for it.


----------



## RoRo

i wouldn't call him dominating just yet. this is the first season where he looks like he's "getting it." by that i mean he can make positive contributions aside from pure scoring. curry is drawing fouls at a shaq like pace (7.2 per game). his rebounding has improved, on a sweetney like pace . he's cut back on ticky tack fouls, most of his fouls come from over aggressive offensive moves, the kind you can live with. 

conditioning is a factor as well, he's only playing 25 mins per game. hard to be labeled dominating when you play 1/2 a game. i do expect him to get stronger as this season progresses though. 

it's not necessarily the 'P' word either, alot of the things he was criticised for, he's worked on those aspects and that should be recognized. i don't think he's done developing and he is heading in the right direction.

the one thing curry needs to work on to get that dominating status is learning how to repost. shaq's the master at this, after the first entry he kicks it back out to a shooter and promptly reestablishes position. usually that position is deeper in the paint. curry pretty much stops after the first entry. he either makes his move or kicks it back out and lets the play develop without re-establishing himself. if he could do that he'd be on his way to dominationville.


----------



## mizenkay

yes, i know, this thread was quietly sleeping, but i must bump with the latest from *sam smith.* 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...17smith,1,5842110.column?coll=cs-home-utility





> Eddy Curry returns to Chicago on Wednesday to play against the Bulls for the first time. The results of the game will be just a footnote to the effect one of the most bizarre, controversial and mysterious transactions in NBA history has had on two of the league's most distinguished franchises.
> 
> Is Curry the dinosaur of the NBA, a low-post center who can be the centerpiece of a championship contender for years, as the New York Knicks believe?
> 
> "I'm not expecting that of him," Knicks President Isiah Thomas said. "I'm not expecting him to be that kind of personality, the aircraft carrier, so to speak. Do I think you can win with him? Yes. I do think he needs teammates, other guys around him to get there. But I think he can be a piece of a championship team."
> 
> That was the plan, the belief, when the Bulls mortgaged their future in 2001 to pair Curry with Tyson Chandler and have cornerstone big men on whom to build another dynasty. It didn't happen quickly enough amid numerous changes in players and personnel, and now it cannot happen at all after the bizarre events of last spring and summer.
> 
> Curry developed a heart arrhythmia the Bulls considered too dangerous to allow him to play. Subsequently, Curry and the Knicks effectively decided the condition didn't exist.
> 
> Did the Bulls panic and overreact, changing their direction unnecessarily and fading into a haze from which they are trying to escape?
> 
> Did the Knicks get the steal of the century, a young, powerful low-post big man who will be an All-Star fixture for years?
> 
> Or did the Knicks and Curry rush to financial judgment, ignoring the young man's health in their common desire for instant gratification?
> 
> *Will Curry become a star and leave the Bulls a franchise hopelessly misdirected, noted more for its malice toward players and parsimony?
> 
> Or will Curry leave the Knicks wishing and hoping for more when there is no more to give—as he did the Bulls?*





> The Bulls long wondered about making a long-term investment in Curry, yet it has been Chandler who has played poorer after getting a big contract. *One theory is they thrived off one another, even if they were not Tim Duncan and David Robinson.*
> 
> Curry, who just turned 23, is averaging 14.5 points and 6.7 rebounds in 27 games.
> 
> "I look at this like his draft class," Thomas said, "and he's the No. 1 pick."
> 
> So with Curry gone, the Bulls are averaging 95.8 points, which is 1.3 more than they averaged last season with him. They are giving up four more per game than last season, and no one ever has accused Curry of being the rock on defense.
> 
> *The prevailing theory is that without Curry to provide cover for him, Chandler has fallen victim to the pressure and expectations.*
> 
> The Knicks envision an inside/outside duo of Curry and Channing Frye, but they're a freeway to the basket, yielding almost 50 percent shooting the last dozen games.
> 
> *The Bulls need a star player. There's no question it's their No. 1 priority to accommodate the complementary pieces that populate the roster. Is Curry that star? Would he ever be?*
> 
> There was an amusing interview with Curry in a New York newspaper last week in which he told a story about meeting his wife, who worked for the Bulls at their practice facility, at a mall and being so shy he needed someone to approach her for him.
> 
> If he couldn't have his wife, he said he would choose Beyonce Knowles and his chef to be stranded on a desert island with him. The chef, Curry said, because he wants to begin eating healthier. He then listed his favorite meal as fried catfish.
> 
> It's hard not to smile when thinking about Curry. It's just difficult to figure out whether the Bulls or Knicks will be getting the last laugh. The first act is here on Wednesday.


----------



## johnston797

Trib said:


> "I understand, kind of, Chicago's thinking," said Thomas, who said he believes Curry will improve greatly after a summer of work with the Knicks' coaches. "If someone had told me as a general manager the kid had a heart condition, I can see how you'd be afraid of that. But there was so much information and misinformation out there. A lot of doctors were talking and people were being quoted who had not examined Eddy.
> 
> "He never really was diagnosed with what everyone said he had, what Hank Gathers had. No doctor ever said he had that. Everyone said, 'If he has that, then this could happen.' All of a sudden they quit saying 'if' and said he had it.


Let's play with some of the pronouns......

[Curry] never really was diagnosed with what everyone said he had, what Hank Gathers had. No doctor ever said he had that. Everyone said, 'If he has that, then this could happen.' All of a sudden [Paxson] quit saying 'if' and said he had it.

Sounds about right......


----------



## ScottMay

Two Sam-isms I take exception to:



> It's easy to say the Bulls miss Curry, *whom they would have re-signed if he hadn't had the heart issues.*


Sorry, Samuel. This may have cut it as conventional wisdom while Currygate was playing itself out, but it stopped being believable once it took the Knicks a New York minute to get Eddy fully cleared by a panel of experts from two elite, world-renowned teaching hospitals and cardiology departments, plus the league's doctors and lawyers. The Bulls traded Eddy because they wanted him gone, not because of an episode of benign arrythmia. 



> Everyone in Chicago knows Curry is a low-post scorer who can get 20 points in almost any game. They also know he's inconsistent and a poor defender—Knicks coach Larry Brown continues to criticize his defense—who doesn't pass much (one assist in the last eight games and six all season.)


More bogus conventional wisdom -- it wasn't the worst thing in the world to trade Eddy, because he can't possibly ever get better. Well, Sam, Eddy may be jolly and happy-go-lucky and lazy in the carefree, genial sense of the word, but after just a few months with the Knicks, and despite not being in shape, he's playing better defense and rebounding better than he ever did as a Bull.


----------



## Pippenatorade

ScottMay said:


> Two Sam-isms I take exception to:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Samuel. This may have cut it as conventional wisdom while Currygate was playing itself out, but it stopped being believable once it took the Knicks a New York minute to get Eddy fully cleared by a panel of experts from two elite, world-renowned teaching hospitals and cardiology departments, plus the league's doctors and lawyers. The Bulls traded Eddy because they wanted him gone, not because of an episode of benign arrythmia.
> 
> 
> 
> More bogus conventional wisdom -- it wasn't the worst thing in the world to trade Eddy, because he can't possibly ever get better. Well, Sam, Eddy may be jolly and happy-go-lucky and lazy in the carefree, genial sense of the word, but after just a few months with the Knicks, and despite not being in shape, he's playing better defense and rebounding better than he ever did as a Bull.


 :clap: 

I'd add a retort to this bogus diarhea right here:

Everyone in Chicago knows Curry is a low-post scorer who can get 20 points in almost any game. *They also know he's inconsistent and a poor defender*—Knicks coach Larry Brown continues to criticize his defense—*who doesn't pass much* (one assist in the last eight games and six all season.)

1. Yeah I guess maybe Curry never would have worked here cause of his lack of defense and rebounding, unless, MAYBE, we went out and got defensive and rebounding specialists like Antonio Davis, Andres Nocioni, Kirk Hinrich, Chris Duhon and Tyson Chandler. Maybe if we got players like that to put around Curry, we would have rebounded and defended on an elite level. We might have even led the league in FG% against. 

Oh wait, that happened -_-

2. I've always liked my assists from PGs and occasionally SGs and SFs. Assists from the center position are on the lowest statistical priority of anything I can think of except, maybe FT%. Oh yeah, did I mention that Tyson Chandler's FT% makes Eddy Curry look like Mark Price.

Also you can see why Eddy's APG should be so high. I mean, he's never played on a team with a lot of PGs before.

Oh wait, -_-

*Isn't it time for Sam to go right a book about how the greatest player of all time, GASP, got SPECIAL TREATMENT over John Paxson?!*


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Sam Smith: Curry Still Hard to Get a Handle On*

EDIT: Dang it! Now I See the article buried in the Eddy Update thread.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...smith,1,7556439.column?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed



> Eddy Curry returns to Chicago on Wednesday to play against the Bulls for the first time. The results of the game will be just a footnote to the effect one of the most bizarre, controversial and mysterious transactions in NBA history has had on two of the league's most distinguished franchises.
> 
> Is Curry the dinosaur of the NBA, a low-post center who can be the centerpiece of a championship contender for years, as the New York Knicks believe?
> 
> "I'm not expecting that of him," Knicks President Isiah Thomas said. "I'm not expecting him to be that kind of personality, the aircraft carrier, so to speak. Do I think you can win with him? Yes. I do think he needs teammates, other guys around him to get there. But I think he can be a piece of a championship team."
> 
> That was the plan, the belief, when the Bulls mortgaged their future in 2001 to pair Curry with Tyson Chandler and have cornerstone big men on whom to build another dynasty. It didn't happen quickly enough amid numerous changes in players and personnel, and now it cannot happen at all after the bizarre events of last spring and summer.
> 
> Curry developed a heart arrhythmia the Bulls considered too dangerous to allow him to play. Subsequently, Curry and the Knicks effectively decided the condition didn't exist.
> 
> Did the Bulls panic and overreact, changing their direction unnecessarily and fading into a haze from which they are trying to escape?
> 
> Did the Knicks get the steal of the century, a young, powerful low-post big man who will be an All-Star fixture for years?
> 
> Or did the Knicks and Curry rush to financial judgment, ignoring the young man's health in their common desire for instant gratification?
> 
> Will Curry become a star and leave the Bulls a franchise hopelessly misdirected, noted more for its malice toward players and parsimony?
> 
> Or will Curry leave the Knicks wishing and hoping for more when there is no more to give—as he did the Bulls?
> 
> The questions will hang over the franchises, both suffering now with sub-.500 records and uncertain rosters, for years. So will the conflicting stories and beliefs about the curious series of events that led to Curry and Antonio Davis being traded from the Bulls to the Knicks for Tim Thomas, Michael Sweetney and a first-round draft pick.
> 
> "I understand, kind of, Chicago's thinking," said Thomas, who said he believes Curry will improve greatly after a summer of work with the Knicks' coaches. "If someone had told me as a general manager the kid had a heart condition, I can see how you'd be afraid of that. But there was so much information and misinformation out there. A lot of doctors were talking and people were being quoted who had not examined Eddy.
> 
> "He never really was diagnosed with what everyone said he had, what Hank Gathers had. No doctor ever said he had that. Everyone said, 'If he has that, then this could happen.' All of a sudden they quit saying 'if' and said he had it.
> 
> "I always thought Eddy Curry would be with Chicago the next 10, 15 years. A guy like him with that type of sizzle, that type of athleticism, the feel, touch and a decent guy. That combination comes along once every 25 years. I don't know if he'll ever turn out to be a great basketball player, but he definitely has the potential to be one."
> 
> Ah, potential.
> 
> It was on the business card of both Chandler and Curry, the results of the second post-Michael Jordan Bulls rebuilding. The first one, of course, sounded much like the latest with salary-cap room, draft picks and flexibility, all of it abandoned too quickly.
> 
> It's old ground and not so fertile anymore, but the plan was good. It was the execution that was lacking. Curry and Chandler, if they were the next Shaquille O'Neal and Kevin Garnett, would have worked. No one would be watching a 15-22 team that's back to disappointing its fans.
> 
> But Curry didn't quite have the work ethic and desire, and Chandler didn't quite have the skills.
> 
> It's easy to say the Bulls miss Curry, whom they would have re-signed if he hadn't had the heart issues. When he did, it became a maze of accusations and anger that led to an inevitable split.
> 
> Everyone in Chicago knows Curry is a low-post scorer who can get 20 points in almost any game. They also know he's inconsistent and a poor defender—Knicks coach Larry Brown continues to criticize his defense—who doesn't pass much (one assist in the last eight games and six all season.)
> 
> Not quite in shape yet, Curry is on a typical run with 20 points or more in every other game since just after Christmas and 15 or fewer in the others.
> 
> The Bulls long wondered about making a long-term investment in Curry, yet it has been Chandler who has played poorer after getting a big contract. One theory is they thrived off one another, even if they were not Tim Duncan and David Robinson.
> 
> Curry, who just turned 23, is averaging 14.5 points and 6.7 rebounds in 27 games.
> 
> "I look at this like his draft class," Thomas said, "and he's the No. 1 pick."
> 
> So with Curry gone, the Bulls are averaging 95.8 points, which is 1.3 more than they averaged last season with him. They are giving up four more per game than last season, and no one ever has accused Curry of being the rock on defense.
> 
> The prevailing theory is that without Curry to provide cover for him, Chandler has fallen victim to the pressure and expectations.
> 
> The Knicks envision an inside/outside duo of Curry and Channing Frye, but they're a freeway to the basket, yielding almost 50 percent shooting the last dozen games.
> 
> The Bulls need a star player. There's no question it's their No. 1 priority to accommodate the complementary pieces that populate the roster. Is Curry that star? Would he ever be?
> 
> There was an amusing interview with Curry in a New York newspaper last week in which he told a story about meeting his wife, who worked for the Bulls at their practice facility, at a mall and being so shy he needed someone to approach her for him.
> 
> If he couldn't have his wife, he said he would choose Beyonce Knowles and his chef to be stranded on a desert island with him. The chef, Curry said, because he wants to begin eating healthier. He then listed his favorite meal as fried catfish.
> 
> It's hard not to smile when thinking about Curry. It's just difficult to figure out whether the Bulls or Knicks will be getting the last laugh. The first act is here on Wednesday.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Sam Smith: Curry Still Hard to Get a Handle On*

BTW: Here is the NY Post Q&A with Eddy that Sam refers to:

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/61578.htm

Lots of great stuff.



> Q: Pet peeve?
> 
> A: People touching me. On our team we got a lot of young guys and they always want to poke at you and tickle you and stuff and I really hate that.


So...who do you think the tickle monster is on the Knicks squad?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Sam Smith: Curry Still Hard to Get a Handle On*

McGraw: Curry set for "reunion"

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=144055



> Most of the focus tonight when the New York Knicks make their only visit this season to the United Center will be the return of former Bulls Eddy Curry, Antonio Davis and Jamal Crawford.
> 
> Curry left under controversial circumstances last October. He was traded to New York after refusing the Bulls’ request that he submit to genetic testing to help determine his risk for a potentially fatal heart condition.
> 
> When the Bulls played at Madison Square Garden on Nov. 30, Curry did not play because of a calf injury, so tonight should be his first time playing against Tyson Chandler in an NBA game.
> 
> Chandler and Curry were supposed to be the Bulls’ future when both were acquired on draft night in 2001, joining the NBA straight from high school.
> 
> “I have thought about it,” Chandler said Tuesday. “It’s going to be a fun game.”
> 
> In reality, though, the Bulls should be more concerned about facing an opponent that has won six of its last eight games. The Bulls have lost 11 of 14 and continue to get hammered at the foul line.
> 
> The Knicks, meanwhile, actually lead the league in free-throw attempts per game with 32.3. In the first meeting, a 109-101 Bulls loss, New York went 45-for-57 at the foul line. Both of those numbers are NBA season highs.
> 
> If the Bulls don’t solve their foul issues, they may become the first team to lose a game without allowing a single basket.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bside19.html



> Eddy Curry's first game against the Bulls since they traded him to the Knicks was a memorable one Wednesday, even if it was one Curry would like to forget.
> 
> The former Thornwood star was booed at the United Center, slightly injured in a collision, fouled out and was on the losing end of a thrilling 106-104 overtime decision.
> 
> Curry finished with 11 points (5-for-11 shooting) and four rebounds in 25 minutes before fouling out in overtime.
> 
> There was a scary moment for Curry, who lay motionless on the court after banging his neck into Ben Gordon. Curry later returned.
> 
> Before the game, Curry said he had no resentment toward the Bulls despite some of the harsh words he had for Bulls GM John Paxson immediately following the trade.
> 
> The feud centered on the Bulls' wish for Curry to undergo a DNA test to gauge potential heart problems. Curry's refusal to take the tests led to the trade.
> 
> Curry said he keeps in contact with Bulls big man Tyson Chandler and that they talk about almost everything except basketball. Perhaps the most frequent topic of conversation has been what it has been like playing in New York.
> 
> ''New York was a tough city, even when I was with Chicago,'' Curry said. ''We'd go to play the Knicks and it was always tough. We talk about it a lot. But what I found early was there's more to New York than just Manhattan. I stay nowhere near Manhattan. I'm all the way in Purchase.
> 
> ''But I'm definitely getting used to it. I go down there, play in games and get back home.''


----------



## mizenkay

> ''New York was a tough city, even when I was with Chicago,'' Curry said. ''We'd go to play the Knicks and it was always tough. We talk about it a lot. But what I found early was there's more to New York than just Manhattan. I stay nowhere near Manhattan. I'm all the way in Purchase.



what a wuss.

:laugh:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/384909p-326687c.html



> He was ignored by his teammates, ineffective when he did get the ball and was booed by the home fans for the first time since joining the team.





> Curry sounded frustrated when asked to explain *why he plays like an MVP in the first five minutes only to become more and more invisible as time passes.*
> 
> "I feel like when we go out in the beginning of the game the point of emphasis is to get me going," he said. "As the game wears on, we tend to shy away from that. I have to do my part in being more vocal and trying to talk to the guards."
> 
> Against the Hornets, Curry was a perfect 3-for-3 in the first 2:16, producing a jump hook, a dunk and a layup with his first three shot attempts. But Curry - guarded by P.J. Brown, whose reinforcements consisted of Chris Andersen and Jackson Vroman - played 11 more minutes and didn't attempt his next shot until early in the second half. In 26 minutes overall, Curry ended up with six shots and four turnovers, including traveling calls on consecutive possessions that turned the Garden against him.
> 
> *Either Curry doesn't work hard enough to make himself an inviting target or Stephon Marbury's replacements - Jamal Crawford and Nate Robinson - need to be reminded that Curry is on their side.*
> 
> "When I don't get the ball I don't blame it on my guards, I blame it on myself," Curry said. "I have to work harder to make it obvious I'm open and try to take advantage of the people guarding me."


Does this scenario sound familiar to anyone else, Chicago fans?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Yah, the last time I saw that sad act in Chicago we won 47 games and made the playoffs with him as our leading scorer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, the last time I saw that sad act in Chicago we won 47 games and made the playoffs with him as our leading scorer.


The good news is for all the hullaballoo we are only 2 games off our pace from last year.


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The good news is for all the hullaballoo we are only 2 games off our pace from last year.


We sure know how to dig holes.

I hope our current group of players can play some the of best basketball in the entire league the second half of the season, like last years squad did.

I'm not sure that's realistic though. Our lone remaining freakishly athletic big man is going to have to bring the skills and production he did last season to have a prayer, IMO.


----------



## truebluefan

I wonder how bad NY would be if Eddy wasnt there? I keep seeing how he was the reason why we won 47 games last year, yet that is not completely true. So therefore the reverse logic would be, NY would have only 5, 6 wins without Eddy?

He was DNP play in a lot of games. And every game he played was not outstanding. (As the article insinuates about him now) 

Eddy has missed some games at NY. If he was still here, who is to say that our record would be any better than it is now? I say that because Sweetney has had some nice games that brought us some wins, early on. Eddy could have done that as well. 

Then I wonder if John would be criticized even more for not trading Eddy when he had the chance? (I am not saying this at any one individual, so do not take offense. I am thinking outloud.)


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> We sure know how to dig holes.
> 
> I hope our current group of players can play some the of best basketball in the entire league the second half of the season, like last years squad did.
> 
> *I'm not sure that's realistic though. Our lone remaining freakishly athletic big man is going to have to bring the skills and production he did last season to have a prayer, IMO.*


I don't think its realistic either.


----------



## truebluefan

kukoc4ever said:


> We sure know how to dig holes.
> 
> I hope our current group of players can play some the of best basketball in the entire league the second half of the season, like last years squad did.
> 
> I'm not sure that's realistic though. Our lone remaining freakishly athletic big man is going to have to bring the skills and production he did last season to have a prayer, IMO.


It was not realistic to think we would win 47 games and make the playoffs last year either but we did. 

Tyson was a huge reason why we did it. So, if tyson plays the way he did against Indy for the big part of the rest of the season, we may very well, make the playoffs. 

We may not do it. You may be right, but its a half full half empty type of thing. It could go either way.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> I hope our current group of players can play some the of best basketball in the entire league the second half of the season, like last years squad did.


And, of course, that the circumstances around the league (injuries, suspensions, etc) give us the same opportunities we had last year.


----------



## BG7

truebluefan said:


> It was not realistic to think we would win 47 games and make the playoffs last year either but we did.
> 
> Tyson was a huge reason why we did it. So, if tyson plays the way he did against Indy for the big part of the rest of the season, we may very well, make the playoffs.
> 
> We may not do it. You may be right, but its a half full half empty type of thing. It could go either way.


But Eddy was also a big part of that.

Now take this

Ben
Deng
Hinrich

Just alright players, with Ben being our 4th quarter closer.

Now add Eddy to the equation, anchor that lets everyone else do their thing and can score.

Now add Tyson to the mix, and thats how we got 47 wins.

Now we could have gotten 47 wins again, because I think internal improvement of Ben, Deng, and Hinrich were good, but we have defensively gotten worse in the frontcourt, and definitely offensively that overcomes what those guys and Noc and Duhon bring to the table. We have Noc, Hinrich, Ben, Deng, who I'd like to say a Piston caliber players, problem, we have no one manning the front court, and as Saturday's game proved, if Tyson comes and plays like he *should*, we can be as good as we last year, but that all hinges on Chandler doing what he did on Saturday for 80% of the games remaining.


----------



## YearofDaBulls

We were still winning without Curry and Deng last year after they were out. I do believe we would be a better team with Curry here and I'm sad to see him go but he is not the only reason why we won 47 last year. I do believe we would have done better in the playoffs if we had Deng and Curry.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

YearofDaBulls said:


> We were still winning without Curry and Deng last year after they were out. I do believe we would be a better team with Curry here and I'm sad to see him go but he is not the only reason why we won 47 last year. I do believe we would have done better in the playoffs if we had Deng and Curry.


good point.


----------



## kukoc4ever

YearofDaBulls said:


> We were still winning without Curry and Deng last year after they were out. I do believe we would be a better team with Curry here and I'm sad to see him go but he is not the only reason why we won 47 last year. I do believe we would have done better in the playoffs if we had Deng and Curry.



We busted tail and won for a brief stretch of games with an undermanned team. It was a remarkable thing to watch, I agree.

That's not really a good plan for long term success though, IMO, and our weaknesses certainly revealed themselves in the playoffs against Washington.


----------



## fl_flash

kukoc4ever said:


> We busted tail and won for a brief stretch of games with an undermanned team. It was a remarkable thing to watch, I agree.
> 
> That's not really a good plan for long term success though, IMO, and our weaknesses certainly revealed themselves in the playoffs against Washington.


This is certainly true. My question to you would be, what could Pax have done differently with respect to Curry? He pretty much had two options. Curry on the QO or trade him. I don't want to rehash Currygate all over again, but it seemed pretty clear that Curry wasn't going to take the DNA test (and rightly so). With that, there would be no long-term deal with the Bulls. It was the QO or trade. Also, Pax had made it pretty clear that Curry wouldn't play, even under the QO, unless he took and passed the DNA test. Again, that wasn't going to happen.

So, Pax didn't have to trade Curry. This is true. Instead, we could have "had" curry on the QO and he still wouldn't have played. So our roster would be pretty much as it is now only that we'd have AD instead of Sweetney and Thomas. I'm assuming Songaila and Allen would still be here, but who knows? Would AD instead of Sweetney mean more wins for us? Hard to say. Maybe two or three? After this year, Curry would be a FA and could go wherever he pleases with no compensation here. AD would be gone and we'd still have cap space to work with and a single first round pick.

Reality is, Curry was traded. We lost him and AD. Got back Sweetney, Thomas a NY first, a couple of future seconds and the right to swap picks in 2007. At the end of this year, we have pretty much the same roster regardless of which path Pax took. No AD, No Curry and cap space. The main difference being what looks to be a rather high lottery pick in addition to our own pick. Also, that option to swap picks in 2007 could be huge (or it could be nothing). The two second rounders can be viewed as assets we wouldn't have had had Curry gone the QO route.

I guess my question to you is, which position would you rather be in, long-term? Curry on the QO (not playing - much like Tim Thomas) with AD here for this year, cap space and a first or Curry and AD gone, Sweetney here, Tim Thomas in limbo, Cap space, two firsts, the option to swap firsts and a couple additional second rounders.


----------



## GB

Eddy Curry or Dwight Howard?

You can obtain one of the two, perfectly healthy, on a seven year contract. Which do you take?


----------



## Ron Cey

GB said:


> Eddy Curry or Dwight Howard?
> 
> You can obtain one of the two, perfectly healthy, on a seven year contract. Which do you take?


I can't imagine that anyone would say Curry. Howard is already a franchise player and will rival Amare and Oden (based on hype) as the best future bigs in the NBA. 

Howard is a complete and total stud.


----------



## GB

Athletically, is there much difference between the two?

I guess I'm wondering why Dwight can be so studly so young, and Curry is still having problems with it with basically the same tools.


----------



## kukoc4ever

fl_flash said:


> My question to you would be, what could Pax have done differently with respect to Curry? He pretty much had *two options.* Curry on the QO or trade him.


That's where we disagree.

Since Curry is starting at center for the New York Knicks while producing at a 17.8 PER while being paid on a multi-year deal after being cleared to play by a battery of doctors in, what, two days, there were clearly other options available. But, it all goes back to Currygate.

Paxson should have taken the "risk" of siding with the vast majority and resigned Curry and kept AD around for another year. Everyone involved would be better off right now, IMO. Its a real shame.


----------



## ace20004u

fl_flash said:


> This is certainly true. My question to you would be, what could Pax have done differently with respect to Curry? He pretty much had two options. Curry on the QO or trade him. I don't want to rehash Currygate all over again, but it seemed pretty clear that Curry wasn't going to take the DNA test (and rightly so). With that, there would be no long-term deal with the Bulls. It was the QO or trade. Also, Pax had made it pretty clear that Curry wouldn't play, even under the QO, unless he took and passed the DNA test. Again, that wasn't going to happen.
> 
> So, Pax didn't have to trade Curry. This is true. Instead, we could have "had" curry on the QO and he still wouldn't have played. So our roster would be pretty much as it is now only that we'd have AD instead of Sweetney and Thomas. I'm assuming Songaila and Allen would still be here, but who knows? Would AD instead of Sweetney mean more wins for us? Hard to say. Maybe two or three? After this year, Curry would be a FA and could go wherever he pleases with no compensation here. AD would be gone and we'd still have cap space to work with and a single first round pick.
> 
> Reality is, Curry was traded. We lost him and AD. Got back Sweetney, Thomas a NY first, a couple of future seconds and the right to swap picks in 2007. At the end of this year, we have pretty much the same roster regardless of which path Pax took. No AD, No Curry and cap space. The main difference being what looks to be a rather high lottery pick in addition to our own pick. Also, that option to swap picks in 2007 could be huge (or it could be nothing). The two second rounders can be viewed as assets we wouldn't have had had Curry gone the QO route.
> 
> I guess my question to you is, which position would you rather be in, long-term? Curry on the QO (not playing - much like Tim Thomas) with AD here for this year, cap space and a first or Curry and AD gone, Sweetney here, Tim Thomas in limbo, Cap space, two firsts, the option to swap firsts and a couple additional second rounders.



So...what your saying is that Paxson essentially backed himself into the corner by demanding DNA tests that weren't needed and refusing to play Curry even though he had been cleared, right? I agree completely.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> That's where we disagree.
> 
> Since Curry is starting at center for the New York Knicks while producing at a 16.7 PER while being paid on a multi-year deal after being cleared to play by a battery of doctors in, what, two days, there were clearly other options available. But, it all goes back to Currygate.


Yup. Thankfully, he's shown no (heart related) ill effects during the first 90 days playing under his new 6-year contract. Hope the good fortune continues for him for the next 5 years, 9 months, and beyond.


----------



## ace20004u

GB said:


> Eddy Curry or Dwight Howard?
> 
> You can obtain one of the two, perfectly healthy, on a seven year contract. Which do you take?



As much as I like Curry I think you have to go with Howard here, why? Because he is already doing it regularly and Curry is just starting to come into his own. Also, Howard is a mroe well rounded prospect than Curry.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Perhaps Howard is a better player than Curry?

The Bulls would be lucky, and better off, to have either player on our team.

Its going to be hard to acquire Howard at this point. We had a lot better chance last off-season of having Eddy Curry on our team now, then any chance of getting Orlando to part with Dwight Howard.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

ace20004u said:


> As much as I like Curry I think you have to go with Howard here, why? Because he is already doing it regularly and Curry is just starting to come into his own. Also, Howard is a mroe well rounded prospect than Curry.


Sweetney is one of the roundest prospects in the NBA.


----------



## ace20004u

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Yup. Thankfully, he's shown no (heart related) ill effects during the first 90 days playing under his new 6-year contract. Hope the good fortune continues for him for the next 5 years, 9 months, and beyond.



Well, according to 10 NY doctors and an NBA cardioligist as well As Cannom, Curry should be fine...and they didn't even need a DNA test to determine that! amazing.


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Yup. Thankfully, he's shown no (heart related) ill effects during the first 90 days playing under his new 6-year contract. Hope the good fortune continues for him for the next 5 years, 9 months, and beyond.


There will be a large number of doctors that were wrong to clear him if his good health (heart) does not continue.

Let's hope that the vast majority of doctors consulted were not reckless in their evaluation.


----------



## ace20004u

I wonder if this thread will still be here in 2051 when Curry DOES actually die of a heartattack? lol


----------



## kukoc4ever

ace20004u said:


> I wonder if this thread will still be here in 2051 when Curry DOES actually die of a heartattack? lol


I'll have a heartattack over Paxson's moves before Curry drops dead of one I bet.


----------



## Ron Cey

GB said:


> Athletically, is there much difference between the two?
> 
> I guess I'm wondering why Dwight can be so studly so young, and Curry is still having problems with it with basically the same tools.


The human brain is a basketball tool.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

ace20004u said:


> Well, according to 10 NY doctors and an NBA cardioligist as well As Cannom, Curry should be fine...and they didn't even need a DNA test to determine that! amazing.


I've spent a lot of time litigating medical malpractice cases. I've learned that just because you can find a larger number of doctors to say one thing doesn't make them more right than a smaller group, just by virtue of their numbers. There can be a lot of room for differing opinions. Its the nature of the beast.

For Eddy's sake, I hope in this case the team the Knicks consulted are right.

for all the abuse he's taken, Dr. Maron isn't some podunk hayseed. He really is considered an authority on athletic heart conditions. Several of the doctors who looked at Eddy contributed chapters to Dr. Maron's textbook on HCM, but it was Maron who was the general editor. Maron also wrote the AMA's policy papers regarding athlete's heart. 

The battle of the Curriculum Vitaes is no more authoritative than the "9 out of 10 doctors surveyed" analysis of medicine, but I put that out there just as a reminder that the voices of concern weren't the bozos and shills they are sometimes portrayed as around here.

As I said above, we are 90 days into finding out who was right and who was wrong.


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> For Eddy's sake, I hope in this case the team the Knicks consulted are right.


Most of the Bulls doctors cleared him as well,including the first doctor they consulted with if I'm not mistaken.


As for right and wrong....

We'll never know this until we can quantify the risk and acceptable risk tolerances.

Curry could drop dead but the known risk involved was still low enough to warrant playing him.

He could end up playing for 10 more years and be an all-star while playing with a ticking time bomb in his chest... only staying alive by virtue of luck. But, given the sheer #s of doctors that evaluated and cleared him, I'd lose some faith in modern medicine.

Every time a NBA team slaps a uniform on someone and tells them to run around real hard they are taking a risk on that player being hurt, maimed or killed.

All a manager can do is make a good decision based on the info he/she has. While I'm not as plugged in as the parties involved, I think, based on all the discussion/research from this last summer, Paxson took the path of least risk.


----------



## narek

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I've spent a lot of time litigating medical malpractice cases. I've learned that just because you can find a larger number of doctors to say one thing doesn't make them more right than a smaller group, just by virtue of their numbers. There can be a lot of room for differing opinions. Its the nature of the beast.
> 
> For Eddy's sake, I hope in this case the team the Knicks consulted are right.
> 
> for all the abuse he's taken, Dr. Maron isn't some podunk hayseed. He really is considered an authority on athletic heart conditions. Several of the doctors who looked at Eddy contributed chapters to Dr. Maron's textbook on HCM, but it was Maron who was the general editor. Maron also wrote the AMA's policy papers regarding athlete's heart.
> 
> The battle of the Curriculum Vitaes is no more authoritative than the "9 out of 10 doctors surveyed" analysis of medicine, but I put that out there just as a reminder that the voices of concern weren't the bozos and shills they are sometimes portrayed as around here.
> 
> As I said above, we are 90 days into finding out who was right and who was wrong.


Yep, lots of doctors can agree and still be wrong. I just attended the funeral of a friend's mother who died from ALS. She was ill for 2 years before the correct diagnosis took place, not that it would have saved her - just saved her from a couple of futile operations. She saw over 6 doctors locally and all of their treatments did nothing, of course, because there isn't anything that helps. She wasn't diagnosed correctly until her son, who lives in Minneapolis, took her to experts at the University of Minnesota.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> As for right and wrong....
> 
> We'll never know this until we can quantify the risk and acceptable risk tolerances.


Absolutely correct.


----------



## fl_flash

kukoc4ever said:


> That's where we disagree.
> 
> Since Curry is starting at center for the New York Knicks while producing at a 17.8 PER while being paid on a multi-year deal after being cleared to play by a battery of doctors in, what, two days, there were clearly other options available. But, it all goes back to Currygate.
> 
> Paxson should have taken the "risk" of siding with the vast majority and resigned Curry and kept AD around for another year. Everyone involved would be better off right now, IMO. Its a real shame.


You can convienently disagree all you wish. And to answer Ace's assertion, yes, Pax did paint himself into a corner with respect to Curry. The Bulls had decided that there would be no contract without the DNA test. Period. Pax left himself only two options. You can disagree with the options he chose to leave himself and that's fine. For the most part, I agree that he painted himself into that corner. The reality of the situation was that there were only two options. QO or trade.

In my opinion, I think this team will be better off in the long term, having done the deal that was done. Curry is no difference-maker. Talent with no desire.

And to answer GB's question - I'd take Dwight Howard 10 times out of 10 without hesitation.


----------



## Ron Cey

This stuff about Eddy Curry and doctors all sounds vaguely familiar to me. I can't quite place it . . . .


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps Howard is a better player than Curry?


Why?

Physically, they have comparable tools. Amare too. 


Hops, arm span, quickness, light touch...whats the deal?


----------



## charlietyra

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I've spent a lot of time litigating medical malpractice cases. I've learned that just because you can find a larger number of doctors to say one thing doesn't make them more right than a smaller group, just by virtue of their numbers. There can be a lot of room for differing opinions. Its the nature of the beast.
> 
> For Eddy's sake, I hope in this case the team the Knicks consulted are right.
> 
> for all the abuse he's taken, Dr. Maron isn't some podunk hayseed. He really is considered an authority on athletic heart conditions. Several of the doctors who looked at Eddy contributed chapters to Dr. Maron's textbook on HCM, but it was Maron who was the general editor. Maron also wrote the AMA's policy papers regarding athlete's heart.
> 
> The battle of the Curriculum Vitaes is no more authoritative than the "9 out of 10 doctors surveyed" analysis of medicine, but I put that out there just as a reminder that the voices of concern weren't the bozos and shills they are sometimes portrayed as around here.
> 
> As I said above, we are 90 days into finding out who was right and who was wrong.


Tom, as a general rule I would agree that the number of doctors expressing an opinion has no correlation to whether the opinion at issue is the right one. However, my beef with Paxson is that, in my opinion, he used Eddy's refusal to take the DNA test as a smokescreen for dumping him because (1) he was not the type of player Paxson and Skiles wanted long term, and (2) Reinsdorf was jittery about spending that kind of money on a potential health risk. I think that if Curry was the type of player Paxson and Skiles wanted they would have taken the risk. The basis of my opinion? In a similar situation they took a risk on Pippen even though he had numerous operations on his leg(knee?) and Pax acknowledged that he could not play every game.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Why?
> 
> Physically, they have comparable tools. Amare too.
> 
> 
> Hops, arm span, quickness, light touch...whats the deal?






I have not seen enough of Howard play or Currys/Howards draft camp/training camp stats to agree or disagree with you about them having comparable skills.

Curry appears to be a more efficient scorer and better at getting to the line. Howard better on the boards and more of a defensive presence.

SHAQ is better than Curry as well. Curry is better than most NBA centers though, and that’s what is important.


----------



## Ron Cey

GB said:


> Why?
> 
> Physically, they have comparable tools. Amare too.
> 
> 
> Hops, arm span, quickness, light touch...whats the deal?


I know you aren't asking me, and I already noted the importance of what's between the ears, but to be fair to Curry, as talented as he is, he's not on the same level of Howard or Amare in athletic ability either. 

Even if he did bust his *** I don't think he could approach those two guys. They are just on a completely different level of talent that almost every big in the NBA.


----------



## GB

charlietyra said:


> However, my beef with Paxson is that, in my opinion, he used Eddy's refusal to take the DNA test as a smokescreen for dumping him because (1) he was not the type of player Paxson and Skiles wanted long term,



Would you be more comfortable with Paxson if he had come out and said "We're not really big fans of Eddy's personal work ethic, and we think he's behind where he should be given his talent and time in the league. We're going to pass on signing him, and look to the future for another big".


Seems like thats most of the griping I hear from Pax bashers. He wasn't honest enough.


----------



## GB

Ron Cey said:


> I know you aren't asking me, and I already noted the importance of what's between the ears, but to be fair to Curry, as talented as he is, he's not on the same level of Howard or Amare in athletic ability either.
> 
> Even if he did bust his *** I don't think he could approach those two guys. They are just on a completely different level of talent that almost every big in the NBA.


Sure I'm talking to you...I'm asking anyone listening.

I disagree, but Ok...whose athletic talent does Curry approximate?

Athletic, physical ability. Not cultivated and developed skills.


----------



## giusd

Funny how everyone goes on and on about what a great coach Larry Brown is (and i also think he is a great coach) but the bottom line is EC played much better last year with the bulls and skiles as coach than this year under LB. LB is a great coach but not for young nba players. IMHO EC would be having a much better year if he had stayed in chicago.

2nd, the only think holding back EC is EC. He is the grinch of the NBA. He has a tiny Heart. If he ever gets a heart he could be a star but it is five years and the same thing. Dont get me wrong everyone he plays with always says what a great young man EC is. He never gets in trouble, is clearly a stay home person (based on his own words), and not a trouble maker.

But on the other other hand he doesnt really seem to have a passion for the game. That is the one thing that made MJ so great, he loved the game and hated to lose. EC just doesnt have that same passion, that doesnt make him a bad person, but it does make him an average NBA player, or at least for now.

david


----------



## charlietyra

GB said:


> Would you be more comfortable with Paxson if he had come out and said "We're not really big fans of Eddy's personal work ethic, and we think he's behind where he should be given his talent and time in the league. We're going to pass on signing him, and look to the future for another big".
> 
> 
> Seems like thats most of the griping I hear from Pax bashers. He wasn't honest enough.



Yes. I think that would have been the best course of action.


----------



## BG7

Eddy having a good game, 16 pts, 7 rebs, still has the fourth. Wow, what a difference a competent point guard can make.


----------



## Sham

Having a competent point guard isn't do much for Eddy's assist to turnover ratio tonight.


----------



## step

6 TO, Brown would be furious.


----------



## Sham

step said:


> 6 TO, Brown would be furious.



He doesn't appear too chuffed as Eddy isn't playing down the stretch.


----------



## step

Meant to have it in past tense, my bad.


> He doesn't appear too chuffed as Eddy isn't playing down the stretch.


That's probably why.


----------



## spongyfungy

Kings-Knicks tied 89 with 1.3 secs remaining. Should be a fun finish. Come on Kings...


----------



## step

> Kings-Knicks tied 89 with 1.3 secs remaining. Should be a fun finish. Come on Kings...


Brad could of had the game won


----------



## Jesus Shuttlesworth

Brad Miller missed a very important FT. The Kings would've won, now it's going to overtime.


----------



## Sham

Three bench points for the Kings. Yeesh. Story of their season to date. Everyone claimed they were deep, and injuries didn't help, but they just aren't that deep.

But when Ron gets there, they can get into the playoffs. They aren't that far short.


----------



## step

They're not doing too bad when you consider how much downtime Stojackovic and Wells have had (11 and 17 games respectively).


----------



## Sham

You could argue losing Peja doesn't do much. Francisco Garcia is less than half the shooter Peja is, but he contributes so much more. It's gonna be weird seeing that boy in a new uni.

They also lost Shareef for a while and he's come back slowly. He;s a far better player when starting. Their saving grace is that Bibby has made a leap this season. And Kevin Martin's stepped up. Season's far from a wash yet.


----------



## NYKBaller

27 & 10


----------



## Sham

Where were you during the last losing streak?


----------



## NYKBaller

oh the losing streak that happened after Marbury went down?


----------



## Da Grinch

eddy curry in his last 15 games covering the good and bad times mentioned above.

30.8 min.
.558 fg
.669 ft.
17.8 ppg
7.6 reb
0.7 bl
0.4 st

i think thats pretty good., he's been doing as he is supposed to.

and its a virtual fact that he is going to improve throughout the season, as he has the previous 4.


----------



## Frankensteiner

NYKBaller said:


> oh the losing streak that happened after Marbury went down?


He played in 3 of the 6 losses.


----------



## Sham

NYKBaller said:


> oh the losing streak that happened after Marbury went down?



Answer the question. You only seem to be here when your team wins. Through thick and thin, right?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Sure enough, as I figured, this lame-o topic is getting the attention today and nothing about the Bulls game.

blechh.


----------



## giusd

I am watching both the bulls and knicks tonight and EC looks like he just doesnt care and JC looks like he is still in college. They both look awful.

david


----------



## yodurk

NYKBaller said:


> 27 & 10


5 & 5

:clown:


----------



## TripleDouble

I don't think that anyone doubts Curry and Crawford's talent. It's just that one would think players in their 5th and 6th years would show some consistancy. Neither of them have and one has to wonder: when?


----------



## YearofDaBulls

giusd said:


> I am watching both the bulls and knicks tonight and EC looks like he just doesnt care and JC looks like he is still in college. They both look awful.
> 
> david


Contrary to what people think on this board Curry and Crawford are not all-stars.


----------



## Sham

He didn't come back. Wonder why.


----------



## Sigifrith

EC with 6 fouls in 18 minutes. I didn't know he could play that hard that long. :biggrin:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Sigifrith said:


> EC with 6 fouls in 18 minutes. I didn't know he could play that hard that long. :biggrin:


Per 48, that's...


----------



## ace20004u

Who is leading the league in fg% anyway? :biggrin:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I believe its Big Aristotle


----------



## ace20004u

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I believe its Big Aristotle



your absolutely right. Curry was in possesion of it a couple of games ago now he is 4th in the league, not too shabby.


----------



## Sham

ace20004u said:


> your absolutely right. Curry was in possesion of it a couple of games ago now he is 4th in the league, not too shabby.





So, what other categories is he good at?


----------



## kukoc4ever

ShamBulls said:


> So, what other categories is he good at?


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=C&conference=NBA&year=season_2005&sort=30 (2nd among centers)
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2005&sort=30 (21st overall)


----------



## Wynn

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I believe its Big Aristotle


So "Big Playdough" is only fourth now?


----------



## Sham

kukoc4ever said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=C&conference=NBA&year=season_2005&sort=30 (2nd among centers)
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2005&sort=30 (21st overall)


 :banana:


----------



## giusd

If you are really going to evaluate EC game on offensive you have to add in what a lot of stats people refer to empty trips down the court. That is a turn over, missed FTs, or a bad pass or decission that messes up the offensive play resulting a player being forced to take a bad shot as the 24 second clock runs down. Now EC averages 2.6 TO per game on only 5.2 FGs per game. In additon, he only shots 64% FTs. So while he shots a high % he turns the ball over to much and when he does get fouled he doesn't really convert that to pts in an efficent way. So the other weak parts of his game on offensive game negate his impressive shooting %. 

And i will not even go into is defensive. The problem with EC is the NBA is a very fast paced game that requires a serious knowledge of the game and he just doesn't really understand that yet. If he could ever figure it out he really could be an allstar but to date he has not.

He is starting to hear the boos in madison square and that will only get worse until he starts playing better. And i basically think the same for JC. The modern nba is a complicated game now and it is the little things that are the difference between winning and losing. Just watch a pistons game some time. They are always where there should be and always make fewer mistakes that the other team.

That is why they win and the knicks lose. And EC and JC still dont get that.

david


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

giusd said:


> If you are really going to evaluate EC game on offensive you have to add in what a lot of stats people refer to empty trips down the court. That is a turn over, missed FTs, or a bad pass or decission that messes up the offensive play resulting a player being forced to take a bad shot as the 24 second clock runs down. Now EC averages 2.6 TO per game on only 5.2 FGs per game. In additon, he only shots 64% FTs. So while he shots a high % he turns the ball over to much and when he does get fouled he doesn't really convert that to pts in an efficent way. So the other weak parts of his game on offensive game negate his impressive shooting %.


Also factor in the .02 APG. Feed the Eddy may get you an EC field goal. That's the good news. If Eddy doesn't convert when he gets it, its likely to be an empty trip, unless 1. the Knicks grab an offensive board if he takes a shot and misses, or 2. he can manage a pass to somebody in time for them to either create a shot or set up another play.


----------



## giusd

Hi Tom B,

That is so right i missed that. When ranking a player you have to factor in everything not just pts or FG%. If so the J Rose's of the world would be the best players and we know they are not. But seriously, i guess i missed the fact that ec apg were so low. That is near yanka dare (spelling) levels.

david


----------



## GB

This is on topic:



> Shortly after the Knicks' 111-100 loss to the Hornets, Brown came into the locker room and quietly got in Eddy Curry's face in full view of reporters in an unmistakably stern tone, basically ripping the 6-11 center *for the Knicks' recent losing streak*.
> 
> Curry would not comment on the specifics of the lecture, but a person whom he spoke to said the frustrated coach held Curry responsible for the Knicks' lack of defensive toughness, shot-blocking and rebounding over their recent streak in which they have lost a season-high eight in a row and 14 out of 15.
> 
> Curry sat quietly in his chair like a student being punished, nodding as Brown stood over him and spoke.
> 
> The person said that Brown insisted Curry improve immediately.


Curry is not solely responsible for the losing streak.

http://www.nj.com/knicks/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/113963700980740.xml&coll=1


----------



## Frankensteiner

And here I was told Eddy Curry was becoming a good rebounder and defensive player.  

Larry Brown seems to be missing the point that freakishly athletic centers don't grow on trees.


----------



## The ROY

Didn't Jamal say Larry Brown would make EC a BETTER player than he was in Chicago?

seems to me Skiles was making him a BETTER player than he's been under LB.


----------



## lougehrig

GB said:


> This is on topic:
> 
> 
> 
> Curry is not solely responsible for the losing streak.
> 
> http://www.nj.com/knicks/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/113963700980740.xml&coll=1


The honeymoon is over. Dumping Curry is looking better and better by the second.


----------



## kukoc4ever

lougehrig said:


> The honeymoon is over. Dumping Curry is looking better and better by the second.


last place in division.

out of the playoffs.

7 games under .500.

47 wins and 3rd best record in the east last season.

i have to disagree.


----------



## L.O.B

kukoc4ever said:


> last place in division.
> 
> out of the playoffs.
> 
> 7 games under .500.
> 
> 47 wins and 3rd best record in the east last season.
> 
> i have to disagree.


Just go out and buy a Knicks jersey already.


----------



## kukoc4ever

L.O.B said:


> Just go out and buy a Knicks jersey already.


i'd rather be filling out my bulls playoff tickets order form.


----------



## L.O.B

kukoc4ever said:


> i'd rather be filling out my bulls playoff tickets order form.


There is still a small chance that might happen. Sorry for the pithy post earlier K4E. Something just bothers me about Bulls fans liking Knicks players, regardless if they are former Bulls. The Knicks still are my mosted hated team


----------



## BG7

Yeah, I wouldn't put to much into stock in Larry Brown yelling at Eddy, this is just an old man that has been able to be the coach of great teams/players that is frustrated right now. Skiles had Eddy improving, he ripped Eddy some, but not too much to mess up Eddy. Brown is just mad because his rep as one of the best coaches in the league has diminished into him being one of the worst, the guy that couldn't save the Knicks...


----------



## lougehrig

kukoc4ever said:


> last place in division.
> 
> out of the playoffs.
> 
> 7 games under .500.
> 
> 47 wins and 3rd best record in the east last season.
> 
> i have to disagree.


Oh yeah because Curry (who missed the last 3rd of our season and playoffs) was so vital to us winning 47 games.


----------



## L.O.B

sloth said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't put to much into stock in Larry Brown yelling at Eddy, this is just an old man that has been able to be the coach of great teams/players that is frustrated right now. Skiles had Eddy improving, he ripped Eddy some, but not too much to mess up Eddy. Brown is just mad because his rep as one of the best coaches in the league has diminished into him being one of the worst, the guy that couldn't save the Knicks...


or it could be that Floyd, Cartwright, Skiles and now Brown have all spent huge amounts of time with Eddy trying to improve his game and he still doesn't get it ! Eddy has to be an immensely frustrating player to coach unless you have no desire to see him improve. 



> Shortly after the Knicks' 111-100 loss to the Hornets, Brown came into the locker room and quietly got in Eddy Curry's face in full view of reporters in an unmistakably stern tone, basically ripping the 6-11 center for the Knicks' recent losing streak.





> Curry would not comment on the specifics of the lecture, but a person whom he spoke to said the frustrated coach held Curry responsible for the Knicks' lack of defensive toughness, shot-blocking and rebounding over their recent streak in which they have lost a season-high eight in a row and 14 out of 15.
> Curry sat quietly in his chair like a student being punished, nodding as Brown stood over him and spoke.
> 
> The person said that Brown insisted Curry improve immediately.


 NJ star ledger


----------



## lougehrig

Frankensteiner said:


> And here I was told Eddy Curry was becoming a good rebounder and defensive player.
> 
> Larry Brown seems to be missing the point that freakishly athletic centers don't grow on trees.


Sure they do. There are alot of freakishly athletic big men in this league's history who never amounted to anything. Curry is a very good athlete, but in order to be a very good basketball player you need to develop intangibles, skills, passion, desire, commitement, moves, improved footwork. Being an athlete can get you to a certain point (15ppg 6rpg). Being a great player is a whole different matter.


----------



## Frankensteiner

Haha. Fans already want Curry out of New York:

http://knicks4life.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8975&sid=c2ab2cdecb4ef73923618aa9825455e2



> Curry has been crap most of the season. No defense and a alck of rebounding has not progressed at all.





> Yeah I know I am sick of him playing like a little ***** all the time. I've been thinking over the last week about the possibility of trading him for a tougher center like Magloire or Brad Miller. Do you guys think Sacramento or Milwaukee would do that trade. Eddy Curry is only 23 so he still has "potential" so maybe those teams would go for it. Eddy Curry kinda reminds me of Elden Cambell with even less heart. Great size, lots of talent but is a guy that never plays hard enough.





> If I were the new GM today, the first thing I would do is put Eddy Curry on the trade block. I do not like his game and I do not want a soft Center. I rather go with an undersized PF who will rebound and try to block shots over a true Center who doesn't give a damn. When you trade a large expiring contract, a young talent and an unprotected Draft pick, you should get a Star in return. Curry is not a Star and he's never going to be one. He does not have the heart or desire. How much has Curry improved the last 2 years? Not much, if any at all. I do not see him improving much in the future either. He is just not that good. I do think he could average 17, 18 ppg but he'll never average 8 rpg or 2 bpg, which you need from a Center if he's going to be a big part of your team.





> I never liked Curry, but he is still easily tradable and still will have value now. He seems to have proved his heart condition is fine, so I can see more teams taking a chance on him now





> I would easily deal Marbury, Q, and Curry away in the same year.
> 
> We need to rebuild legitimately...


There's your $60 M center who doesn't appear to be valued at all by a HOF coach or the team's fans.

But he's still #1 in our hearts, right guys? Let's hear the excuses.


----------



## ScottMay

Frankensteiner said:


> Haha. Fans already want Curry out of New York:
> 
> http://knicks4life.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8975&sid=c2ab2cdecb4ef73923618aa9825455e2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's your $60 M center who doesn't appear to be valued at all by a HOF coach or the team's fans.
> 
> But he's still #1 in our hearts, right guys? Let's hear the excuses.


21-28, lottery bound.

A player I was angrily and dismissively told would be just as good if not better than Curry is racking up DNP-CDs almost as fast as he racks up PFs when he does play.

The Bulls have made far more 2 PT and 3 PT field goals than their opponents, but have an almost 300-point deficit at the free-throw line on the season.

The majority of people who make a living following the NBA consider the upcoming draft and free-agent crops to be among the worst in recent memory.

The one-way $60 million center we decided to keep only recently awakened from his season-long slumber to start generating some numbers (although not wins or defense). 

These are ugly things to consider . . . I can see why so many would resort to a quick hit of Schadenfreude.


----------



## TripleDouble

Why are people clinging to a player who will likely never play in a Bulls uniform ever again? Eddy Curry has no bearing on the Bulls from here on out.


----------



## kukoc4ever

lougehrig said:


> Oh yeah because Curry (who missed the last 3rd of our season and playoffs) was so vital to us winning 47 games.


Curry missed the last 13 games of the season.

13/82 = .146 < 3/20 < 1/5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 1/3


Yah, he was vital to our success. Take a look at the standings. Listen to the GM ("we lost our size")


----------



## The ROY

TripleDouble said:


> Why are people clinging to a player who will likely never play in a Bulls uniform ever again? Eddy Curry has no bearing on the Bulls from here on out.


because the people on this board and THIS BOARD ONLY are OBSSESSED with former bulls players....

it's sickening


----------



## kukoc4ever

Many of the Curry bashers always liked to point out how successful the Bulls were once Curry was knocked out due to his heart issue. (last 13 games of the season)

Anyone ever look at the teams we beat during that run?

WINS
Charlotte (twice)
Cleveland
Orlando (twice)
Knicks (twice)
Toronto
Hawks


LOSSES
Miami
Detroit
Washington (more beatings from them on the way, stay tuned)
Pacers

Every non-playoff team we played we beat. Every playoff team we played we lost to. Lots more games against non-playoff teams than playoff teams. 

I'll take a 9-4 run from our current Bulls anytime, but let's face it, our undermanned team was outworking a bunch of non-playoff teams at the end of the NBA regular season.


Also, our playoff record was 2-4 last season, in case anyone forgot.


----------



## L.O.B

TripleDouble said:


> Why are people clinging to a player who will likely never play in a Bulls uniform ever again? Eddy Curry has no bearing on the Bulls from here on out.


I disagree. Curry could have a huge effect on the Bulls draft position on how he responds to this confrontation with Brown. How does Curry respond ? Curry's immediate response was


> "We just had a talk like all players and coaches do," Curry said as he walked briskly. "I'm going to do my best to help the team and learn from Coach."


I hope Curry never gets it this season and the Knicks continue to be a sieve under the basket. I want lots of losses and for Eddy to continue to stagnant as a defender. Eddy's play will effect the Bulls draft position. 

I am thankfull that Eddy has been able to play but it's too bad that his "heart" is still the biggest question about the bigman's game.


----------



## Frankensteiner

ScottMay said:


> 21-28, lottery bound.
> 
> A player I was angrily and dismissively told would be just as good if not better than Curry is racking up DNP-CDs almost as fast as he racks up PFs when he does play.
> 
> The Bulls have made far more 2 PT and 3 PT field goals than their opponents, but have an almost 300-point deficit at the free-throw line on the season.
> 
> The majority of people who make a living following the NBA consider the upcoming draft and free-agent crops to be among the worst in recent memory.
> 
> The one-way $60 million center we decided to keep only recently awakened from his season-long slumber to start generating some numbers (although not wins or defense).
> 
> These are ugly things to consider . . . I can see why so many would resort to a quick hit of Schadenfreude.


I would suggest faxing that information to Larry Brown and/or posting it on the Knicks board. Sure will make them feel better about their underachieving, overpaid, soft, starting Center.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> LOSSES
> Miami
> Detroit
> Washington (more beatings from them on the way, stay tuned)
> Pacers
> 
> Every non-playoff team we played we beat. Every playoff team we played we lost to. Lots more games against non-playoff teams than playoff teams.
> 
> I'll take a 9-4 run from our current Bulls anytime, but let's face it, our undermanned team was outworking a bunch of non-playoff teams at the end of the NBA regular season.
> 
> 
> Also, our playoff record was 2-4 last season, in case anyone forgot.


We were missing Nocioni (and Deng) for the Wizards and resting our players in the Pacers game. We also should have beaten Detroit if not for the meltdown at the end.

Missing Curry probably hurt us against Miami.


----------



## Ron Cey

I've gotten to the point where I don't even understand the debate anymore.

The Bulls miss Eddy Curry this season. It can't be denied. The Knicks train-wreck season has no bearing on that fact. Eddy Curry's failure to even remotely help the Knicks has no bearing on that fact.

But the key assets acquired in the trade haven't even been realized yet. Which seems to be overlooked when people say "21-28" like its supposed to matter. It doesn't matter in the big picture of the Eddy Curry deal. 

The question remains whether or not this trade will prove to be a good one for the long term success of the Chicago Bulls. That question can't be answered yet.


----------



## GB

Please folks...please.

I _like_ talking about the Knicks, and more specifically about the former Bulls on the Knicks. Other posters do too, and it's on these threads that we do so. 

I don't spam-post the draft threads, even though I think it's too early to be discussing that. I let the posters who want to have that conversation have it. Do threads about PER belong here or on the Stat board? I let those who want to have that conversation have it. Do us the same favor...

K4E's position is completely understandable. He's invested money into the franchise. He wants to go and cheer and see them win. From his standpoint, looking at a worse team, one that might not make the playoffs, Paxsons move set the franchise back. He's not getting his money's worth. Others see it differently.

Lets just discuss the player and the 2 teams he's affected...not the discussion about them, and if you don't have anything to say, move on to another thread after you've read the new posts in this one.

Thanks.


----------



## Da Grinch

Ron Cey said:


> I've gotten to the point where I don't even understand the debate anymore.
> 
> The Bulls miss Eddy Curry this season. It can't be denied. The Knicks train-wreck season has no bearing on that fact. Eddy Curry's failure to even remotely help the Knicks has no bearing on that fact.
> 
> But the key assets acquired in the trade haven't even been realized yet. Which seems to be overlooked when people say "21-28" like its supposed to matter. It doesn't matter in the big picture of the Eddy Curry deal.
> 
> The question remains whether or not this trade will prove to be a good one for the long term success of the Chicago Bulls. That question can't be answered yet.


you are right ron , the trade will yield some much needed answers about alot of things one of them being pax's drafting ability .

the only big man he has ever drafted is mario austin , and in doing so he passed over a # of productive players.

as of yet pax's drafts could have consisted of him watching the final 4 and picking a guy who was coming out.

it seems to be a forgone conclusion that pax is a good drafter , to me good drafters can find good players at any position , its not like this will likely be a great draft so skill at drafting may be needed.


----------



## TripleDouble

GB said:


> Please folks...please.
> 
> I _like_ talking about the Knicks, and more specifically about the former Bulls on the Knicks. Other posters do too, and it's on these threads that we do so.
> 
> I don't spam-post the draft threads, even though I think it's too early to be discussing that. I let the posters who want to have that conversation have it. Do threads about PER belong here or on the Stat board? I let those who want to have that conversation have it. Do us the same favor...
> 
> K4E's position is completely understandable. He's invested money into the franchise. He wants to go and cheer and see them win. From his standpoint, looking at a worse team, one that might not make the playoffs, Paxsons move set the franchise back. He's not getting his money's worth. Others see it differently.
> 
> Lets just discuss the player and the 2 teams he's affected...not the discussion about them, and if you don't have anything to say, move on to another thread after you've read the new posts in this one.
> 
> Thanks.


Would you grant someone the same "courtesy" if they started a thread bashing the Bulls for not signing Ben Wallace as an undrafted free agent or slamming them for passing on Gilbert Arenas?


----------



## GB

TripleDouble said:


> Would you grant someone the same "courtesy" if they started a thread bashing the Bulls for not signing Ben Wallace as an undrafted free agent or slamming them for passing on Gilbert Arenas?


I'd participate if I were interested. Ignore it if not.

Now...back to the topic...


----------



## TripleDouble

GB said:


> I'd participate if I were interested. Ignore it if not.
> 
> Now...back to the topic...


Right. Eddy Curry's a bum. No, he's great. 

This is grand.

BTW, I'm a little confused about the logic of you suggesting a direction of a thread while precluding the suggestions of others.


----------



## BG7

Hopefully in the draft, Paxson sees JJ Reddick, we don't neccassarily need a big man in the draft. We could draft Reddick, and trade OUR draft pick, and Tim Thomas for Kenyon Martin. Then sign Joel Pryzbilla and Al Harrington this offseason. 

PG-Ben Gordon/Chris Duhon
SG-JJ Reddick/Kirk Hinrich
SF-Luol Deng/Andres Nocioni
PF-Kenyon Martin/Al Harrington
C- Tyson Chandler/Joel Pryzbilla

Now thats a sick team.


----------



## step

We wouldn't be able to sign both fellas if we get K-Mart as he chews up a substantial amount of the cap space. A 3 man rotation of Chandler, Martin, Pryzbilla / Chandler, Martin, Harrington would be decent enough.
K-Mart showed he can still play with this 34 point performance over Dallas.


----------



## giantkiller7

I don't like K-mart as much as everyone else. A career 15 and 7 guy with a gigantic contract and a huge injury risk. More of a name than anything IMO.


----------



## lougehrig

Ron Cey said:


> I've gotten to the point where I don't even understand the debate anymore.
> 
> The Bulls miss Eddy Curry this season. It can't be denied. The Knicks train-wreck season has no bearing on that fact. Eddy Curry's failure to even remotely help the Knicks has no bearing on that fact.
> 
> But the key assets acquired in the trade haven't even been realized yet. Which seems to be overlooked when people say "21-28" like its supposed to matter. It doesn't matter in the big picture of the Eddy Curry deal.
> 
> The question remains whether or not this trade will prove to be a good one for the long term success of the Chicago Bulls. That question can't be answered yet.


I agree with this post for the most part. The Bulls do miss an inside presence, of which Eddy Curry was our last and most effective in awhile. I think people are just saying that spending $60M on Curry is overpaying and not yielding the return we need to be an elite team. Just like paying KMart is ovepaying and not yielding results. 

Are we better off w/o Curry? No. Are we better off with the alternatives (No huge contract, 2 very high draft picks, cap room for trade / free agents)? Yes.

To me having Curry will maximize us as a 47-50 win team. Last I checked we were trying to win championships and be a 60 win team who can challenge for a title. Would the Bulls be that team with Curry as our PF? IMO, no. Curry has really peaked from what I see from him (I have seen about 90% of Knick games this year). He will never be a solid defensive player or efficient player in the post or go to player.


----------



## kukoc4ever

lougehrig said:


> Are we better off w/o Curry? No. Are we better off with the alternatives (No huge contract, 2 very high draft picks, cap room for trade / free agents)? Yes.


So we're better off and not better off at the same time? Its either one or the other. 

2 very high draft picks? You are that certain that the Knicks will be horrible next year? Wow. Cap Space for trades/FAs? Yah right. Keep buying that dream. Trades? Not while the D-League has players to scout.

Who are we going to sign as a FA this off season to get us on the championship path? Who? What player will be draft to get us on that path? Names, names, names. Otherwise its just blind faith in a guy that is a career loser.




> To me having Curry will maximize us as a 47-50 win team. Last I checked we were trying to win championships and be a 60 win team who can challenge for a title. Would the Bulls be that team with Curry as our PF? IMO, no. Curry has really peaked from what I see from him (I have seen about 90% of Knick games this year). He will never be a solid defensive player or efficient player in the post or go to player.


Perhaps, but the Bulls currently suck and Al Harrington ain't going to fix it.

Seems like the idea is to blow up something successful and get bad to be good. Krause's philosophy, except he was building Cap Space to go after superstars, not Joel Przybilla.

The Bulls were a good basketball team with nowhere to go but up last season. Now we're back to not mattering. We're back in lotto hell.


----------



## Sham

"It's the CIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRCLE of LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFE!"


----------



## lougehrig

kukoc4ever said:


> So we're better off and not better off at the same time? Its either one or the other.
> 
> 2 very high draft picks? You are that certain that the Knicks will be horrible next year? Wow. Cap Space for trades/FAs? Yah right. Keep buying that dream. Trades? Not while the D-League has players to scout.
> 
> Who are we going to sign as a FA this off season to get us on the championship path? Who? What player will be draft to get us on that path? Names, names, names. Otherwise its just blind faith in a guy that is a career loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but the Bulls currently suck and Al Harrington ain't going to fix it.
> 
> Seems like the idea is to blow up something successful and get bad to be good. Krause's philosophy, except he was building Cap Space to go after superstars, not Joel Przybilla.
> 
> The Bulls were a good basketball team with nowhere to go but up last season. Now we're back to not mattering. We're back in lotto hell.


Did you watch tonight's Knick game? Curry is just agonizing. He gets so many touches and produces very mediocre return. Baby Al's 19ppg and 7rpg is an improvement over Curry's 14 pp, 6 rpg. Tonight Curry was 3-8 FG, 3-5 FT, 9 points, 1 off reb, 6 defensive, 26 minutes, 3 TO, 6 fouls against Mutombo and Yao. That is a typical night for him. He is the master of garbage time. I'll pass.


----------



## Sham

lougehrig said:


> Did you watch tonight's Knick game? Curry is just agonizing. He gets so many touches and produces very mediocre return. Baby Al's 19ppg and 7rpg is an improvement over Curry's 14 pp, 6 rpg. Tonight Curry was 3-8 FG, 3-5 FT, 9 points, 1 off reb, 6 defensive, 26 minutes, 3 TO, 6 fouls against Mutombo and Yao. That is a typical night for him. He is the master of garbage time. I'll pass.



When was the last time a Bulls center grabbed 6 defensive boards?


----------



## bullsville

Shouldn't the title of this thread be changed to "The Official EC Fans Meltdown" thread?


----------



## chifaninca

Is this thread nearing thread hall of fame status? 

Nearly 1,000 posts to this thread.


----------



## lougehrig

ShamBulls said:


> When was the last time a Bulls center grabbed 6 defensive boards?


Right because Chandler has had 9 straight games with 10+ boards. I wouldn't touch Curry with a ten-foot pole right now. The guy has pretty much peaked. I mean even Sam Bowie 15 ppg and 10rpg and 2 blocks per game one season. Right now Curry = Sam Bowie.


----------



## GB

> Brown made sure Curry had extra energy after lecturing him in front of the news media after Friday's loss and then needling him in comments Saturday when he called him the Knicks' "franchise player."
> 
> Curry did a double take when he was informed of that.
> 
> "He never told me that; it's my first time hearing it, so I'm kind of shocked by that," Curry said before the game. "It's good that he looks at me like that."
> 
> Later, Curry explained why it was hard to believe Brown would use that label. "It's more shocking to me because of how he is, he's not the kind of person to come to you and say, 'You're the franchise player,' " he said. "With me, it's always 'Eddy, you got to do this, you got to do that.' "
> 
> Curry seemed to respond to Brown's demands in the first quarter. He announced his franchise presence with a monstrous dunk in Yao's face and had 4 rebounds and 8 points in the first 10 minutes of the game. He then proceeded to disappear.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/sports/basketball/13knicks.html


----------



## kukoc4ever

lougehrig said:


> Did you watch tonight's Knick game? Curry is just agonizing. He gets so many touches and produces very mediocre return. Baby Al's 19ppg and 7rpg is an improvement over Curry's 14 pp, 6 rpg. Tonight Curry was 3-8 FG, 3-5 FT, 9 points, 1 off reb, 6 defensive, 26 minutes, 3 TO, 6 fouls against Mutombo and Yao. That is a typical night for him. He is the master of garbage time. I'll pass.


47 wins. leading scorer. post presence. Easy buckets.

Last season sure was not agonizing to be a Bulls fans. This one is.

I think Harrington is a pretty good player. He is a 3/4 tweener and has a much lower rebound rate than the average rebounding Curry. Harrington shoots 63% of his shots as jumpers. This is not the type of player we're looking for, IMO, although he is good.


----------



## bullsville

Meltdown thread, it is.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Strike up the band.... one last time....

"I hate Eddy Curry. I hate is ****ing guts...."

Man, I love that song. 

That’s the kind of stuff that could win a community college award.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

> He announced his franchise presence with a monstrous dunk in Yao's face and had 4 rebounds and 8 points in the first 10 minutes of the game. He then proceeded to disappear.


That's my man, Eddy, in a nutshell.


----------



## bullsville

Eddy certainly isn't turning it on as he gets into shape... in February so far (6 games):

27.3 min, 11.8 pts, 5.3 reb, 0.0 ast, 2.8 TO, 0.83 blk (0 in last 5 games)


----------



## Frankensteiner

From Sam Smith's latest column:



> This is no knock on Gordon, though the long campaign to trade Eddy Curry isn't exactly coming back to haunt the Bulls. *He is suffering through a miserable season with the Knicks as team President Isiah Thomas likely is fighting off requests by coach Larry Brown to deal Curry.*
> 
> Brown reportedly holds Curry responsible for the team's lack of toughness and demanded it and Curry change now. That said, Brown recently declared Curry the team's franchise player, *supposedly nudged by Thomas and ownership because the constant demeaning of his players isn't exactly helping their trade value.*


Brown wants to trade on of the supposed core pieces? WOW.

In Eddy's defense, it's not like Hall of Fame coaches know that much about basketball in the first place. Your average Johnny Internet Basketball Fan probably is a better judge of talent. I mean, doesn't Brown want those easy baskets in the 1Q?

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...0106feb13,1,2945667.column?coll=cs-columnists


----------



## TripleDouble

I'd trade Othella, Pike and the Bulls pick for Eddy and the Nuggets or Spurs pick.


----------



## ace20004u

I have said it before and I will say it again. If you want Curry to be effective you have to make it a point to keep feeding him in the post. If you go away from that he isn't GOING to score much.


----------



## Frankensteiner

ace20004u said:


> I have said it before and I will say it again. If you want Curry to be effective you have to make it a point to keep feeding him in the post. If you go away from that he isn't GOING to score much.


That's what they say about all the great centers.


----------



## GB

ace20004u said:


> I have said it before and I will say it again. If you want Curry to be effective you have to make it a point to keep feeding him in the post. If you go away from that he isn't GOING to score much.


Scoring isn't the issue here. It's the lack of staying in front of anyone that is...

At this point, Skiles and his staff (Cartwright too) are absolutely acquitted for any lack of development in Curry especially, and the other two former Bulls on the team. They're on their third coach that _knows_ the game...and nothing has changed.

Absolutely nothing. The Bulls took a step back this season...but the Knicks are so bad that I'm doubting Curry would have made a big difference in our record this season. The way the season would have started with the stress over the heart problem and his being out of shape and all would have had him the doghouse all season long.

Oh yeah...back to Ace's post. The view from New York:



> Brown is trying to raise Curry's battered self-esteem. The 6-11, 300-pounder is lost on defense, failing to grab rebounds, block shots or rotate quickly enough on defense. His offensive production has suffered because he commits too many offensive fouls.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/61848.htm


----------



## kukoc4ever

Curry was the starting center and had the 2nd highest MPG on our great defense, 47 win, 3rd best team in the East, BULLS team last season.

Now the BULLS are lousy again.

This Bulls board has the best Anti-Knicks talk on the internet. I guess you have to talk about something when the team you follow is floundering.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry was the starting center and had the 2nd highest MPG on our great defense, 47 win, 3rd best team in the East, BULLS team last season.
> 
> Now the BULLS are lousy again.


Why aren't the Knicks anywhere close to being a 47 win, 3rd best in the East, great defensive team with him starting for them?

Maybe he wasn't as big a factor as the numbers would indicate.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Maybe he wasn't as big a factor as the numbers would indicate.


The BULLS are 6 games under .500.

The only time the BULLS have been one of the better teams in the NBA post MJ, beating some of better teams in the league for prolonged stretches, is when Eddy Curry was in the lineup and playing well.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry was the starting center and had the 2nd highest MPG on our great defense, 47 win, 3rd best team in the East, BULLS team last season.
> 
> Now the BULLS are lousy again.


As always, the response is the Bulls are worse this season than last in part, but not entirely because of a lack of size resulting from the loss of Curry and Davis.

You put far too much emphasis that it is as a result of the loss of Eddy Curry in particular. At least in my view.

Clearly, Curry is a force who can score points in bunches under the right circumstances. But, as GB rightly points out, he is now in the system of a third head coach -- this one a certain hall of fame coach -- and the mantra of "just feed Eddy" is still not being implimented, and Eddy's pattern of showing early promise in a game followed by frequent disappearing acts, defensive lapses, etc. continues unabated.

Yes, you are correct (as always) when reporting the total number of wins we had last year.

And yes, you are correct (as aways) that Eddy Curry was on our roster last year and contributed to our success.

You've hidden Eddy's glaring flaws all season with the "good player on a bad team" excuse, but its becoming more and more obvious as the season progresses that those watching NY closely are coming to the conclusion that Eddy is an OK player on a bad team. A guy who can give you one good quarter and undo the good he did with three bad quaters. Clearly, as much as he was part of the solution for us last year, he is part of the problem with them this year.

When you combine the rest of this Bulls team's struggles this year with Eddy's own problems this year, I can't escape the suspicion that if we had retained EC, we would still be getting posts about how we won 47 games last year, third best team in the East and we suck again this year.

Only the cry would be for Paxson's head for having resigned all our players and not making a deal, since he should have known the Bulls wouldn't keep up the pit bull overachieving of last year.

I mean I can hear it now -- can't you? "Pax should have traded Curry when he had the chance. He is back to struggling anf inconsistent play, and now we're saddled with his $460M contract. I know we might not have got the same size in return, but the short term setback would have given us flexability to take the team to another level -- hey, maybe we could have even got a high lottery pick. But now we're stuck with the same roster, and that roster isn't playing the same it did last year. Stupid Pax. Fire him"

Yup. I can hear it now.


----------



## Future

kukoc4ever said:


> The BULLS are 6 games under .500.


They're still 9th in the Eastern conference and have a shot at the playoffs.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

On the other hand, shame on me for even responding. As I posted in the LB/Knicks thread a few days ago:



> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


I really have to print that out and tape it above my monitor...


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> The BULLS are 6 games under .500.
> 
> The only time the BULLS have been one of the better teams in the NBA post MJ, beating some of better teams in the league for prolonged stretched, is when Eddy Curry was in the lineup and playing well.



It was also the time when Ben Gordon was an off the bench 4th quarter killer.

Again...why are not the Knicks a copy of last seasons Bulls team with EC?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

GB said:


> Again...why are not the Knicks a copy of last seasons Bulls team with EC?


The standard excuse is "good player on a bad team."


----------



## kukoc4ever

Future said:


> They're still 9th in the Eastern conference and have a shot at the playoffs.


I agree, the East does suck this year.


----------



## Frankensteiner

The Bulls are currently on pace for 36 wins. Bringing up last year's 47 wins only has merit if one believes Eddy Curry would provide an 11+ game difference in the standings. That type of effect is reserved for MVP or All-Star candidates. Suffice to say, the theory is more than a little ridiculous.

This of course speaks nothing of evaluating the trade in general.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> It was also the time when Ben Gordon was an off the bench 4th quarter killer.
> 
> Again...why are not the Knicks a copy of last seasons Bulls team with EC?


Clearly, their team is not as good as ours was. Team balance would be the culprit, IMO. Lots of rookies/young players. Marbury taking a step back production wise and also being in and out of the lineup. Q playing like absolute crap. 

Curry, Frye and Lee seem like the only real bright spots. I'd take them on THE BULLS, that's for sure.

Its going to be sad to watch THE BULLS floundering around while they undertake the difficult search for a productive center.

10 months ago the UC was packed, crowd going nuts (NO-CI-O-NI!!!!!), everyone talking Bulls. If the Bulls keep losing, the UC will be hazy, quiet and cavernous at the end of the season yet again.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> Suffice to say, the theory is more than a little ridiculous.


Why are we losing then?

3 years on the job, all Paxson picked players on the roster and 47 wins is too high an expectation, given that we were able to do it last season?

Yikes.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> Why are we losing then?


So you believe Eddy Curry is an 11 win difference for the Bulls?


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Clearly, Curry is a force who can score points in bunches under the right circumstances. But, as GB rightly points out, he is now in the system of a third head coach -- this one a certain hall of fame coach -- and the mantra of "just feed Eddy" is still not being implimented, and Eddy's pattern of showing early promise in a game followed by frequent disappearing acts, defensive lapses, etc. continues unabated.


All well and good. There are obvious weaknesses in all of the Bulls players.... we could pick away at those all day if we wanted to. I don't dislike any of them enough to do it though. As a whole, warts and all, those guys were a good team last season.




> Only the cry would be for Paxson's head for having resigned all our players and not making a deal, since he should have known the Bulls wouldn't keep up the pit bull overachieving of last year.
> 
> I mean I can hear it now -- can't you? "Pax should have traded Curry when he had the chance. He is back to struggling anf inconsistent play, and now we're saddled with his $460M contract.


Not from me. If Paxson didn't make that trade, we'd be talking playoff seeding right now, IMO. If Paxson resigned everyone, a certain sig club was getting lighter. But, he didn’t and now we suck again. 3 years on the job.


----------



## bullsville

I'm feeling pretty bummed right about now, I heard a 9-year-old girl in the grocery store the other day saying that she is thinking about changing her birthday party from a Bulls theme to a Barbie theme because the team is struggling.

The depths of our despair know no bounds...


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> I'm feeling pretty bummed right about now, I heard a 9-year-old girl in the grocery store the other day saying that she is thinking about changing her birthday party from a Bulls theme to a Barbie theme because the team is struggling.
> 
> The depths of our despair know no bounds...




See, that's the thing. You are more of an anti-Knicks fan than a Bulls fan.

How many of your posts even have to do with the Chicago Bulls anymore?

You *should* be upset that the Bulls suck again. Seems to me you are just happy that the Knicks struggle.

schadenfreude.


----------



## Future

Bulls won 9 out of 13 games without Eddy Curry last year when he was out with the irregular heart beat securing our 4th spot in the playoffs. 

Eddy Curry was great for us when he was on the Bulls.... but that was mostly during the 1st quarter, and then he would disappear for the rest of the game (occasionally hitting a couple of shots). 

IMO, the Bulls miss Antonio Davis more than anything. The Bulls have had leads and haven't been able to close them out. Who knows, maybe AD's veteran leadership could have made a difference.

Oh, and this just in.... the Bulls have lots of rookies/young players also. The Bulls have one of the youngest teams in the league, yet you seem to think they have no upside... go figure. Bulls have a brighter future then the Knicks. Quote me on that.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> So you believe Eddy Curry is an 11 win difference for the Bulls?


I don't see any reason to believe that the Bulls would not be a 47+ win team if Paxson does not make that trade.


But he did. And now we suck again.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Future said:


> Bulls won 9 out of 13 games without Eddy Curry last year when he was out with the irregular heart beat securing our 4th spot in the playoffs.


All against non-playoff teams. Every playoff team we played we lost to.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> Yikes.


Why Yikes?

He is rebuilding from a team that produced _the worst six year run in league history_, the team last year just happpened to exceed _by far_ the expectations of every observer of the NBA I can think of and as far as I recall, most pundits bracketed their praise last year with an observation that the Bulls would have difficulty maintaining that remarkable run into this season -- an observation that has proven to be true. Blame for that can be placed at least a little on the absence of Eddy the player. Not too much, since it is clear that the honeymoon for Eddy in NY is over and there is no reason to believe Eddy wouldn't have followed the lead of the rest of the Bulls in having a poorer year than last if he was here. 

Some of the setback is attributable to a general lacking in front court size, meaning we simply don't have enough big bodies. 

Mostly, though, it is the setback that people were predicting last year, even if all the same roster returned. The same fire isn't there, Gordon is learning a new role as a starter, teams have adjusted to some of the things we were doing last year, Chandler has snoozed through half the season, our guards have not played to the same level, etc. Pax is rebuilding from a truly horrible team. In that process there have been bumps up and bumps down. The process isn't complete, and it is unreasonable to expect that in three short years the Bulls should be back competing at a high level on a consistent basis, the brief promise of the second half of last season notwithstanding.

Yikes? No, not really.


----------



## Frankensteiner

bullsville said:


> I'm feeling pretty bummed right about now, I heard a 9-year-old girl in the grocery store the other day saying that she is thinking about changing her birthday party from a Bulls theme to a Barbie theme because the team is struggling.
> 
> The depths of our despair know no bounds...


Overheard in isle #7 of my local Dominick's: "...no hope..."

Assumed it was in reference to the Bulls. I had to buy a six pack and stop over at Burger King after hearing that.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't see any reason to believe that the Bulls would not be a 47+ win team if Paxson does not make that trade.
> 
> 
> But he did. And now we suck again.


So Eddy Curry is basically an All-Star/MVP level player? Yikes.


----------



## GB

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The standard excuse is "good player on a bad team."


You'll excuse me if I tell you that I have a hard time believing Marbury, Rose, Q, and Frye can't be equal teammates to Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, Nocioni, especially when coached by Larry Brown.


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> See, that's the thing. You are more of an anti-Knicks fan than a Bulls fan.
> 
> How many of your posts even have to do with the Chicago Bulls anymore?
> 
> You *should* be upset that the Bulls suck again. Seems to me you are just happy that the Knicks struggle.
> 
> schadenfreude.


For a guy who cries like a little girl anytime someone mentions his loyalty to the Bulls, who the hell do you think you are to question my fandom?

I would send a nasty PM to several mods like you would, but since one is actively participating in the thread at this time, I'll assume he's going to take care of it.

And BTW Mr. Pot, the post of mine you quoted mentioned one NBA team only- THE CHICAGO BULLS.


----------



## Frankensteiner

GB said:


> You'll excuse me if I tell you that I have a hard time believing Marbury, Rose, Q, and Frye can't be equal teammates to Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, Nocioni, especially when coached by Larry Brown.


You put Hinrich on that team and they're a 40+ win team. So I've been told.

Hinrich is "Steve Nash East."


----------



## Future

kukoc4ever said:


> All against non-playoff teams. Every playoff team we played we lost to.


A win is a win... you say Eddy Curry makes an 11 win difference for the Bulls. We won 9 games without him last year....so I guess that makes it a 2 win difference? Logically thinking of course.... 

or did you mean an 11 win difference only against playoff teams.....hmmm....enlighten me.


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> most pundits bracketed their praise last year with an observation that the Bulls would have difficulty maintaining that remarkable run into this season -- an observation that has proven to be true.


Since he traded away our big guys, yah. "we lost our size." That's the reason Paxson himself is giving. I didn’t think that our team was a “fluke” last season, but I guess that would explain our dismal regression this year, if that’s what your opinion of last season was.



> Some of the setback is attributable to a general lacking in front court size, meaning we simply don't have enough big bodies. though, it is the setback that people were predicting last year, even if all the same roster returned.


Wow. Take a look at the win prediction thread on this board. There were people, many of them frequent posters on this thread, that still predicted a 47 win season. Are the "pundits" idiots are not? You can't use their opinions as something of value only when they agree with you.

Its more than "Big Bodies." There are plenty of 7 footers that attempt to play basketball. Most of them suck. That's what makes a player like Curry so rare. 



> Pax is rebuilding from a truly horrible team.


Not true. Last season our team was very good. 

I remember anyone even suggesting that last season was a "fluke" on the board last season was chased away with prejudice. PAXSON IS A GENIUS!!!!!! Now the "fluke" is the reason we're horrible this year. OK, sure.


----------



## GB

Stop Stop Stop

K4...you did make a personal attack. Please chill on that. We don't want this thread closed / moved. It's been a good discussion. Bullsville...ditto.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

K4E and Bullsville --

Lets keep it all nice and friendly like, boys!


----------



## kukoc4ever

Future said:


> you say Eddy Curry makes an 11 win difference for the Bulls.


strawman

Where did I say that?

I think that if Paxson didn't make the trade, its reasonable to think the Bulls could match last season's success.


As for the end of last season, I agree, a win is a win. But, beating up on the drek of the NBA when they have nothing to play for is a little different than taking it to playoff teams, which we were able to do when Curry was in the lineup last season.

That's fine... maybe I just thought the team was a good one last season. But, I guess it was a "fluke." 3 years on the job.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> For a guy who cries like a little girl anytime someone mentions his loyalty to the Bulls, who the hell do you think you are to question my fandom?


LOL


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> There are plenty of 7 footers that attempt to play basketball. Most of them suck. That's what makes a player like Curry so rare.


Curry has great athletic talent. He has so-so basketball talent. He can score...but thats about it. At this point, he has more in common with Kwame Brown that he does with Amare or Dwight Howard. Great physical gifts and _potential_.




> I remember anyone even suggesting that last season was a "fluke" on the board last season was chased away with prejudice.


Is that why I was banned?  Because I sure was screaming from the rooftops that the team was a bunch of Skiles motivated over-achievers.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Curry has great athletic talent. He has so-so basketball talent. He can score...but thats about it. At this point, he has more in common with Kwame Brown that he does with Amare or Dwight Howard. Great physical gifts and _potential_.


Curry is productive. Look at the #s. Kwame is nowhere near Curry.




> Is that why I was banned?  Because I sure was screaming from the rooftops that the team was a bunch of Skiles motivated over-achievers.


Which banning? Maybe you are right and the guys we have during year 3 of PaxSkiles are just not talented enough to compete in this league. Man, that's kind of depressing.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> Are the "pundits" idiots are not? You can't use their opinions as something of value only when they agree with you.


LOL. Isn't that what you do with Paxson?


----------



## bullsville

FWIW, somehow without Curry we managed to outscore the Clippers 46-36 last night *in the paint*.

And that was against the 5th best team in the league, with an All-Star PF and a very good center (his PER may even be higher than Curry's?).


----------



## Future

kukoc4ever said:


> strawman
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> I think that if Paxson didn't make the trade, its reasonable to think the Bulls could match last season's success.
> 
> 
> As for the end of last season, I agree, a win is a win. But, beating up on the drek of the NBA when they have nothing to play for is a little different than taking it to playoff teams, which we were able to do when Curry was in the lineup last season.
> 
> That's fine... maybe I just thought the team was a good one last season. But, I guess it was a "fluke." 3 years on the job.


We are able to take it to playoff teams. We beat the San Antonio Spurs and gave them their 1st loss at home this season. The problem with the Bulls is not being able to close out games. As I said before (which you quietly edited), I feel this team misses AD and probably even Hawk's veteran leadership more than anything. 

And I like how you made the excuse as to the why the Knicks are not a good team with Eddy Curry. You mentioned how they have lots of rookie/young players.... the Bulls are the same ( I said this all before, but that was ignored).


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> LOL. Isn't that what you do with Paxson?


There are things that come out of Paxson's mouth that I agree with.

"Eddy was such an important part of what we did this season"

"We lost our size."

Lots of things!


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry is productive. Look at the #s. Kwame is nowhere near Curry.


The numbers say 14 wins. 



> Which banning?


The only one.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Future said:


> And I like how you made the excuse as to the why the Knicks are not a good team with Eddy Curry. You mentioned how they have lots of rookie/young players.... the Bulls are the same ( I said this all before, but that was ignored).


Make no mistake, I think the job Skiles does is absolutely remarkable.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> The numbers say 14 wins.


They also say -12


----------



## GB

Nice writeup here:



> Is it possible to screw up so badly that you can’t get fired? Isiah might have just done it. Despite this absolute nightmare he’s helped create, he can’t resign now, because it will look like he’s guilty. Dolan can’t fire him now because it will look like the Garden is guilty and he’s already made it clear that he stands behind what Isiah is doing. That’s the equivalent of President Bush publicly complimenting Mike Brown of FEMA on the Hurricane Katrina job.
> 
> Which means that Isiah Thomas, the embattled-from-all-sides President who brought you Jerome’s contract, Eddy’s heart, Q’s back, and Penny’s corpse, is desperate. That’s the most horrifying thing about this whole mess. It can get worse. Desperate for anything to distract everyone—the media, the fans, the waterboy—from the current mess, if only temporarily, he’s going to make a patented Isiah trade that’s going to officially render the Knicks obsolete for the next decade. Dolan has basically no choice but to allow Isiah to take out his 27th mortgage. Can you say Jalen Rose?
> 
> And Isiah isn’t the only one who’s stuck here. Nobody is going anywhere; everyone is stuck with each other. Larry Brown can’t resign because it will look like he gave up his dream job. Isiah can’t fire Larry because it will show that one of the best NBA coaches ever couldn’t fix the mess he created. As for Dolan, well, we know he’s never letting the Knicks leave his grubby hands. And the roster? Would you want Jerome James?
> 
> Oh yeah, Knick fans are stuck too. Yeah, we can ignore the team and try to ignore this soap opera but like Isiah’s favorite Internet columnist once wrote, “Your favorite sport teams are like family; you don’t choose them, you’re born with them.”
> 
> So welcome, loyal fans of the New York Knicks, a mess on the court and a mess off of it.
> 
> Welcome to Taradise. Welcome to rock bottom.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Future said:


> I feel this team misses AD and probably even Hawk's veteran leadership more than anything.


Using the logic on this thread... "Why weren't the Knicks good with AD on the team?"


AD and THE HAWK are solid guys, and it didn't make any sense to get rid of either of them IMO. I disagree with you though.


----------



## kukoc4ever

I wish the NY press would work here for a couple months. Maybe that would light a fire under Paxson and chase him from whatever NBDL league game he's watching and get him on the phones.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> All against non-playoff teams. Every playoff team we played we lost to.


Our record against playoff teams last year: 16-27 (.372)

Our record against playoff teams this year: 9-17 (.346)


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> Our record against playoff teams last year: 16-27 (.372)
> 
> Our record against playoff teams this year: 9-17 (.346)


Your point?


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Using the logic on this thread... "Why weren't the Knicks good with AD on the team?"


Because he was only a role player...like Curry was for us.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> AD and THE HAWK are solid guys, and it didn't make any sense to get rid of either of them IMO. I disagree with you though.


Weren't those guys just crap that Paxson got in return for Rose and Crawford? Now they're solid guys.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Because he was only a role player...like Curry was for us.


There were no superstars on our team last year, no doubt.

Its tough to find productive starting centers though... tough role to fill. 

Paxson will be spending most of his time the next few months trying to figure out a way to fill that role.


----------



## Future

kukoc4ever said:


> Using the logic on this thread... "Why weren't the Knicks good with AD on the team?"
> 
> 
> AD and THE HAWK are solid guys, and it didn't make any sense to get rid of either of them IMO. I disagree with you though.


Because of the players around him....the Knicks can't defend. The Bulls could last year.... the Bulls still can this year. Our team is young, we have leads in the game, and are unable to close them out. It could be psychological, and maybe a veteran presence like AD coud've made a difference. All a matter of opinion.


----------



## bullsville

Frankensteiner said:


> Weren't those guys just crap that Paxson got in return for Rose and Crawford? Now they're solid guys.


To be fair, I don't think anyone ever said we got "crap" for Jamal.

"Garbage" for Jamal, yes, thousands of times. But not "crap".

Just to be fair and accurate.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> Now they're solid guys.


They are not horrible.

HAWK you can get of the NBA scrap heap for nothing.

AD is a decent big man.

Both are easily replaceable, given AD's advanced age.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Future said:


> Because of the players around him...


OK, well, then that's the reason the Knicks are struggling w/ Curry.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Its tough to find productive starting centers though... tough role to fill.


No it's not. It's tough to find superstar centers though.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> Its tough to find productive starting centers though... tough role to fill.


The Knicks are learning that the hard way.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> No it's not.


Hmmmm.. OK. Well then why don't we have one?


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The Knicks are learning that the hard way.


I'd say the Bulls are.

We had one last season. We were a winner last season.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I consider AD more of a power forward. With that exception, I agree with both of your points.


----------



## Future

kukoc4ever said:


> OK, well, then that's the reason the Knicks are struggling w/ Curry.


Curry doesn't seem to be helping them right now with the way he is playing. We are fighting for a playoff spot..... the Knicks are giving us a top 10 pick in the NBA Draft and probably will do the same next year. The Bulls are 9th in the Eastern Conference now, and you are ignoring that. The Eastern Conference may not be at its best (and the Western Conference isn't that much better), but the Bulls can still get a playoff spot. This team has a bright future, brighter then the Knicks and I think most people can agree with that. Can you?


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> Hmmmm.. OK. Well then why don't we have one?


Same reason we don't have a tall 2 guard to start or come off the bench: We're still rebuilding.


Though I'd call Chandlers play of late pretty effective.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> Though I'd call Chandlers play of late pretty effective.


One down, one to go.

We had to burn a #2 pick in the draft on Chandler.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd say the Bulls are.
> 
> We had one last season. We were a winner last season.


Yup, an 11+ win MVP/All-Star center who's on pace to be -11 addition for the Knicks. What a player. Yikes.


----------



## GB

> Yao and Curry were engaged in a gripping battle when Curry answered two Yao baskets — a seven-foot fadeaway and an 11-foot jumper — with a thunderous dunk over Yao that merited a spirited response from the 13,975 at Toyota Center. Curry not only left the crowd in awe, he got Yao's attention.
> 
> "I think that waked me up," Yao said. "That's like a hammer waked me up."
> 
> That moment, one in which Curry took the fight to Yao, signaled a turning point more than a harbinger of what was to come. Shaken and stirred, Yao replied with an efficient effort that saw him lay waste to Curry and every other center on the Knicks' roster.
> --
> After Curry woke Yao with his dunk, Yao spent the night putting the Knicks to sleep.
> 
> "Everybody is going to have some bad nights, bad moments," Yao said. "I know I'm not the only one on the court.
> 
> "I have teammates to support me, so I know I will play well."


Aggression would be a good thing for Curry to add to his repetoire.


----------



## Frankensteiner

GB said:


> Aggression would be a good thing for Curry to add to his repetoire.


Add a diet, hard work, and some desire and you might have a good player.


----------



## bullsville

Future said:


> Curry doesn't seem to be helping them right now with the way he is playing. We are fighting for a playoff spot..... the Knicks are giving us a top 10 pick in the NBA Draft and probably will do the same next year. The Bulls are 9th in the Eastern Conference now, and you are ignoring that. The Eastern Conference may not be at its best (and the Western Conference isn't that much better), but the Bulls can still get a playoff spot. This team has a bright future, *brighter then the Knicks and I think most people can agree with that. Can you?*


So now we are down to being happy that we have a brighter future than the Knicks? Last season, we won 47 games and were the 3rd best team in the East, and now we are down to praying for lottery balls. 

Empty seats at the UC are up, and morale in the stands is down. People are more excited about Spring Training than the Bulls, and that just wasn't the case last year at this time. Things are bleak.

And this is Paxson's 3rd year, and we are just getting worse and worse.


----------



## Frankensteiner

bullsville said:


> So now we are down to being happy that we have a brighter future than the Knicks? Last season, we won 47 games and were the 3rd best team in the East, and now we are down to praying for lottery balls.
> 
> Empty seats at the UC are up, and morale in the stands is down. People are more excited about Spring Training than the Bulls, and that just wasn't the case last year at this time. Things are bleak.
> 
> And this is Paxson's 3rd year, and we are just getting worse and worse.


Laurence Holmes is on the Score talking Bulls right now. I'll have a report up. Please stand by.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Hate must make some people happier than following a winning team.

Go figure.


I can't wait for the "we're a NBA also-ran but better than the Knicks" banner raising ceremony.


----------



## Future

bullsville said:


> So now we are down to being happy that we have a brighter future than the Knicks? Last season, we won 47 games and were the 3rd best team in the East, and now we are down to praying for lottery balls.
> 
> Empty seats at the UC are up, and morale in the stands is down. People are more excited about Spring Training than the Bulls, and that just wasn't the case last year at this time. Things are bleak.
> 
> And this is Paxson's 3rd year, and we are just getting worse and worse.


Are you playing the role of K4E or something? 

Do people not realize we are in the hunt for a playoff spot? It seems like the idea of that is just bouncing off people's heads.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> Hate must make some people happier than following a winning team.
> 
> Go figure.


Someone was still hating on Paxson last year despite the Bulls being in the playoffs.


----------



## Zeb

kukoc4ever said:


> Hate must make some people happier than following a winning team.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the "we're a NBA also-ran but better than the Knicks" banner raising ceremony.


Seriously, your campaign against "hate" is rediculous. Basketball is a sport, and in sports you root for some players/teams, and you root against others. No one's attacking them personally, and they make more than enough to have their basketball abilities questioned/insulted. Get off your high horse and end the "hate" BS.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> Someone was still hating on Paxson last year despite the Bulls being in the playoffs.



I think i started a thread called "Paxson is OK" but whatever.



It would be fun to have this argument but to switch roles... as Future is saying.


I'm going to go whip myself into such a hateful lather that I'm going to record a angry song about our starting center on our first winning team in ages.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Zeb said:


> Seriously, your campaign against "hate" is rediculous.


Ya think? 

See, I take this very seriously. That stings.


----------



## GB

Ok...it's getting too personal. Time to take a break.


----------



## Zeb

K4E, you don't even have an argument anymore. You either say we suck because we don't have our leading scorer from a 47-win 3rd seed Playoff team, or that someone's a hater and/or is hating.

You realize, with Curry playing like crap and the Knicks one of if not the worst team in the league, you have nothing substancial to back you up, so you repeat your mantra.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

OK, we're backing off from getting personal...


----------



## kukoc4ever

Zeb said:


> K4E, you don't even have an argument anymore.


Actually, Paxson and I agree on the problem with the Bulls.

"We lost our size."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, Paxson and I agree on the problem with the Bulls.
> 
> "We lost our size."


Taken by itself, does anyone disagree with this statement?

_Anyone?...Anyone...?...Bueller?_

Or at least that it is *a* problem, not necessarily *THE* problem, as if there is no other problem...


----------



## giusd

Yes and i have this to say. At least we are not taking about Curry's heart condition because from what i have seen this year Curry has no heart. He is the smallest 7 footer i have ever seen.

I think it really possilbe the knicks could have the 1st or 2nd worst record in the nba. A top three pick is a real possibility. They have lost 15 of 16 games. Seriuolsy that is something. LB is going to quite soon or he will have a stroke. 

david


----------



## Zeb

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Taken by itself, does anyone disagree with this statement?
> 
> _Anyone?...Anyone...?...Bueller?_


Denitely not, but that fact will continue to be ignored.


----------



## kukoc4ever

giusd said:


> Yes and i have this to say. At least we are not taking about Curry's heart condition because from what i have seen this year Curry has no heart. He is the smallest 7 footer i have ever seen.
> 
> I think it really possilbe the knicks could have the 1st or 2nd worst record in the nba. A top three pick is a real possibility. They have lost 15 of 16 games. Seriuolsy that is something. LB is going to quite soon or he will have a stroke.
> 
> david



If Curry is such an awful player, as david claims, then we seem to have at least one person who disagrees with "we lost our size."


----------



## Zeb

kukoc4ever said:


> If Curry is such an awful player, as david claims, then we seem to have at least one person who disagrees with "we lost our size."


How so?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Zeb said:


> Denitely not, but that fact will continue to be ignored.


But when "our size" went to the Knicks, they were an awful team. Strange. Why would Paxson lament over the loss of some losers?


----------



## Zeb

kukoc4ever said:


> But when "our size" went to the Knicks, they were an awful team. Strange. Why would Paxson lament over the loss of some losers?


Keep ignoring. :banana:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

kukoc4ever said:


> If Curry is such an awful player, as david claims, then we seem to have at least one person who disagrees with "we lost our size."


Well, david and I are actually talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about losing size. We are smaller -- too small up front. I don't think that fact, taken alone, can be fairly contested. Its obvious.

david's post didn't address the bare issue of losing size. He addressed the issue of losing Eddy Curry (who had size).

In my post, I wasn't addressing who was a good fit or bad fit for the Bulls in terms of size -- Eddy Curry or not. I simply pointed out that as of right now, we we lack enough big bodies on the roster. I don't see how anyone could fairly disagree with that.


----------



## lougehrig

kukoc4ever said:


> 47 wins. leading scorer. post presence. Easy buckets.
> 
> Last season sure was not agonizing to be a Bulls fans. This one is.
> 
> I think Harrington is a pretty good player. He is a 3/4 tweener and has a much lower rebound rate than the average rebounding Curry. Harrington shoots 63% of his shots as jumpers. This is not the type of player we're looking for, IMO, although he is good.


Did you ever watch Karl Malone in his prime? How about Elton Brand? How about Jermain O'Neal? What about Nowitzki? Look at Rasheed Wallace or even Tim Duncan. They had a high percentage of shots were jumpers. They are all power forwards. They are would all the type of player we are looking for. Now if Curry could hit a jump shot facing the basket I would consider him a much better player and someone I would miss. Look at Patrick Ewing or David Robinson or Hakeem Olajuwon. They all were good jump shooters out to 15 feet. That is why they were also good post players. The only player who can be 100% post up is Shaq and as we know, Eddy is about 1/10 the player Shaq is. Harrington would be a big help on our team.

Nothing about Curry's game says easy anything. He gets alot of touches, but his game is so forced. You always feel like he is about to get stripped or blocked or put up a brick. It's agonizing. Leading scorer? He averaged 16ppg and so did Gordon and Hinrich was at 15ppg. We have more than made up for his mediocrity this year.

Curry has peaked. He is not going to become a 20ppg, 10rpg, 2 bpg player who playes 35 mins a night and is dominant defensively. Shaquille in his prime played 40 minutes per night. Curry is a role player who players 27-29 minutes per night. Hardly the focus of your team. All I know is he is suppose to be the centerpiece of the Knicks and right now they are absolutely brutal. He is a big part of the brutality. We don't miss him specifically. We need a good post up scorer and interior defender and rebounder. AD brought the defense and rebounding and Curry brought post up scoring. Al Harrington would bring scoring (more than Curry), defending and decent rebounding. We get a backup center to play good defense and rebounding.


----------



## kukoc4ever

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Well, david and I are actually talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about losing size. We are smaller -- too small up front. I don't think that fact, taken alone, can be fairly contested. Its obvious.
> 
> david's post didn't address the bare issue of losing size. He addressed the issue of losing Eddy Curry (who had size).
> 
> In my post, I wasn't addressing who was a good fit or bad fit for the Bulls in terms of size -- Eddy Curry or not. I simply pointed out that as of right now, we we lack enough big bodies on the roster. I don't see how anyone could fairly disagree with that.


Fine, but Paxson said "we lost our size."

Meaning we had it (Curry and Davis) and then we lost it.

He was saying this in response to a question as to why the Bulls suck this season. You would think only the loss of quality players would be lamented.

I agree that we lack size at G as well... but we didn't lose any this offseason unless you count THE HAWK, who didn't play much.


----------



## bullsville

And last night, for the first time, Skiles finally made up for some of our lack of size up front by going real big at the 2/3 with Nocioni and Deng, and that lineup went on a 12-2 run to close out the first half and give us the lead.

The same 2/3 combo played together for 4-5 minutes at the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th quarter and was +1.

If we could deal Duhon for Gooden, we would be hard to beat the rest of the way IMHO.

Plus the schedule is finally in our favor- 18 of 32 at home, only 5 more games vs the West (all at home) and 27 against the East (we are 14-11 vs the East), and we have currently played the 7th-toughest schedule in the league.

The realistic goal now should be the 6th seed and a first-round win vs the Nets.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I also disagree with those who call Eddy a loser. Eddy is not a loser.

Right now, I would contend that his plusses and minuses nearly cancel each other out. But he is a massive 7 footer who shows flashed of low post brilliance and may develop more consistency in production throughout the whole game and may, through work, minimize some of his skill weaknesses.

My whole point in all of this though is I can't get too up in arms that we didn't strap ourselves of flexibility to improve by commiting to a $60M deal, especially given what I've seen of him this season -- and I've gone out of my way to watch a lot of Knicks games.

I do think we would be incrementally better off this year with Eddy on the team, since he has the size we lack. Since the choice was to sign him to that $60M or let him play on the QO and then lose him for nothing -- no lottery pick, nothing -- I don't mind the fact that he is gone (even though I did like him and always did, and still do root for him to get better).

I do wish Pax would find SOMEBODY to add some bulk up front. I would rather he do it now, rather than wait to the end of the season. On the other hand, I want Pax to do what is best for long term success. So, as they say, I don't want him to make a deal just to make a deal.

Here's to hoping that the re-awakened Chandler and some more consistent play will get us that Eye of the Tiger thing back for the second half.


----------



## bullsville

Yes, Paxson said "we lost our size".

I guess some people may have missed the part where he says he is going to replace that size in free agency and/or the draft?


----------



## badfish

kukoc4ever said:


> Hate must make some people happier than following a winning team.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the "we're a NBA also-ran but better than the Knicks" banner raising ceremony.



:laugh: We agree on almost nothing, but you definitely crack me up. I feel an avatar change coming on.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> The same 2/3 combo played together for 4-5 minutes at the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th quarter and was +1.


Worth a shot, but I don't think we're going to be benching Gordon (Paxson's #3 pick in the draft) anytime soon.




> If we could deal Duhon for Gooden, we would be hard to beat the rest of the way IMHO.


I agree that this would be a good trade to make. But, reports say don't expect Paxson to make a trade. Sigh.



> The realistic goal now should be the 6th seed and a first-round win vs the Nets.


If we make the Gooden trade and if Gordon is benched? Or even if those two events don't happen.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Zeb said:


> Keep ignoring. :banana:


Ignoring what?

(you try to go back n forth with 7 people sometime!  )


----------



## kukoc4ever

lougehrig said:


> Did you ever watch Karl Malone in his prime? How about Elton Brand? How about Jermain O'Neal? What about Nowitzki? Look at Rasheed Wallace or even Tim Duncan. They had a high percentage of shots were jumpers. They are all power forwards. They are would all the type of player we are looking for.


Sorry, should have posted 62% of shots as jumpers with a pathetic eFG of .404. My bad.

Oh, and Harrington is nowhere near those players, and he's 26 years old.




> Now if Curry could hit a jump shot facing the basket I would consider him a much better player and someone I would miss. Look at Patrick Ewing or David Robinson or Hakeem Olajuwon. They all were good jump shooters out to 15 feet. That is why they were also good post players. The only player who can be 100% post up is Shaq and as we know, Eddy is about 1/10 the player Shaq is.



If you compare any Bulls to the greatest players at their position over the last 10 years we are going to come up short. Yes, I agree, Curry is not as good as Ewing, Robinson, Dream or SHAQ. ????



> Harrington would be a big help on our team.


Disagree. We don't need a "big man" that is a worse rebounder than Curry was and that prefers chucking up .404 eFG jumpers over getting the dirty work done on the inside. IMO.




> We have more than made up for his mediocrity this year.



LOLOLOLOL. We are 6 games under .500!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We were the 3rd best team in the East last season!!!!!!!


----------



## bullsville

kukoc4ever said:


> Worth a shot, but I don't think we're going to be benching Gordon (Paxson's #3 pick in the draft) anytime soon.


Yeah, *OR* "Paxson's #3 pick in the draft" could continue to start and play 36 minutes at guard, and "Paxson's first #7 pick in the draft" could continue to start and play 36 minutes at guard, and "Paxson's #1 European free agent signing" could continue to come off the bench, playing the other 24 guard minutes next to "Paxson's second #7 pick" who would be playing 36 minutes at the small forward position.

And "Paxson's #1 free agent signing" would also play the 12 small forward minutes that "Paxson's second #7 draft pick" doesn't play.




> I agree that this would be a good trade to make. But, reports say don't expect Paxson to make a trade. Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> If we make the Gooden trade and if Gordon is benched? Or even if those two events don't happen.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> Yeah, *OR* "Paxson's #3 pick in the draft" could continue to start and play 36 minutes at guard, and "Paxson's first #7 pick in the draft" could continue to start and play 36 minutes at guard, and "Paxson's #1 European free agent signing" could continue to come off the bench, playing the other 24 guard minutes next to "Paxson's second #7 pick" who would be playing 36 minutes at the small forward position.


Sniff sniff. Poor Duhon. That's no way to treat the team captain.

If you feel that Deng/Noc is our best option at 2/3, why not try to maximize their minutes together by starting them?


----------



## bullsville

Poor Duhon? 

Maybe he'll get traded somewhere where he can be a starter?

If not, who cares? If him playing zero minutes leads to more Bulls wins, *that* is the important thing to most *Bulls* fans, I would think?

As for "maximizing their minutes by starting them together", a little math:

In the scenario I just presented that you replied to, Deng plays 36 minutes at SF. Nocioni plays 12 minutes at SF.

That leaves 24 minutes together on the floor with Deng at SF and Nocioni at SG, no matter if they start together or not.

Sorry, I didn't realize it was such a complicated concept.


----------



## unBULLievable

bullsville said:


> Poor Duhon?
> 
> Maybe he'll get traded somewhere where he can be a starter?
> 
> If not, who cares? If him playing zero minutes leads to more Bulls wins, *that* is the important thing to most *Bulls* fans, I would think?


bullsvile update the 14-33 record.. please

or are you updating it every 5 losses


----------



## unBULLievable

[edit] This thread gets nasty enough without resorting to that kind of baiting. TB#1


----------



## bullsville

unBULLievable said:


> bullsvile update the 14-33 record.. please
> 
> or are you updating it every 5 losses


I'm sorry, man, they keep losing so fast that I just can't keep up with it!


----------



## theanimal23

I miss Eddy, but I definitely don't miss him that much. I think we would have been marginally better this year with him, but not up there behind Det or Mia. 

I think the biggest reason why I was stubborn in not letting him go, was for two reasons: 1. We drafted all the 'core' guys and it would have been great to have this team mature into contenders, and 2. Potential. It's the word we all love and hate when it comes to the NBA. 

I think Pax did a great job getting the NYK pick, and the Swap for next year. I do not like Sweetney. I would like to see him gone. I think we have to do whatever it takes to get Aldridge in the draft. 

The way I look at it, if we didn't make a trade, we would have Eddy, our 1st rounder, and some cap room (not near Max cap room right?), but this summer we will have 2 1st rounders, and max cap room. I rather be in situation 2. Imagine if we can pull off a draft of Aldridge and Brewer, and can trade a piece of our core for a guy like Rashard Lewis, and sign Gooden and Nazr? That would be a successful offseason.

One other idea is, why not offer Philly a 2nd rounder for Steven Hunter? They just tried to trade him to NOK.


----------



## bullsville

I was just on another Bulls' board, and there is a poll question...

Would you reverse the Curry Trade right now? 
Yes 
0% [ 0 ] 
No 
100% [ 14 ] 

Total Votes : 14


----------



## lougehrig

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh, and Harrington is nowhere near those players, and he's 26 years old.
> QUOTE]
> 
> And Curry is nowhere near Al Harrington. He doesn't do the dirty work inside. He gets 20 touches, scores 5 baskets, gets 3 TO and passes out 10 times.
> 
> The only point I am making about Dream and Malone is that they shoot alot of jumpers. So someone like Al who can post and shoot is normal. Someone like Curry who can barely post and nothing else is a waste.
> 
> Curry who is 6'11" and apparantly freakishly atheltic averages 11.4 boards per 48 (10.2 boards per 48 for career).
> 
> Al who is 6'9" and average athleticism averages 10.5 boards per 48 when playing power foward (he has been playing less because Marvin Williams has been playing there).
> 
> Gooden who is 6'10" and average athleticism averages 15.5 boards per 48.
> 
> We need size on the insize. We lost the size we had. We actually need better players than Curry and a 37 y/o AD.


----------



## theanimal23

I was just checking this out at RealGM's Resources website, we have a trade exception of just less than $3.9 million that expires Oct 4, 2006. 

I completely forgot abotu that, but that can definitely help us if we do a S&T with a team like Denver for Nene.


----------



## bullsville

That Trade Exception won't help us much this summer, we'll be under the cap and unable to use it then.

But to get a player before the deadline either in a salary dump or for just a draft pick, we could get a decent big man with $3.9 million.


----------



## theanimal23

Maybe we can work a deal with Seattle. I like Reggie Evans. He isn't the biggest guy inside, but he does rebound very well. Imagine if we can get our hands on him and/or Collison (unlikely Seattle would give him up).


----------



## ScottMay

bullsville said:


> That Trade Exception won't help us much this summer, we'll be under the cap and unable to use it then.
> 
> But to get a player before the deadline either in a salary dump or for just a draft pick, we could get a decent big man with $3.9 million.


What about Michael Sweetney?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

ScottMay said:


> What about Michael Sweetney?


If he had $3.9 million, he could get a decent big man too.


----------



## Zeb

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If he had $3.9 million, he could get a decent big man too.


 :rotf:


----------



## GB

Other than the massive expectations that sit upon him, Eddy Curry has a great life. Well paid, gets to travel, has 5 months off a year. Gets to play a game he likes for a living.

And thats the "problem" if it can be defined as one. He's content. It's just that he cannot get Brown, Isaiah, and the media out of his ear. 

They want to be winners and he accepted their money to help be that and they're going to ride him until he gives it to them or they've run him into the ground and broken him (See Michael Jordan and Kwame Brown).

For his own sake, Eddy should have accepted the QO, and then less money to play in an established system like San Antonio or Detroit. Less money, but less pressure (and more wins).


----------



## theanimal23

I might be in the minority, but I want Sweetney out. He just doesn't appeal to me. 

I assume we picked up his option for next year? 

Do you guys think Indy will try to resign Fred Jones? They are well over the cap, and maybe we can use the TE to get him. He will be a RFA this offseason. The one guy, I hope goes under the radar this offseason is Posey. He's a guy who had jib, and would be SOLID on our team.


----------



## bullsville

Sweetney is giving about what was expected, less scoring but more rebounding, a few more blocks and a lot more assists, when compared with Curry. (This is the Eddy Curry Thread, right?)

And Sweetney makes over $1 million less than $3.9 million, for whatever that may be worth?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

bullsville said:


> Sweetney is giving about what was expected, less scoring but more rebounding, a few more blocks and a lot more assists, when compared with Curry. (This is the Eddy Curry Thread, right?)
> 
> And Sweetney makes over $1 million less than $3.9 million, for whatever that may be worth?



Curry

PPG	14.2
RPG	6.4 
APG	.2
SPG	.46
BPG	.83
FG%	.528
FT%	.635
3P%	.000
MPG	27.0


Sweetney

PPG	9.3
RPG	5.9 
APG	1.0
SPG	.35
BPG	.81
FG%	.461
FT%	.615
3P%	.000
MPG	20.5


----------



## GB

Rasheed Wallace:

PPG	15.4
RPG	6.60
APG	2.5

And he's an All-Star. Curry is only 1 point and 2/10 of a rebound away...


----------



## Sham

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Curry
> 
> PPG	14.2
> RPG	6.4
> APG	.2
> SPG	.46
> BPG	.83
> FG%	.528
> FT%	.635
> 3P%	.000
> MPG	27.0
> 
> 
> Sweetney
> 
> PPG	9.3
> RPG	5.9
> APG	1.0
> SPG	.35
> BPG	.81
> FG%	.461
> FT%	.615
> 3P%	.000
> MPG	20.5




Wow, Sweetney's a better shotblocker than someone. Now there's a turn up.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bullsville said:


> In the scenario I just presented that you replied to, Deng plays 36 minutes at SF. Nocioni plays 12 minutes at SF.
> 
> That leaves 24 minutes together on the floor with Deng at SF and Nocioni at SG, no matter if they start together or not.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't realize it was such a complicated concept.


Not complicated, just not well thought out.

Unless you think playing Gordon 12 minutes a game at PG is a good idea, which you apparently do, under your flawed scheme.

I don't think playing Gordon 12 minutes a game at PG is a good idea.

Although, I do care about the wins and losses a fair amount.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> Although, I do care about the wins and losses a fair amount.


I'm not a season ticket holder. If I were, I might actually place the kind of weight on this seasons wins and losses that you do. I don't even live in Chicago. I only spend money on a ticket maybe once or twice a year when I get up there. 

The question I have for you is do you agree that the good/bad of the Curry trade can't yet be evaluated. Do you agree that it depends on how the draft/free agency/trades pan out that will ultimately determine the merits of that deal?

If this team ends up better than it was with Curry, isn't that the important thing as opposed to this season's record?

Do you agree that future success after these assets are put into play is the true measuring stick?


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> The question I have for you is do you agree that the good/bad of the Curry trade can't yet be evaluated. Do you agree that it depends on how the draft/free agency/trades pan out that will ultimately determine the merits of that deal?


It was a bad deal to make because, and I think you agree with me, it was not a good bet at the time that the Knicks would be as bad as they are.

Certainly, yes, if the Bulls land a franchise altering superstar either in the draft or as a FA that takes us into the NBA's elite then everything will be fine. If it looked like that player was in the draft or in the FA market, I'd be a lot more optimistic.




> If this team ends up better than it was with Curry, isn't that the important thing as opposed to this season's record?


It depends on what kind of timeframe we're talking about. If you give Paxson an infinite number of seasons, he should be able to exceed the success we had last season eventually. These future successes though are discounted at present since they are, ya know, in the future. I want a good team now. If I felt Paxson actually had a plan or if there was a player in FA worth building all this Cap Space for over a 3 year span then I could get on board. At this point, IMO, the only thing that can save us is hitting the lotto or the Knicks sucking again next year. All involve a fair amount of uncertainly. We had a tangible, good basketball team that was very young and still had plenty of upside last season. We had it. Finally, after all those years of rebuilding. Now its back to lotto hopes. 



> Do you agree that future success after these assets are put into play is the true measuring stick?


Its going to take an awful lot of future success that can be tied to this Curry trade to make up for the present season and however many seasons it takes to get there.



As for the season tickets thing, yah, I do think I may be more demanding a fan then many people on this board since I invest more time/money into it. Bulls success is like money to me... you want as much as you can get and you want it now.

If I felt Paxson was making these moves based on a well thought out plan, I could get on board. To this point, I don't think Paxson has one other that "stay flexible" and some "right way" stuff that does not really translate to the NBA that well, IMO.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> some "right way" stuff that does not really translate to the NBA that well, IMO.



I don't know...that right way stuff seems to work pretty well in both San Antonio and Detroit.


----------



## kukoc4ever

GB said:


> I don't know...that right way stuff seems to work pretty well in both San Antonio


See, and I look at the players on SA's bench both this season and last season and wonder how many of those guys would be on the Bulls.

Nick Van Exel? No, IMO. (Jib)
Brent Barry? No, IMO. (Jib)
Robert Horry? No, IMO (practice)
Glenn Robinson? No, IMO (you name it)

Every team wants good team players, obviously. Few have the rigid, unnecessary and harmful (IMO) jib constraint that the Bulls do.




> and Detroit.


We've talked about Rasheed Wallace 1,000,000 times. I'm sure you know my stance on Paxson going after a guy like that given him rep in Portland.


Both those teams will relax the jib restriction and pick up players they feel make their team better.


----------



## GB

kukoc4ever said:


> See, and I look at the players on SA's bench both this season and last season and wonder how many of those guys would be on the Bulls.
> 
> Nick Van Exel? No, IMO. (Jib)
> Brent Barry? No, IMO. (Jib)
> Robert Horry? No, IMO (practice)
> Glenn Robinson? No, IMO (you name it)
> 
> Every team wants good team players, obviously. Few have the rigid, unnecessary and harmful (IMO) jib constraint that the Bulls do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've talked about Rasheed Wallace 1,000,000 times. I'm sure you know my stance on Paxson going after a guy like that given him rep in Portland.
> 
> 
> Both those teams will relax the jib restriction and pick up players they feel make their team better.


It's not the player, it's the system. Can't bring the players like the above into a system-less organization.

Skiles and Pax are setting it now, and will add the players like the above mentioned later.


----------



## transplant

It was a bad trade. IT was happy to make it and Paxson reluctantly made it. Whether it was a bad decision is another matter. Paxson, or his management, decided that the DNA test was a deal-breaker. Curry and/or his agent wouldn't go along so he had to go. Paxson made the best of a bad situation by getting as many "marketable assets" as he could. As loser deals go, Pax did OK...he would have done very well if Sweetney had turned out to be a player.

I'm a Skiles-Paxson-Reinsdorf fan, but the Curry deal isn't one I want to hang my hat on. This will remain the case even if the draft choice turns to gold and/or Curry turns out to be the underachiever he continues to appear to be. If the Bulls end up "winning" this trade, it will be by accident.


----------



## TripleDouble

transplant said:


> It was a bad trade. IT was happy to make it and Paxson reluctantly made it. Whether it was a bad decision is another matter. Paxson, or his management, decided that the DNA test was a deal-breaker. Curry and/or his agent wouldn't go along so he had to go. Paxson made the best of a bad situation by getting as many "marketable assets" as he could. As loser deals go, Pax did OK...he would have done very well if Sweetney had turned out to be a player.
> 
> I'm a Skiles-Paxson-Reinsdorf fan, but the Curry deal isn't one I want to hang my hat on. This will remain the case even if the draft choice turns to gold and/or Curry turns out to be the underachiever he continues to appear to be. If the Bulls end up "winning" this trade, it will be by accident.


I disagree. How else is one to judge a trade but by it's results?


----------



## kukoc4ever

transplant said:


> I'm a Skiles-Paxson-Reinsdorf fan, but the Curry deal isn't one I want to hang my hat on. This will remain the case even if the draft choice turns to gold and/or Curry turns out to be the underachiever he continues to appear to be. If the Bulls end up "winning" this trade, it will be by accident.


Refreshing honesty.

Good post.


----------



## kukoc4ever

TripleDouble said:


> I disagree. How else is one to judge a trade but by it's results?


It was a smart move going all-in against pocket aces with K-10 offsuit. I won the hand, didn't I?


----------



## TripleDouble

kukoc4ever said:


> It was a smart move going all-in against pocket aces with K-10 offsuit. I won the hand, didn't I?


Are you suggesting that a basketball trade is as dependent upon luck as a poker hand?


----------



## Frankensteiner

TripleDouble said:


> I disagree. How else is one to judge a trade but by it's results?


I am confused as well. So if the Bulls end up drafting better players and signing better players in free agency, there is no way for them to win this trade because Paxson was "reluctant" to do the trade?


----------



## kukoc4ever

TripleDouble said:


> Are you suggesting that a basketball trade is as dependent upon luck as a poker hand?


When there are lotto picks involved that are tied to the success of another team, and the uncertainty involved in hauling in quality FAs with Cap Space and talent analysis in general, uh, yah, there is considerable luck involved.


----------



## TripleDouble

kukoc4ever said:


> When there are lotto picks involved that are tied to the success of another team, and the uncertainty involved in hauling in quality FAs with Cap Space and talent analysis in general, uh, yah, there is a considerable luck involved.


You didn't answer my question.



TripleDouble said:


> Are you suggesting that a basketball trade is as dependent upon luck as a poker hand?


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> When there are lotto picks involved that are tied to the success of another team, and the uncertainty involved in hauling in quality FAs with Cap Space and talent analysis in general, uh, yah, there is a considerable luck involved.


Perhaps he predicted the Knicks wouldn't be very good. Geez, I could have, and did, tell you that from the very beginning.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> Perhaps he predicted the Knicks wouldn't be very good. Geez, I could have, and did, tell you that from the very beginning.


Why was he so angry about making the trade?

Why does he sheepishly explain the failure of the team to "we lost our size?"


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> Why was he so angry about making the trade?
> 
> Why does he sheepishly explain the failure of the team to "we lost our size?"


How would that affect the Knicks and their probability to be a good team?


----------



## kukoc4ever

TripleDouble said:


> You didn't answer my question.


I think there is more luck involved in the Bulls “winning” the Curry trade Paxson made than in winning at poker.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> How would that affect the Knicks and their probability to be a good team?


If he was certain the Knicks were going to be a horrible team, then why be upset?


----------



## Frankensteiner

Probably the most successful player-for-asset trade in footbal history was Dallas trading away Herschell Walker to the Vikings for multiple draft picks. I have yet to hear anyone label that as a lucky move.

Same principle is at work here. If Paxson improves the team by cashing in his assets, refusing to give him credit will just be sour grapes.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> If he was certain the Knicks were going to be a horrible team, then why be upset?


Maybe because he believed the Bulls would be lacking size, as you continually have pointed out. Just because you were quick to overrate Curry's ability (as well as Crawford's) to help the Knicks, that does not have to apply to Paxson.


----------



## transplant

TripleDouble said:


> I disagree. How else is one to judge a trade but by it's results?


Outstanding question and, in general, I agree with you.

The problem comes in with how NBA trades can have a cascading effect. Was the Elton Brand trade a good trade or a bad trade? Well, the Bulls traded Brand for the #2 overall pick in the 2001 draft. However, we really traded Brand because Krause knew he could draft Curry at #4 overall and Brand and Curry could not co-exist (both low post scorers). So it was really Brand for Curry. Well, now Curry is now pretty much Sweetney + the Knicks 2006 #1 pick. The Bulls are liable to trade that pick in a package for a legit player. Worse, they could take the pick and then later trade the player they get.

This could go on forever, making actual results nearly impossible to judge.

You're right to say that "time will tell." However, I turned 52 yesterday and when one GM (IT) says he's happy and the other (Pax) says he was forced to make the trade, I'm willing to take the shortcut and say it wasn't a good trade.

Again, it might have been the right decision, we gave up more talent than we got.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> Same principle is at work here. If Paxson improves the team by cashing in his assets, refusing to give him credit will just be sour grapes.



Given the circumstances, Paxson did a good job dumping Curry at the last minute.

Could have been worse. But, our team certainly is worse now.


----------



## TripleDouble

transplant said:


> Outstanding question and, in general, I agree with you.
> 
> The problem comes in with how NBA trades can have a cascading effect. Was the Elton Brand trade a good trade or a bad trade? Well, the Bulls traded Brand for the #2 overall pick in the 2001 draft. However, we really traded Brand because Krause knew he could draft Curry at #4 overall and Brand and Curry could not co-exist (both low post scorers). So it was really Brand for Curry. Well, now Curry is now pretty much Sweetney + the Knicks 2006 #1 pick. The Bulls are liable to trade that pick in a package for a legit player. Worse, they could take the pick and then later trade the player they get.
> 
> This could go on forever, making actual results nearly impossible to judge.
> 
> You're right to say that "time will tell." However, I turned 52 yesterday and when one GM (IT) says he's happy and the other (Pax) says he was forced to make the trade, I'm willing to take the shortcut and say it wasn't a good trade.
> 
> Again, it might have been the right decision, we gave up more talent than we got.


Happy Birthday! :banana:


----------



## Frankensteiner

transplant said:


> Outstanding question and, in general, I agree with you.
> 
> The problem comes in with how NBA trades can have a cascading effect. Was the Elton Brand trade a good trade or a bad trade? Well, the Bulls traded Brand for the #2 overall pick in the 2001 draft. However, we really traded Brand because Krause knew he could draft Curry at #4 overall and Brand and Curry could not co-exist (both low post scorers). So it was really Brand for Curry. Well, now Curry is now pretty much Sweetney + the Knicks 2006 #1 pick. The Bulls are liable to trade that pick in a package for a legit player. Worse, they could take the pick and then later trade the player they get.


Judging trades in terms of historical reference to other trades is not a good way to evaluate trades, especially when you have two different people in charge of making the decisions.




> Again, it might have been the right decision, we gave up more talent than we got.


But how do you know this without seeing who we draft and who we sign with the available cap space. It's just a very short-sigthed view of the situation, IMO.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> Given the circumstances, Paxson did a good job dumping Curry at the last minute.
> 
> Could have been worse. But, our team certainly is worse now.


To me, it wasn't just a good job of getting what you can. What we got will be better than what we gave up.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> What we got will be better than what we gave up.


Who do you think we're going to get?


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> Who do you think we're going to get?


Better players.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> Better players.


Who?

Names.


(for instance, your opinion of curry seems so low that i would not be surprised to hear that you think that sweetney is better than curry)


----------



## ScottMay

Frankensteiner said:


> Probably the most successful player-for-asset trade in footbal history was Dallas trading away Herschell Walker to the Vikings for multiple draft picks. I have yet to hear anyone label that as a lucky move.


No, you won't. But the Curry trade isn't even close to being on the same scale as the Walker trade. Dallas got Minnesota's first- and second-round picks. FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

We got one extra first-round pick in what is almost universally acknowledged as a weak draft. We got the right to swap picks next year, and two second-rounders (some nice window dressing). We got Mike Sweetney (boy, I was way wrong about that guy -- a few months' worth of Bulls practices has him lean and mean).



> Same principle is at work here. If Paxson improves the team by cashing in his assets, refusing to give him credit will just be sour grapes.


No sour grapes -- I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if this all pans out someday. Paxson's overall plan has been outstanding in concept, but it loses a lot of its shine when it runs into the cold realities of a lousy free agent class and a bad draft for big men (not that that had anything to do with Thomas's giving up an unprotected #1 this season).


----------



## Ron Cey

transplant said:


> It was a bad trade. IT was happy to make it and Paxson reluctantly made it. Whether it was a bad decision is another matter. Paxson, or his management, decided that the DNA test was a deal-breaker. Curry and/or his agent wouldn't go along so he had to go. Paxson made the best of a bad situation by getting as many "marketable assets" as he could. As loser deals go, Pax did OK...he would have done very well if Sweetney had turned out to be a player.
> 
> I'm a Skiles-Paxson-Reinsdorf fan, but the Curry deal isn't one I want to hang my hat on. This will remain the case even if the draft choice turns to gold and/or Curry turns out to be the underachiever he continues to appear to be. If the Bulls end up "winning" this trade, it will be by accident.


I'm not talking about whether it was a good trade in the "Paxson you sly genius" sense. I know Paxson didn't want to make the trade, much to his discredit in my opinion. Paxson, I believe, considered Curry to be an important piece of the Bulls. I always disagreed with him on that. In fact, its just about the only significant thing I've ever disagreed with him about. 

In my opinion, Curry's heart issue saved Paxson from his own misjudgment. What I'm getting at is that intent is irrelevent and I'm not looking for a way to praise Paxson. He already made his mistake by wanting to keep Curry in the first place.

Trades aren't judged by the intent and the feelings of those making them. They are judged by the outcome. 

Believe me, if this trade turns out to have been a good one (which I think it will), it will be IN SPITE OF Paxson's instincts. I will never chalk this one up as a win for "Paxson" because he didn't want to do it in the first place. It can, however, end up being a win for "the Bulls" which is what my questions to K4E were trying to get at.


----------



## Ron Cey

kukoc4ever said:


> But, our team certainly is worse now.


Okay. This is correct, obviously. So lets assume for the purposes of this next question that this step back is actually directly correlated to trading Curry.

If, shortly (i.e. one season) after realizing the three most valuable assets in the Curry trade, the Bulls are a better team that they were with Curry, will it make this one "step-back" year worth it? I.e., will it make the trade a success?

These three "most valuable assets" are the additional capspace, this year's pick, and the 2007 pick swap (ignore the 2009 second rounder). So, one year after those assets are "acquired" (not "developed"). This shortens the evaluation time considerably and prevents the analysis from being too patient.

EDIT: K4E, lest you think I'm laying a lawyerly trap for you, I'm not. I'm trying to get at the heart of the simple question of what is most important in evaluating the trade. Nothing else.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> If, shortly (i.e. one season) after realizing the three most valuable assets in the Curry trade, the Bulls are a better team that they were with Curry, will it make this one "step-back" year worth it? I.e., will it make the trade a success?
> 
> These three "most valuable assets" are the additional capspace, this year's pick, and the 2007 pick swap (ignore the 2009 second rounder). So, one year after those assets are "acquired" (not "developed"). This shortens the evaluation time considerably and prevents the analysis from being too patient.


So we're talking about 2 full seasons and 2.5 off-seasons from the time of the Curry trade. And we started from a point of success (47 wins, 3rd best team in East, playoffs).

Its tough to come up with a valuation. What's the discount rate? A playoff appearance in 4 years is worth a lot less than a playoff appearance this season.

If we land a franchise altering talent (legit multi-year all-star) with that pick(s?)/FA AND our core is resigned or dealt in good deals (i.e. not pike type players) when their deals come up even if we're still a loser, then the Bulls will be better off due to the deal.

Let's say that 2 years from now we're on pace for 47-50 wins with a solid core with upside. That's what we had already, based on last season. So, unless a true star is acquired with those assets, and the team is still in a state to contend, then it would not have been worth it, IMO.

Simply matching our win total in two years that we had last season is not worth it. We have to be clearly better off to win a championship.

The last thing I want to see is the revolving door of talent and constant "hopes for the future" that we've dealt with post-MJ, except for last season.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Ron Cey said:


> EDIT: K4E, lest you think I'm laying a lawyerly trap for you, I'm not. I'm trying to get at the heart of the simple question of what is most important in evaluating the trade. Nothing else.


Lawyer traps? That would never happen around here. 

I'd like to hear your answer as well, BTW.


----------



## ScottMay

Ron Cey said:


> If, shortly (i.e. one season) after realizing the three most valuable assets in the Curry trade, the Bulls are a better team that they were with Curry, will it make this one "step-back" year worth it? I.e., will it make the trade a success?


Of course that would make it a success and worth it!

Isn't it possible, however, for discerning fans of the NBA such as ourselves to examine what's likely available with the accumulated and carefully safeguarded assets -- a bad group of FAs, a very spotty draft, and no takers for a trade / no trades the GM is comfortable with -- and arrive at the preemptive conclusion that the step-back (again, no need for the quotation marks) won't likely have been worth it?


----------



## kukoc4ever

ScottMay said:


> -- a bad group of FAs, a very spotty draft, and no takers for a trade / no trades the GM is comfortable with -- and arrive at the preemptive conclusion that the step-back (again, no need for the quotation marks) won't likely have been worth it?


And this is also true.

The draft class seems weak and the FA market is weak.

While we may not be able to give a final evaluation of the Curry trade right now, we certainly can make an initial evaluation, since there is a fair amount of information available to us at this point.


Likelihood of success is the key, IMO, and that’s why I don’t think it was a good deal, especially when whatever enjoyment I may receive from watching a winning, successful Bulls team has to be put off into the future once again.


But, people are into this for different reasons. I never disliked Krause (GM of our champion Bulls teams) and I never disliked Curry (our starting center and key contributor for our successful end of 2002-2003 and last season squads), so I don't really have a horse in the race in terms of them failing or Paxson, other than hoping the Bulls are winners.

I was going to quit the Fire Pax club if everyone was resigned. When Krause was replaced with Paxson I thought it was an OK move, although I would have ideally liked to see a guy with more experience. I have nothing against the guy, other than I don't like the way he runs the team (net).


----------



## Frankensteiner

ScottMay said:


> No, you won't. But the Curry trade isn't even close to being on the same scale as the Walker trade. Dallas got Minnesota's first- and second-round picks. FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS.


I agree, it's not on the same scale. But at the time both trades went down, Curry was nowhere near the basketball equivalent of Walker. And two (possible) lottery picks in a two round basketball draft are at least somewhat comparable to Minnesota's picks in a seven round draft (or whatever it was at the time).


----------



## Frankensteiner

ScottMay said:


> No sour grapes -- I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if this all pans out someday. Paxson's overall plan has been outstanding in concept, but it loses a lot of its shine when it runs into the cold realities of a lousy free agent class and a bad draft for big men (not that that had anything to do with Thomas's giving up an unprotected #1 this season).


Two points on the draft:

- Even if the draft proves to be weak on big men, as you say, there is always the possibility of acquiring good players at other positions (SF, SG, PG) and trading these players to acquire big men already playing in the league. This is all part of "asset hoarding," as you put it.

- I don't know how you can simply write off a draft before even seeing these players play. Yeah, experts can have their opinion, yet it means very little until the guys actually start playing in the league.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> Likelihood of success is the key, IMO, and that’s why I don’t think it was a good deal, especially when whatever enjoyment I may receive from watching a winning, successful Bulls team has to be put off into the future once again.


I completely disagree with evaluating the trade on the likelihood of success. That's just dumb. You evaluate on what actually happens, not what could or might happen. That theory would put Paxson in a no-win situation. Based on experts, the draft is supposedly weak, but what happens if Paxson actually drafts a great player? It opens up the possibility of attributing the pick to Paxson getting incredibly lucky in a bad draft. But who's to say Paxson wasn't targeting that player in the first place, at the time of making the trade?

Besides, evaluating it on "likelihood of success" is so completely subjective. I don't have a particularly high opinion of Curry, therefore, it's easy for me to assume that a high lottery pick will be a much better player (regardless of the strength of the draft) and chalk up the trade as a win. And then, even if that player ends up being a total bust, I could still say chances were good that he was going to be better than Curry.


----------



## kukoc4ever

Frankensteiner said:


> I completely disagree with evaluating the trade on the likelihood of success. That's just dumb.


Let me know the next time you have 12 hours to kill so we can sit down and play poker. The best time for me would be immediately after you get your next paycheck.





> You evaluate on what actually happens, not what could or might happen.


If we're analyzing now, which is what both you and I are doing, we can't evaluate based on what actually happens, since we're talking about the future. We're forced to talk about expected values. People get paid obscene amounts of money to analyze based on uncertain future events. I play poker and go to school with these types of people on a daily basis actually. Its the way many smart people make their living.




> That theory would put Paxson in a no-win situation. Based on experts, the draft is supposedly weak, but what happens if Paxson actually drafts a great player? It opens up the possibility of attributing the pick to Paxson getting incredibly lucky in a bad draft. But who's to say Paxson wasn't targeting that player in the first place, at the time of making the trade?


What player? That's a dangerous gamble, since the success is tied to the success of the Knicks, the luck of the lotto balls and what other teams do ahead of you. Way too many variables to be realistically targeting a specific player at that point.




> Besides, evaluating it on "likelihood of success" is so completely subjective. I don't have a particularly high opinion of Curry, therefore, it's easy for me to assume that a high lottery pick will be a much better player (regardless of the strength of the draft) and chalk up the trade as a win.


Right. Since you have such a low opinion of Curry, it clearly does not take much for you to think the trade was a good one, even though we were a winning, 47 win team last season before the trade and with little other meaningful change in personal and now we're lousy. Just listen to Paxson. “We lost our size.”


----------



## Frankensteiner

I don't play Poker. I don't even know how to play.


----------



## Frankensteiner

kukoc4ever said:


> If we're analyzing now, which is what both you and I are doing, we can't evaluate based on what actually happens, since we're talking about the future. We're forced to talk about expected values.


Well, yeah, but it's just talk at this point. We can predict, however, a wrong prediction is a wrong prediction... not a right prediction made wrong by some extenuating factors.



> People get paid obscene amounts of money to analyze based on uncertain future events


Yup, sports experts are by far the best example of how this means very little. Sox were going to be awful, the Bears were going to be dead last, etc. Were those predictions still right because they seemed right at that time?



> What player? That's a dangerous gamble, since the success is tied to the success of the Knicks, the luck of the lotto balls and what other teams do ahead of you. Way too many variables to be realistically targeting a specific player at that point.


See, now we're back to the Cowboys/Vikings trade. No one thought that was a bad trade even with the same principles at work. And I wasn't talking about one specific player (although I worded it poorly), just the point that if Paxson targets several guys in the draft which he believes will be good NBA players, and then drafts one of them who will be a good NBA player, this might be seen as him getting lucky (as opposed to good) because of the expert opinion of a poor draft.




> Right. Since you have such a low opinion of Curry, it clearly does not take much for you to think the trade was a good one, even though we were a winning, 47 win team last season before the trade and with little other meaningful change in personal and now we're lousy. Just listen to Paxson. “We lost our size.”


I don't know why this needed to be brought up again. I was just pointing out how someone who doesn't like Eddy Curry could view the trade.


----------



## bullsville

Is it just me, or are the same bbb.net Bulls fans who keep pointing out that the FA class is horrible and the draft class is horrible are the same ones who think that Eddy Curry is close to being an All-Star?

Or that there is some huge task in replacing Eddy Curry? 

Come on, the weakest draft classes and weakest FA classes in NBA history have had at least 2 draftees and 2 FAs better than Eddy freaking Curry- and that's where the Bulls are sitting right now, #2 draft pick and #2 record among teams with max cap space (behind only New Orleans/Oklahoma City).

Are people that blind to what actually happens on the basketball court? Do they really believe that 14/6 centers who are the worst passers in the entire NBA are irreplaceable?

Wow, I can't wait to see this board at this time next season.


----------



## bullsville

Would you reverse the Curry Trade right now? 
Yes 
8% [ 2 ] 
No 
92% [ 23 ]


----------



## McBulls

Apparently this is now the mod-approved Knicks meltdown thread. OK.

I'm watching the Knicks lose to Dallas (currently 57-44 in the 2nd quarter). The thought occurs that the 2007 pick is likely to be very high. Curry is a non-factor. Crawford is sitting on the bench with a "tailbone" injury. This is going to be a very bad team for a very long time. The highest salary team in the NBA this year has the distinction of being the worst team in the NBA as well. Bye-Bye Isiah Thomas, Hello high 2007 draft pick!


----------



## BG7

bullsville said:


> Is it just me, or are the same bbb.net Bulls fans who keep pointing out that the FA class is horrible and the draft class is horrible are the same ones who think that Eddy Curry is close to being an All-Star?
> 
> Or that there is some huge task in replacing Eddy Curry?
> 
> Come on, the weakest draft classes and weakest FA classes in NBA history have had at least 2 draftees and 2 FAs better than Eddy freaking Curry- and that's where the Bulls are sitting right now, #2 draft pick and #2 record among teams with max cap space (behind only New Orleans/Oklahoma City).
> 
> Are people that blind to what actually happens on the basketball court? Do they really believe that 14/6 centers who are the worst passers in the entire NBA are irreplaceable?
> 
> Wow, I can't wait to see this board at this time next season.


When's the last time someone said that Eddy was close to being an allstar? Your the only one that is mentioning that. Curry could help us right now, but if anyone watches the Bulls, they'd notice that this isn't a bad team, despite the losing record. Watching the Bulls before last year, those were just losing teams, this one, has a losing record, but they are on the brink of being a very good team, and with players like Pryzbilla and Harrington through free agency, and Davis, Reddick, Gay, Aldridge, Morrison, Williams through the draft, we may be able to become a formidable 50 win team in the East next season. Yes, this year has been dissapointing for both teams involved in the trade, but both teams futures could instantly change to something special based on what they received in the trade.


----------



## giusd

First, K2E how many times do i have to read "47 win team last season before the trade"? Like 100 stop already we all know what the bulls record was last year, period.

Second, besides this years knicks pick, very likely a top three pick and our own, a top 12 pick, we get to switch picks with the knicks in 2007 and if you think they are going to be much better next year this this i have a bridge to sell you. We are getting two top five picks.

And as for this being a weak FA and draft who says. We shall see. I hear this every year about how weak the draft is just like KH would be a flop. Seriously stop this nonsense. Soon i will be hearing about how the earth is really flat and man and t-rex shared a condo 10,000 years ago. 

We shall see but pax has been very good at the draft and i will bet he does well with these two top five picks and our pick this year.

Dude the bulls won 47 games last year give it a rest.

david


----------



## ScottMay

bullsville said:


> Do they really believe that 14/6 centers who are the worst passers in the entire NBA are irreplaceable?


He isn't irreplaceable. No one's saying he is. Very few players are.

However, replacing Eddy clearly isn't going to be a cakewalk. Maybe it is in theory -- how could it NOT be? He only has one move! He's fat! He's dumb! -- but reality is the true litmus test.

Perfect example: when "Sweets" came to town, you, personally, were supremely confident that "Sweets" would not only meet Curry's production, but that he'd exceed it. PER comparisons were provided on a daily basis. Heady talk of a 50-win season abounded. Etc.

Reality has been painfully different, as I'm sure you're aware. "Sweets" has had his moments, but the much-ballyhooed Bulls "drill camp" practice and training regimen hasn't put a dent in his paunch, and on seven embarrassing occasions, when "Sweets" was suited up, healthy, and available to play, Skiles didn't let him into the game. 

Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe we'll be in a position to draft LaMarcus Aldridge and he'll come in and play great. Maybe Przybilla has just been hidden by an atrocious Portland offensive scheme. Maybe Al Harrington will blossom once he gets back to a winning program.

Perhaps, however, you can understand how the "Sweets" experiment has made me approach the issue a little more warily.


----------



## ScottMay

giusd said:


> First, K2E how many times do i have to read "47 win team last season before the trade"? Like 100 stop already we all know what the bulls record was last year, period.
> 
> . . . Dude the bulls won 47 games last year give it a rest.
> 
> david


Bringing this back on topic: I haven't counted how many times kukoc4ever has mentioned 47 wins in a post, but my guess is he's still well short of the number of times you said "Eddy will never play again" this summer.


----------



## bullsville

LMAO, if anyone really cares to go back and look, I said that I fully expected Sweets to give us less offense, more rebounding, more assists, less turnovers, and similar blocks as what Eddy did.

Mission accomplished. To a tee.

But hey, I'm convinced that the draft and free agent pools are completely barren and that trading Eddy was a horrible move that will cripple the franchise for years to come. It won't be long before his absence is biting the Bulls in the arse just as hard as Jamal's...

Damn, I almost typed that last paragraph with a straight face. I'm proud of myself.


----------



## bullsville

At the end of 3 quarters tonight, Eddy is putting up a PER-impressive 10 pts and 5 reb in 17 min on 3-4 FG and 4-7 FT.

Now I don't know how the 4 TO and the 4 PF and the 25 point Dallas lead figure into PER, but as long as Eddy gets his numbers and Jamal isn't playing, all that's left is for Jalen to get his 20.

I wonder- now that Eddy has been rejoined by Jamal and Jalen and the Knicks have lost each and every game of their reunion tour, is Eddy having flashbacks to all the losses they enjoyed together in Chicago? Or are the dollar signs in Eddy's eyes sheilding the truth?


----------



## Frankensteiner

Interesting draft thoughts from Knicks board:



> and one more time some idiot here comes back with "this draft is weak anyways" reply,please get a clue. Even in the weakest draft a no.1 pick is much more valuable than a player who Chicago didnt want to re-sign because he has no passion, showed no improvement in four years in the league, had conditioning issues and at that time thought to be had heart problems. IT never imagined that we would be the last placed team in the league when he made this trade but Paxson propably did, thats exactly why that pick was not even top 3 protected.


http://knicks4life.com/forum/viewto...&start=0&sid=d992f9b520683c1bd7ebfc49e2f54471

I guess it's not only the anti-Knick crowd that would like to have that draft pick as opposed to Eddy, but also the current pro-Knick crowd. 

But I'm sure Bulls fans know better.


----------



## TripleDouble

Holy crap. This thread is a microcosm of our nations political climate right now. 

I don't think the moderates would deny that the Bulls miss Eddy's offensive presence. Heck, when Othella is the go to guy there's really little to debate. I also don't think that they would say that the value of the trade can be determined yet. FCOL (for crying out loud), the Bulls haven't even recieved the key chip in the trade yet!

This thread is like the car accident you don't want to stare at but find that you can't help but gawk.


----------



## Zeb

ScottMay said:


> Bringing this back on topic: I haven't counted how many times kukoc4ever has mentioned 47 wins in a post...


43 times, but who's counting?

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/search.php?searchid=505587
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/search.php?searchid=505588


----------



## Frankensteiner

Zeb said:


> 43 times, but who's counting?
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/search.php?searchid=505587
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/search.php?searchid=505588


 :laugh:


----------



## bullsville

Awesome work, Zeb!!

I have this strange feeling that sometime in the very near future, k4e will mention that we won 47 games last season for the 47th time and that will spur the Bulls to the most successful 47 day stretch of the post-dynasty era.


----------



## lougehrig

Another dominant game from the freakishly athletic Eddy Curry. 10 points, 5 boards, 4 pf, 4 TO, in 18 minutes. Wow. We really, really miss "our size".


----------



## badfish

lougehrig said:


> Another dominant game from the freakishly athletic Eddy Curry. 10 points, 5 boards, 4 pf, 4 TO, in 18 minutes. Wow. We really, really miss "our size".


But, what is that in 48 minutes? :biggrin:


----------



## BG7

Knicks drop their 10th in a row, only a game ahead of the Cats now, this is getting ridiculous for them, but the more lottery balls the better, now lets hope that one of OUR own balls drops in the top 3, I would rather have our pick drop in the top 3, and the Knicks to just fall in place, than the other way around. But the top and #2 pick would be awfully sweet.


----------



## Frankensteiner

God, I love that Knicks board...



> God, Eddy Curry is horrible! This bull**** that he's a true Center, that he's only 23 years old, blah, blah and blah is such bull****! He sucks! I HATE his game!





> And the sad thing is LB and Isiah are saying we're building the team around him


Here's a little Jamal bonus:



> Damn, when I read "Carwford Out" the first thing I thought of was trade. Got my hopes up.





> Thats all I want - I will enjoy this game tonight that I dont have to watch Crawford.


http://knicks4life.com/forum/viewto...&start=0&sid=d992f9b520683c1bd7ebfc49e2f54471

Knick fans just don't know their team.


----------



## step

> Knick fans just don't know their team.


Sounds like they do.


----------



## Zeb

Frankensteiner said:


> God, I love that Knicks board...
> 
> Here's a little Jamal bonus:
> 
> http://knicks4life.com/forum/viewto...&start=0&sid=d992f9b520683c1bd7ebfc49e2f54471
> 
> Knick fans just don't know their team.


You should cheer them up with some impressive PER's.


----------



## bbertha37

Supposedly, they've improved by leaps and bounds this season.


----------



## giantkiller7

LOL @ that Knick board Frankensteiner brought up. Didn't take them too long to see the truth.



natesabeast#4 said:


> Jamal Crawford....THE HUMAN TURNOVER





Air Ariza said:


> Crawford out... SWEET.


----------



## YearofDaBulls

I think Isiah should stick to drafting players instead of trading for them.


----------



## giantkiller7

YearofDaBulls said:


> I think Isiah should stick to drafting players instead of trading for them.


He should just stick to abusing women, because his drafting is just as bad, Channing Frye aside. "If Nate Robinson were 2 inches taller, he'd be the #1 overall pick in the draft."


----------



## kukoc4ever

Honestly, many of you seem like frothing, angry animals jumping all over a limping gazelle.

I would not take that as a personal attack of any kind.... frothing, angry animals serve a vital role the ecosystem, but still.... what a great board this would be if you could redirect the energy going towards your Knicks/ex-Bulls rage and try to figure out a way or two to make the CHICAGO BULLS a better team.

Maybe we could get back to *47 wins* if you did.


----------



## dkg1

giantkiller7 said:


> LOL @ that Knick board Frankensteiner brought up. Didn't take them too long to see the truth.


The Knicks board on the other site is downright ugly. Even JC's Big Sis is getting abused. Since she posted tonight, I guess that proves she's not Eddy Curry as I long suspected.


----------



## kukoc4ever

dkg1 said:


> The Knicks board on the other site is downright ugly. Even JC's Big Sis is getting abused. Since she posted tonight, I guess that proves she's not Eddy Curry as I long suspected.


Losing oftentimes makes fans of the losing team angry at the players of the losing team.

Heck, even winning, as we have seen, makes many fans angry at the players of the winning team.


----------



## dkg1

kukoc4ever said:


> Heck, even winning, as we have seen, makes many fans angry at the players of the winning team.


Yeah, you're right. I remember a lot of bitter Bulls fans here last year when we won 47 games.


----------



## Sigifrith

Hey, EC :clown: scored a single double tonight :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## kukoc4ever

dkg1 said:


> Yeah, you're right. I remember a lot of bitter Bulls fans here last year when we won 47 games.


I believe that is the season when "I Hate Eddy Curry" was released.


----------



## McBulls

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, many of you seem like frothing, angry animals jumping all over a limping gazelle.
> 
> I would not take that as a personal attack of any kind.... frothing, angry animals serve a vital role the ecosystem, but still.... what a great board this would be if you could redirect the energy going towards your Knicks/ex-Bulls rage and try to figure out a way or two to make the CHICAGO BULLS a better team.
> 
> Maybe we could get back to *47 wins* if you did.


The Bulls road trip is over. 47 wins may be a bridge too far, but a playoff spot is not. It's very likely that the addition of a free agent or two and a high draft choice or two will constitute a figured out way of making the Bulls a better team. 

It will take some time to see just how good the Curry trade was for the Bulls future prospects, but it is already clear to anyone who has been watching the Knicks that we will be a better team without him.

Get over it. The results are all but in. Curry is a bust who we are well rid of. Only those who value NBA players for their scoring alone can be tempted to disagree. A player in his fifth year with a potential life-threating heart condition whose wife begged him to retire is not likely to rediscover tha eye of a tiger that he never had in the past. 

Paxon made a good trade that is very likely to improve the Bulls in the long run. That will be already evident by the end of next summer.


----------



## kukoc4ever

McBulls said:


> that we will be a better team without him.


We're not currently a better team without him, right?





> Curry is a bust who we are well rid of.


6 games under .500. Come on lotto balls! Save us!





> Paxon made a good trade that is very likely to improve the Bulls in the long run.


What player do you think Paxson will draft this off-season to get us back to 3rd best team in the East range? What free agents?


----------



## bbertha37

When all else fails:
A) 47 wins
B) "I Hate Eddy Curry" Song

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.


----------



## kukoc4ever

bbertha37 said:


> When all else fails:
> A) 47 wins
> B) "I Hate Eddy Curry" Song
> 
> Rinse. Lather. Repeat.


You forgot....

6 games under .500
weak draft class
weak free agent class
pick up the phone Paxson 
and 
Why U Hatin On Jamal!??!?!

EDIT:
Also there is 
Regression
PER
FT attempts are good
3rd best team in the east
2002-2003
Starting center on one of the top defensive teams in the league
leading scorer on a playoff team
one of the top eFGs in the league
top 30 ts%


----------



## yodurk

Knicks losing 10 in a row and almost having the worst record in the league...man, didn't think this would turn out this well. It _almost_ softens the blow of the disappointing Bulls season (but hopefully we'll finish strong and sneak into the playoffs). 

Why do I enjoy the Knicks' failure so much, you ask?
a) I grew up during the Knick-Bulls rivalry and always hated them.
b) I hated Isiah Thomas during the Bulls-Piston rivalries in the late 80s/early 90s.
c) Obviously, the draft pick bonus!
and to a lesser extent, 
d) I'm generally relieved that Curry and Crawford aren't Bulls anymore because they clearly don't have superstar abilities like many thought when they were drafted...their time with the Knicks is leaving few regrets.

Edit: Funny enough though, I almost feel bad for them...I thought they'd be bad this year, but I didn't seriously expect them to compete for the #1 pick.


----------



## kukoc4ever

yodurk said:


> Edit: Funny enough though, I almost feel bad for them...I thought they'd be bad this year, but I didn't seriously expect them to compete for the #1 pick.


Yah, I don't think many did. It was pretty unrealistic to think this, IMO. Lucky for the Bulls though.


----------



## TripleDouble

If Curry's absence is responsible for the 6 less wins the Bulls have this season compared with their winning percentage last season (.57 x 50 = 28; 29 - 22 = 6), then what explains the Knicks 10 fewer wins than what they would have if they were winning at last seasons percentage (.476 x 51 = 24; 24 - 14 = 10)? 

The loss of Kurt Thomas? The loss of Mike Sweetney? Replacing a bench coach with a championship coach?


----------



## kukoc4ever

TripleDouble said:


> The loss of Kurt Thomas? The loss of Mike Sweetney? Replacing a bench coach with a championship coach?


What's their record without Stephon Marbury?


----------



## TripleDouble

kukoc4ever said:


> What's their record without Stephon Marbury?


14-28 or .333. Multiply that times the number of games they've played now 51 and you get 17 wins. That's still 7 less then last year's win % times 51 games. 

So why are the Knicks 7 games worse than last season?


----------



## TripleDouble

Furthermore, given the Bulls six fewer wins in the absence of Curry one might expect the Knicks to exceed last years win total at this point.


----------



## GB

yodurk said:


> d) I'm generally relieved that Curry and Crawford aren't Bulls anymore because they clearly don't have superstar abilities like many thought when they were drafted...their time with the Knicks is leaving few regrets.
> 
> Edit: Funny enough though, I almost feel bad for them...I thought they'd be bad this year, but I didn't seriously expect them to compete for the #1 pick.


D. is an important point. We give props to Pax for his drafting...but we should also congratulate him on knowing when to hold and when to fold.


----------



## Chops

In 42 games played, Eddy Curry has 8 total assists. Almost seems impossible. The Knicks are the worst team in the league with all of the Bulls castaways.


----------



## kukoc4ever

TripleDouble said:


> So why are the Knicks 7 games worse than last season?


You're asking the wrong guy. Have not seen enough Knicks games this year or last year to tell you. What do you think? I just read that the Knicks used their 30th different starting lineup this evening. That seems like a team in complete disarray to me. 

I know the Bulls miss Eddy Curry and AD. "We lost our size."

How the Knicks do, other than the draft pick of course, is irrelevant, so whatever the reason is behind the Knicks failure is lucky for the Bulls.


----------



## unBULLievable

For how long will you moan about the Knicks.

To keep talking after so many losses shows that you got a lot of nerve son.

I'm impressed!


----------



## giusd

K4E,

But what about 47 wins. Did you know that we won 47 games last year. Everyone, K3E wants everyone to know we wom between 46 and 48 games last year. That is 47. Two less than 49 and two more that 45. How many times do we all have to hear about how many games the bulls won last year. Seriously, K2E are you 12 years old and in the basement of your mom's house.

If you dont have anything to add to this page stop this nonsense.

david


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

I hope we all had a good time venting over the past 24 hours.

I think its time to give the thread a short rest.


----------



## Sigifrith

Another amazing single double for EC. He got to 17 minutes before fouling out!! :clown: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: 

Shaquille O'Neal added 15 points and made sure Eddy Curry couldn't stay on the court. Curry had three fouls in four scoreless minutes in the first half and fouled out after playing only 17 minutes.

Baby Shaq, you da man. :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:


----------



## TripleDouble

Sigifrith said:


> Another amazing single double for EC. He got to 17 minutes before fouling out!! :clown: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
> 
> Shaquille O'Neal added 15 points and made sure Eddy Curry couldn't stay on the court. Curry had three fouls in four scoreless minutes in the first half and fouled out after playing only 17 minutes.
> 
> Baby Shaq, you da man. :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:


I thought we had finally laid this to rest.


----------



## Ron Cey

TripleDouble said:


> I thought we had finally laid this to rest.


If Eddy could just do us all a favor and play pathetically average with some consistency, we'd all be better off. 

But if he has a good game or a bad game - even in one statistical category sometimes - you can count on someone bumping this thread.

Here's to hoping Curry goes for 13 and 6 on 51% shooting, with 3 free throw attempts, 1 assist, 2 turnovers, and 1 block in 29 minutes each and every game for the rest of the season.

That way no one will have any reason to either insult or to praise him and the thread can float peacefully to the bottom of a deep and dark hole.


----------



## bullsville

I thought Eddy was supposed to get *better* as the season progressed, since he couldn't work out this summer? I kept reading that once he got in shape, he was going to...

Ahhh, screw it. 

I do feel pretty bad about comparing Eddy to Kevin Duckworth, though- and I have to make my peace.

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

Dear Kevin Duckworth,

I am truly sorry for comparing you to Eddy Curry. It's bad enough that I instigated the "mooooooooo" cheer against you when you were a Freshman at Eastern Illinois playing at Ball State, but then I go and diminish your 2-time All-Star career by comparing you to Eddy Curry?

Really, Kevin, I'm sorry. Please accept my apology. 

And please accept the apologies from all the people who thought that calling Eddy "the next Kevin Duckworth" was an insult to *Mr. Curry*- it was obviously an insult to you, and I hope that you can forgive us.


----------



## NYKBaller

eddy curry is softer than keith van horn, this better change


----------



## Frankensteiner

I don't understand, there's people that don't like this thread?

:banana: :gbanana: :dpepper: :rbanana:


----------



## Jonathan

Ron Cey said:


> Here's to hoping Curry goes for 13 and 6 on 51% shooting, with 3 free throw attempts, 1 assist, 2 turnovers, and 1 block in 29 minutes each and every game for the rest of the season.


In order to get 51% shooting for a game, you have to shoot at least 18-35. It can't be done in less shots.


----------



## BG7

bullsville said:


> I thought Eddy was supposed to get *better* as the season progressed, since he couldn't work out this summer? I kept reading that once he got in shape, he was going to...
> 
> Ahhh, screw it.
> 
> I do feel pretty bad about comparing Eddy to Kevin Duckworth, though- and I have to make my peace.
> 
> ----------------
> 
> Dear Kevin Duckworth,
> 
> I am truly sorry for comparing you to Eddy Curry. It's bad enough that I instigated the "mooooooooo" cheer against you when you were a Freshman at Eastern Illinois playing at Ball State, but then I go and diminish your 2-time All-Star career by comparing you to Eddy Curry?
> 
> Really, Kevin, I'm sorry. Please accept my apology.
> 
> And please accept the apologies from all the people who thought that calling Eddy "the next Kevin Duckworth" was an insult to *Mr. Curry*- it was obviously an insult to you, and I hope that you can forgive us.


Eddy hasn't come to play hard, but Isiah Thomas is making it worse and worse, will Eddy ever see the ball in his hands again now with JC, marbury, rose, and francis?


----------



## bullsville

Does anyone realize that if Isiah had done *absolutely nothing* since he took over- outside of making draft picks and letting contracts expire- this summer the Knicks would be looking at:

Butler
Ariza
Frye
#2 pick 
$40 million in cap space

Dammit Isiah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## johnston797

bullsville said:


> Does anyone realize that if Isiah had done *absolutely nothing* since he took over- outside of making draft picks and letting contracts expire- this summer the Knicks would be looking at:
> 
> Butler
> Ariza
> Frye
> #2 pick
> $40 million in cap space
> 
> Dammit Isiah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How do you figure? Alan Houston would still be on their cap for $20M and Shannon Anderson for $7M.


----------



## bullsville

johnston797 said:


> How do you figure? Alan Houston would still be on their cap for $20M and Shannon Anderson for $7M.


I'm pretty sure Houston would have come off their cap, since he retired- but that would depend on the exact terms of the buyout. But I could certainly be wrong.

But thanks for bringing up Anderson- I had totally forgotten about him and Moochie Norris, who would still be on their cap this summer.

Even with your revisions, the Knicks could have gone into the "big FA" summer of 2007 with Frye, their lottery picks in 2006 and 2007, and $40 million in cap space.

My point being, a dead man could have done a better job of rebuilding that team than Zeke has done.


----------



## theanimal23

I think, even if a player retires, he is on the team's cap. I remember Hakeem retired after playing 1 year in Toronto. He had a 2 year contract, and was still on the cap the following year.


----------



## Sham

bullsville said:


> I'm pretty sure Houston would have come off their cap, since he retired-




That only happens two years after their final game. Houston's final game was in January 2005.


----------



## superdave

Kudos to Big Ed. He got an assist last night. That's 10 for the season.


----------



## Hustle

> "I understood what he wanted(LB), and he understood how I was, how I have a passion to win. On the back page of Thursday's New York Daily News, the woeful Knicks were called "The Biggest Mess in Sports.'' "It is a hard time right now [with the Knicks]. Everybody is a little jumpy,'' Ariza said. "Nobody really knows [what is going to happen]. . . . I was in it with those guys. So I really know what it feels like. It is hard. It is really, really hard.'' Orlando Sentinel


Instead of trading for Miles and Ratliff, Curry and Frye are all by themselves.


----------



## Sigifrith

Gotta give the fat boy his due. Double double last night. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## step

3-9 from the field, 4 TO's, I consider that performance average.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3220163&posted=1#post3220163

The main board is discussing a Dime magazine article that mentioned Eddy's nearly unbelievable AST/TO ratio.

C'Mon guys -- lets show the NBA board what an Eddy Curry thread is all about!

Doo doo doo DO do DOOOOO!

CHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGGE!


----------



## rosenthall

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3220163&posted=1#post3220163
> 
> The main board is discussing a Dime magazine article that mentioned Eddy's nearly unbelievable AST/TO ratio.
> 
> C'Mon guys -- lets show the NBA board what an Eddy Curry thread is all about!
> 
> Doo doo doo DO do DOOOOO!
> 
> CHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGGE!


 :laugh: 

LOL, K4E and Frankensteiner are getting into it over there now too! Yikes, one message board isn't enough to hold down our guys!

Those folks are about to get a taste of what Bulls message boarding is all about.


----------



## rosenthall

Actually, I will laugh hysterically if an 80 page thread develops on the main NBA message board courtesy of our very own.

Hah, and then it'd probably get moved back to this board and then we'd have TWO threads about Eddy Curry tallying over 2,000 posts!! 


Yeah agendas!! :rock:


----------



## Sham

Why not delete our Curry thread and let them do it there? It's like Dutch prostitutes. Although I think I've made this analogy before, so I won't do it again.


----------



## Wynn

hehehe.....

"Just a big slop box"

....even we've never been quite that mean!


----------



## PowerWoofer

Knicks down early against the Wizards. Curry already has 2 fouls. He was sent to the bench.


----------



## Wynn

PowerWoofer said:


> Knicks down early against the Wizards. Curry already has 2 fouls. He was sent to the bench.


This is actually one of the few times in my life that I want the Knick to WIN. I'd like to see Washington, Indiana, Philadelphia, and Miwaukee lose as many games as they can.


----------



## PowerWoofer

It doesn't look too good if you want the Knicks to win, WYNN (lol. This isn't a win-wynn situation).

But you never know. Dallas won Toronto and they were down 24 in the fourth quarter and they won today. Maybe the Knicks can come out with a win somehow.


----------



## truebluefan

Forget eddy, Arenas has 21 pts. NY has 16!!


----------



## Wynn

1 point, 1 rebound, 3 turnovers, 3 fouls in 5 minutes of the first half. 

_according to cbs.sportsline.com_


----------



## GB

> With the Bulls in town tonight with the specter of their owning the top overall pick in the draft thanks to the Eddy Curry trade, the Knick center has a lot on his plate.
> 
> "I plan on being a big factor," Curry said, "coming out and playing with a lot of energy."
> 
> Maybe he should plan on that every night. The foul-prone Curry has regressed as the season has worn on. He's never been a beast on the boards, a shot-blocker or an intimidator defensively, but now his offensive game has grown inconsistent.
> 
> Curry started the season as a monster inside, but in the past six weeks he's been turnover-prone when he gets the ball on the block and has missed a growing number of easy shots around the basket.
> 
> "We're going to have to be a guard-oriented team right now, because that's where most of our scoring is going to come [from]," Larry Brown said in an indictment of Curry.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/62680.htm


----------



## yodurk

Larry Brown playing mind games with his players...what else is new?

In defense of Curry, I think he's suffering from burnout physically (almost exactly what I think is happening to Luol Deng). Just like Deng, Curry was not able to work out much over the summer. It's a long NBA season and lack of off-season work will eventually catch up to you stamina-wise.


----------



## giusd

You know the thing is everyone goes on and on about what a great coach LB is but maybe that was true but the game and the NBA has just passed him by. The Pistons are playing better with LB out of town and LB has been a HUGE disaster as the knicks coach for most of the players but this is really true of EC. People on this page complaing about Skiles all the time be bottom line EC played his best basketball last season before his heart thing. I think EC would be playing much better if he was a bull and Skiles was his coach and not LB. ps LB worst USA coach ever.

david


----------



## kukoc4ever

Really efficient game from Curry tonight against some decent bigs in Magloire, Bogut and Joe Smith. He was the player of the game according to Yahoo.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2006030415

20 points
11 rebounds
6-13 shooting
8-9 from the line
2 blocks
2 fouls
0 turnovers

Oh wait, 0 assists. Horrible game!


----------



## Sham

Exhibit C of why we don't make a move for Magloire.


----------



## bbertha37

You know what, I just can't take this thread anymore. If someone can seriously pump their fist after tonight's game...even in light of the awful to lackluster month that Eddy just had...I really just don't know what to say. I give up. This just isn't worth it for me if one single game is sufficient ammo for someone to spout their diatribe. 

P.S. Am I the only one waiting on pins and needles for Jamal to have a good game and the subsequent post on his update thread?


----------



## Sham

bbertha37 said:


> I don't even know how to respond to some of the posts in these threads anymore. I mean, are we really supposed to be impressed when Eddy puts up a single, good all-around game once in a blue moon? Should we just ignore his last 15 or so games? I mean, seriously. Eddy puts up a whole month of awful to lackluster games. And then he goes for 20 and 11 tonight. So what?



It makes people happy, it seems.


----------



## spongyfungy

The win was a team effort. everyone played well the entire game. especially Malik Rose. I did have a vested interest in this game because of our playoff positioning.


----------



## spongyfungy

bbertha37 said:


> You know what, I just can't take this thread anymore. If someone can seriously pump their fist after tonight's game...even in light of the awful to lackluster month that Eddy just had...I really just don't know what to say. I give up. This just isn't worth it for me if one single game is sufficient ammo for someone to spout their diatribe.
> 
> P.S. Am I the only one waiting on pins and needles for Jamal to have a good game and the subsequent post on his update thread?


eddy fan/haters all contribute to the thread so it's not one sided. The existence of the thread is another story.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy

bbertha37 said:


> P.S. Am I the only one waiting on pins and needles for Jamal to have a good game and the subsequent post on his update thread?


Lord knows I've been waiting. The acquisition of Francis might have finally put that thread to rest.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> Really efficient game from Curry tonight against some decent bigs in Magloire, Bogut and Joe Smith. He was the player of the game according to Yahoo.
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2006030415
> 
> 20 points
> 11 rebounds
> 6-13 shooting
> 8-9 from the line
> 2 blocks
> 2 fouls
> 0 turnovers
> 
> Oh wait, 0 assists. Horrible game!


Lots of Eddy supporters around here, and lots of detractors too.

Eddy's been having a tough time lately, and so have the Knicks. Much to the credit of the Eddy detractors I haven't seen that analyzed on a game to game basis lately. That being said, I think think you ought to afford the same courtesy, K4E. 20 and 11? Nice game, but for the money he's getting paid that should be a regular occurance.

When the Knicks next win 5 of 8 or 9 I'd be curious to see Eddy's numbers. Before then, come on. We're dealing with a team that's been absolutely terrible.


----------



## jbulls

Tyson Chandler on Eddy:

“It was good to be able to play against him,” Chandler said. “He’s definitely a load down there. He’s big. He’s bigger than when he was here with us. He’s definitely weighing more. He had a pretty good game.”

Definitely weighing more? Not good news New York fans. Curry was in ideal shape last year. His lift looks pretty good to me this year, but the fact that (according to Tyson) he's markedly bigger this year than last is reason for concern if you're a Knick fan.


----------



## kukoc4ever

jbulls said:


> Lots of Eddy supporters around here, and lots of detractors too.
> 
> Eddy's been having a tough time lately, and so have the Knicks. Much to the credit of the Eddy detractors I haven't seen that analyzed on a game to game basis lately. That being said, I think think you ought to afford the same courtesy, K4E. 20 and 11? Nice game, but for the money he's getting paid that should be a regular occurance.
> 
> When the Knicks next win 5 of 8 or 9 I'd be curious to see Eddy's numbers. Before then, come on. We're dealing with a team that's been absolutely terrible.


I wonder when the next time a Bulls center will get 20, 11 and 2?

If he did that regularly, he'd be the starting all-star in the East. 20, 10 and 2 is slightly more than what SHAQ averages.

Curry is only making, what, 7.4 million this year? Less than Maurice Taylor. About 1/2 of what AD makes. Less than LaFrentz. Less than Dalembert. Less than Maglorie. I guess we'll have to take this one to the "overpaid" thread. If you take a look at the non rookie contract big men, I think you’ll see that Curry is fairly paid.

As for Curry struggling of late, he's struggled to get consistent minutes, that's for sure. In the last 10 games there have been three games he's had over 30 minutes played. He's had 20,11 and 2 blocks with 9 trips to the line, 15, 10 and 2 blocks with 14 trips to the line and 18, 5 and 4 blocks with 4 trips to the line in those games. 

There have also been games where he'd been in foul trouble, so the numbers are not as gaudy.

All that being said, he's still 6th among centers in PPG with the lowest MPG of anyone in the top 10, the 2nd most FTA among centers and the 2nd best FG%. His rebound rate of 14.3 puts him in the same ballpark as Elton Brand, Chris Bosh, Channing Frye and Etan Thomas. Assists and TOs are still the obvious shortcomings. 

We're still going to have a very hard time finding someone who can produce like Eddy Curry does from the center position. 

As for bumping the thread.... it was on the front page last night and I didn't post in it for a while.. and there were posts on the 25th and 26th of Feb as well regarding his performances.

As for Curry having a few extra pounds vs last year, I think that's a good thing. he could have used an extra 15-20 pounds last season, IMO. 

All Bulls fans that want them to make the playoffs should be happy Curry dominated the Bucks last night. The Bulls would also be better off with him on the team.


----------



## Da Grinch

jbulls said:


> Tyson Chandler on Eddy:
> 
> “It was good to be able to play against him,” Chandler said. “He’s definitely a load down there. He’s big. He’s bigger than when he was here with us. He’s definitely weighing more. He had a pretty good game.”
> 
> Definitely weighing more? Not good news New York fans. Curry was in ideal shape last year. His lift looks pretty good to me this year, but the fact that (according to Tyson) he's markedly bigger this year than last is reason for concern if you're a Knick fan.


 i dunno about that , when he got to the bulls he weighed 285 and when he left he weighed 285...i dont know many nba post players that dont gain at least 20 pounds after leaving high school .

even his trainer said he thought the bulls fitness goals for him were off concerning weight , that he needs to be bigger...but what does tim grover know about training nba players?

personally looking at his wide shoulders i would have thought he should weigh at least 300 by now , he should be positioning himself to be the strongest center in the game once shaq leaves...then maybe when he uses his power moves and opposing players flop it wont be as convincing.


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder when the next time a Bulls center will get 20, 11 and 2?
> 
> If he did that regularly, he'd be the starting all-star in the East. 20, 10 and 2 is slightly more than what SHAQ averages.
> 
> Curry is only making, what, 7.4 million this year? Less than Maurice Taylor. About 1/2 of what AD makes. Less than LaFrentz. Less than Dalembert. Less than Maglorie. I guess we'll have to take this one to the "overpaid" thread. If you take a look at the non rookie contract big men, I think you’ll see that Curry is fairly paid.
> 
> As for Curry struggling of late, he's struggled to get consistent minutes, that's for sure. In the last 10 games there have been three games he's had over 30 minutes played. He's had 20,11 and 2 blocks with 9 trips to the line, 15, 10 and 2 blocks with 14 trips to the line and 18, 5 and 4 blocks with 4 trips to the line in those games.
> 
> There have also been games where he'd been in foul trouble, so the numbers are not as gaudy.
> 
> All that being said, he's still 6th among centers in PPG with the lowest MPG of anyone in the top 10, the 2nd most FTA among centers and the 2nd best FG%. His rebound rate of 14.3 puts him in the same ballpark as Elton Brand, Chris Bosh, Channing Frye and Etan Thomas. Assists and TOs are still the obvious shortcomings.
> 
> We're still going to have a very hard time finding someone who can produce like Eddy Curry does from the center position.
> 
> As for bumping the thread.... it was on the front page last night and I didn't post in it for a while.. and there were posts on the 25th and 26th of Feb as well regarding his performances.
> 
> As for Curry having a few extra pounds vs last year, I think that's a good thing. he could have used an extra 15-20 pounds last season, IMO.
> 
> All Bulls fans that want them to make the playoffs should be happy Curry dominated the Bucks last night. The Bulls would also be better off with him on the team.


Curry could've used at extra 15-20 pounds last season? You're kidding me. He was great last year. He had that extra 20 pounds the previous season and he wasn't nearly as explosive. Please expand on this point - in what regard did Eddy Curry's game suffer from being smaller last year?

What I'm getting from your post is that the only thing holding back Curry lately has been playing time? Wow. Curry didn't score 20 points in a single game THE ENTIRE MONTH OF FEBRUARY. I like Curry, I think we should've held onto him - but it's just silly when people post "told you so" type stuff after one game that's followed an extremely lackluster month. It's a nice game. Big whoop.

(and again - i like the guy, but acting like curry getting 20 and 11 vs. milwaukee is some kind of monumental achievement is just stupid)


----------



## giusd

I think curry could easily average 20 and 10 all he needs is a heart transplant or better put he needs a heart because from what i have seen this year he has no heart. Seriously, if you have watched him play it is clear he does not really have any passion for the game. He will always show signs of an all star but he doesn't love the game and he is ok with losing. With this big multi year contract i think what we have seen this year is what we are going to see the next several years.

david


----------



## kukoc4ever

jbulls said:


> Curry could've used at extra 15-20 pounds last season? You're kidding me. He was great last year. He had that extra 20 pounds the previous season and he wasn't nearly as explosive. Please expand on this point - in what regard did Eddy Curry's game suffer from being smaller last year?


The best I saw Curry play was the end of 2002-2003, where he was heavier but in shape... he was able to back his man down in the post much more effectively than last season and was still athletic enough to get up and down the floor, and his rebound rate was higher that season as well as it is this season. I still think that Curry's rebound rate was at an all time low last year due to his decreased size more than anything. Also, if he had to take all those diet pills to come into camp “in shape” he’s probably better off with a little more weight. I’m not talking 50 pounds here… I’m talking 15-20 pounds on a 300 pound man. 



> What I'm getting from your post is that the only thing holding back Curry lately has been playing time? Wow.


Wow? I readily admitted that foul trouble, which is Curry's fault, is one of the main reasons behind that. Curry is already one of the better centers in the league. If he performs like he has this season for the rest of his career he’s earning his paycheck. But, I think he can still do better. He’d easily be our best center this season on the Bulls.



> Curry didn't score 20 points in a single game THE ENTIRE MONTH OF FEBRUARY. I like Curry, I think we should've held onto him - but it's just silly when people post "told you so" type stuff after one game that's followed an extremely lackluster month. It's a nice game. Big whoop.


That's all I was saying... that he had a good game... why you are having such a reaction to that is beyond me. If you want to break his season down into months to rip on his performance this season, feel free, February was his worst month. He also has performed poorer with 3+ days rest, for whatever that's worth. He's produced better than most other centers in the league this year. 



> (and again - i like the guy, but acting like curry getting 20 and 11 vs. milwaukee is some kind of monumental achievement is just stupid)


Monumental achievement? Link to where anyone said that?


----------



## jbulls

kukoc4ever said:


> The best I saw Curry play was the end of 2002-2003, where he was heavier but in shape... he was able to back his man down in the post much more effectively than last season and was still athletic enough to get up and down the floor, and his rebound rate was higher that season as well as it is this season. I still think that Curry's rebound rate was at an all time low last year due to his decreased size more than anything. Also, if he had to take all those diet pills to come into camp “in shape” he’s probably better off with a little more weight. I’m not talking 50 pounds here… I’m talking 15-20 pounds on a 300 pound man.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow? I readily admitted that foul trouble, which is Curry's fault, is one of the main reasons behind that. Curry is already one of the better centers in the league. If he performs like he has this season for the rest of his career he’s earning his paycheck. But, I think he can still do better. He’d easily be our best center this season on the Bulls.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I was saying... that he had a good game... why you are having such a reaction to that is beyond me. If you want to break his season down into months to rip on his performance this season, feel free, February was his worst month. He also has performed poorer with 3+ days rest, for whatever that's worth. He's produced better than most other centers in the league this year.
> 
> 
> 
> Monumental achievement? Link to where anyone said that?


The monumental achievement line was perhaps unfair creative liscence on my part. My initial post was a bit harsh, and for that I apologize.

Bottom line, IMO, Eddy is a nice player and we miss him. I don't need to hear "Eddy went for 6 and 2 tonight with 4 TO's, BOO YAH!" or "Double double for Eddy! Snap!" after every terrible or great performance.


----------



## Sham

Eddy is down in every category this season except rebounds per game and FT's attempted. His free throw percentage is quite noticably down so he's not really gaining anything there.


----------



## GB

ShamBulls said:


> Eddy is down in every category this season except rebounds per game and FT's attempted. His free throw percentage is quite noticably down so he's not really gaining anything there.


I like Malcolm Gladwells take on the underachieving center. If you have not read his exchanges on ESPN with Bill Simmons, you should.

Here is his take on Eddy (and all underachieving centers):



> With regard to the contract year phenomenon, we can go a little further--we can predict that the likelihood of the post-contract dip is positively correlated with the height of the player. Why is that? Again, the answer lies in the environment-individual link. The seven foot guy has heard that he should be a basketball player since he was eight years old or even younger. He's been pushed his whole career onto the grade school team, onto the varsity, into Division I, and then the NBA draft. He is much less likely than the six foot guy to ever have made a committed choice. He may never had to exert anything approaching his maximum effort level until his contract year. As a result, he has either no idea how to persevere or no intrinsic motivation.


----------



## DaBullz

GB said:


> I like Malcolm Gladwells take on the underachieving center. If you have not read his exchanges on ESPN with Bill Simmons, you should.
> 
> Here is his take on Eddy (and all underachieving centers):


What is written here about Curry is mostly true, I think. However, if he is ever to get the "spirit" of the game, he's going to have to be on a team that puts him on the court and feeds him the ball every opportunity and night after night. At some point, his teammates will look to him in the huddle when they need a score, and he'll "get it." Not that he doesn't somewhat "get it" already.


----------



## Da Grinch

ShamBulls said:


> Eddy is down in every category this season except rebounds per game and FT's attempted. His free throw percentage is quite noticably down so he's not really gaining anything there.



he also is playing less min.

on a per minute basis his blocks and steals are up (actually his steals are up period) you add that to his rebounds being up it just seems to me that he is trying to be a more well rounded and active center...not bad for someone who had not run a step for 7 or so months before the preseason...people should really look to next season for improvement.

there are those who are bending over backwards to make excuses for deng even though his injury led to him proclaiming it helped him in the sense of a greatly improved left hand .


----------



## jbulls

Da Grinch said:


> he also is playing less min.
> 
> on a per minute basis his blocks and steals are up (actually his steals are up period) you add that to his rebounds being up it just seems to me that he is trying to be a more well rounded and active center...not bad for someone who had not run a step for 7 or so months before the preseason...people should really look to next season for improvement.
> 
> there are those who are bending over backwards to make excuses for deng even though his injury led to him proclaiming it helped him in the sense of a greatly improved left hand .


To me, this season is a push for Eddy. He's got a valid excuse w/ the heart problem and his off season of inactivity. But he's certainly still just "good", he hasn't made the leap that some projected for him. Next year's going to be key for him. I'm not sure that rebounding and defense are ever going to be a strength of his, his numbers this year are pretty much in line with what he's done most of his career. The key to Curry's potential ascendance to elite center status is going to be passing and being careful with the basketball. If he can cut down the TO's and learn to pass out of a double team he's going to be a devastating offensive force, but that's not a given.


----------



## Da Grinch

jbulls said:


> To me, this season is a push for Eddy. He's got a valid excuse w/ the heart problem and his off season of inactivity. But he's certainly still just "good", he hasn't made the leap that some projected for him. Next year's going to be key for him. I'm not sure that rebounding and defense are ever going to be a strength of his, his numbers this year are pretty much in line with what he's done most of his career. The key to Curry's potential ascendance to elite center status is going to be passing and being careful with the basketball. If he can cut down the TO's and learn to pass out of a double team he's going to be a devastating offensive force, but that's not a given.


i agree with everything you wrote especially about the passing. It seems the knicks coaching staff has finally caught on , they are making curry a smaller part of the offense . since they had that meeting of the minds in memphis curry has only had 6 turnovers in 4 games because they have stopped for the most part force feeding him. he has less to's with basically the same production avg. 13.5 points 5.5 reb shooting .543 fg and .761 ft in 23.8 min. and the knicks have played worlds better . I dont know how much his passing will improve between this season and next but i expect him pyhsically to be much better and avg. more points and reb. because he should be playing more.


----------



## GB

Eddy on Skiles:



> Eddy Curry had no reaction to Bulls coach Scott Skiles answering with a resounding "no" when asked on Friday if he is surprised that the former Bulls center is struggling in New York.
> 
> "I don't pay too much attention to Skiles and what he says," Curry said. "It doesn't surprise me because I know the kind of person he is. He's a *great coach* but he tends to say a lot of weird things. But that Skiles for you. And I wish him well."
> 
> Skiles' best one-word answer to a question regarding Curry came last season when the Chicago coach was asked what the player needed to do to become a better rebounder.
> 
> Skiles' response: "Jump."


Interesting that after getting a whiff of Larry "The Winner" Browns coaching methods, Eddy comes to realize that his old coach knew what he was doing too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/397867p-337165c.html


----------



## Wynn

> "I don't pay too much attention to Skiles and what he says," Curry said. "It doesn't surprise me because I know the kind of person he is. He's a great coach but he tends to say a lot of weird things. But that Skiles for you. And I wish him well."


I think Big Ed's answer actually shows some maturity. At least in not joining in a verbal feud. I just gained a little more respect for the big guy. I'm also not sure he's complimenting Skiles -- I think he's just being nice.


----------



## smARTmouf

*Bottom line: Eddy Curry > the 06' draft class?*

I'm pretty sure we would all want Curry with that pick had he declared this year.

So that leaves me with this...

subtractions- 
-Eddy Curry
-AD
-Tim Thomas
-Sweetney (might as well put him here...He's gotten a bad rap...He's not as bad as some of you say)

Additions-
-1st rd. draft pick
-a switch of picks in '07

I'm not counting on the Knicks being THIS bad next season as well...There is a chance they'd even be better than us.


I'm looking for a scenerio that would make me feel better about losing the kid...He doesn't look nearly as good as he woulda looked in the Bulls system.


----------



## mizenkay

and we have *merge*




:biggrin:


----------



## GB

NO NO NO

WHY DID YOU BUMP *THIS* THREAD?

Now I have to go find some Eddy news to post in it.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Bottom line: Eddy Curry > the 06' draft class?*



smARTmouf said:


> I'm pretty sure we would all want Curry with that pick had he declared this year.
> 
> So that leaves me with this...
> 
> subtractions-
> -Eddy Curry
> -AD
> -Tim Thomas
> -Sweetney (might as well put him here...He's gotten a bad rap...He's not as bad as some of you say)
> 
> Additions-
> -1st rd. draft pick
> -a switch of picks in '07
> 
> I'm not counting on the Knicks being THIS bad next season as well...There is a chance they'd even be better than us.
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a scenerio that would make me feel better about losing the kid...He doesn't look nearly as good as he woulda looked in the Bulls system.


You hit the nail on the head. Bulls system. It wasn't Ed, it was SKILES IMO. He developed a genius system. Use EC for what he is worth while putting all defenders around him (which is why Ben was not in the game with him a lot, the strategy was Eddy, defense and rebounding), and then bring a fresh Tyson and Gordon off the bench and run the floor. This year Skiles just doesn't have the horses.

But honestly as a huge EC fan, I'm REALLY beginning to be optomistic about this draft because of one guy, O'Bryant. I believe that even though it may take POB a couple years to be able to be as good for us at post offense as EC was, O'Bryant isn't THAT far off. He's maybe 60% of the post scorer Eddy is right now IMO, and that's 40% better than anything we have now. Add that his defense (his man defense is actually WORSE than Curry, but he's far superior as a help defender) and rebounding already looks better and that he's much more aggressive actually getting position (even if he isn't quite the finisher once he gets it) and I think O'Bryant could be used by Skiles as part of a similar system. While Aldridge and Bargnani may be better in a vacuum, I don't think they are better FOR US. If we had Curry and had let Chandler go, then Aldridge would be my guy hands down. But we don't need two ectomorphs up front.

So I'd say that there is one guy in the draft class who may make me start to move on past EC. He fits our needs and what we lost with EC that well, IMHO.


----------



## smARTmouf

mizenkay said:


> and we have *merge*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :biggrin:



Come on man....why u merging my post.

It wasn't an update thread...

The central question was about the draft and if in fact there any players that would lessen the loss of the kid.

Seriously...That merging stuff is annoying.


----------



## Showtyme

Bump. I know that there's more interesting things to talk about than Curry, since we're in the playoffs and he's not. But there's an article in the Times about him, basically rehashing all the Curry-lovers think about him...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/sports/basketball/19knicks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

TheROY, this will irk you the most:



> He can take solace in one other fact: The 2006 draft class is viewed as weak. In an informal survey of a half-dozen executives in the National Basketball Association, all asserted that Curry was better than anyone on the draft board. The executives — five general managers and one scouting director, representing five of the six divisions — were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on another team's player.
> 
> Some of them qualified their assessment, noting that the choice depends on a team's particular needs. But on talent alone, Curry got the nod every time.
> 
> "Without a doubt," an Eastern Conference scouting director said. "I wouldn't even bat an eye to think about that one. There's nobody in this draft that you're going to add to your team and he's going to make you a playoff contender."
> 
> That last sentiment was repeated by every person surveyed. An Atlantic Division scout took the argument one step further, saying that Curry was also better than anyone in the 2005 draft, with the exception of Chris Paul, the Hornets' point guard.


It's a funny read, because it basically covers everything this thread has been hashing out for months now. And it's obviously to a NY audience, who wants desperately to believe that this draft is terrible, even if...



> Still, there is nothing as enticing to a beleaguered fan as hope, upside and potential. Thomas, a forward, has fantastic athleticism. Aldridge, also a forward, is agile and a gifted shot-blocker. Bargnani can play all three frontcourt positions and has 3-point range.


----------



## Sham

> "There's nobody in this draft that you're going to add to your team and he's going to make you a playoff contender."



Like Eddy does. :eek8:


----------



## jbulls

*Re: Bottom line: Eddy Curry > the 06' draft class?*



smARTmouf said:


> I'm pretty sure we would all want Curry with that pick had he declared this year.
> 
> So that leaves me with this...
> 
> subtractions-
> -Eddy Curry
> -AD
> -Tim Thomas
> -Sweetney (might as well put him here...He's gotten a bad rap...He's not as bad as some of you say)
> 
> Additions-
> -1st rd. draft pick
> -a switch of picks in '07
> 
> I'm not counting on the Knicks being THIS bad next season as well...There is a chance they'd even be better than us.
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a scenerio that would make me feel better about losing the kid...He doesn't look nearly as good as he woulda looked in the Bulls system.


IMO, the chances of the Knicks winning more games than the Bulls next season are very, very slim indeed. They're not going to add anyone of consequence, and it's anybody's guess who'll be coaching that team...


----------



## dkg1

George Willis of the NY Post wasn't so optimistic about Curry (sorry couldn't get the link to work):

It has been well-documented the first-round draft pick the Knicks would have earned as a consolation prize for their season of futility belongs to the Bulls, who must be grinning ear to ear over how things have worked out. But that's only a minor irritant. 

There is no LeBron James in this year's draft and it's uncertain whether top prospects Adam Morrison of Gonzaga and Duke's J.J. Redick will be franchise players. That's why the Knicks keep harping about Curry being better than anyone available in the draft. But that's not the point. 

Curry needs to be a star if the Knicks are going to build themselves into a contender anytime soon. Thus far, he's far from that. In his first year as a Knick, he has been mostly out of shape and injury prone, an inconsistent player who seems content to be a role player instead of a leader. 



Acting head coach Herb Williams said Curry needed to learn how to "dominate" opposing centers. Right now, that sounds a lot like saying Nate Robinson needs to be a 7-footer. 

Curry scored 16 points in last night's 98-91 loss to the Bobcats. At times, he showed flashes of the offensive skills that accelerate heartbeats. But through three quarters, he had just two rebounds before finishing with four. That's Curry game, some offense, no muscle; more marshmallow than monster. 

Right now, no center, no team has reason to fear Curry. He hasn't shown the ability to dominate a game or carry his team through difficult times. 

Yes, he's only 23, as the front office keeps reminding us. But Robinson is only 21 and he already displays more fire and passion than the 6-11, 285-pound Curry. If the Knicks could package Robinson's desire with Curry's body, then they would have something to give them optimism for next season. Instead, there is little reason to believe Curry can make the jump from inconsistent to intimidator


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

FWIW, here is the NY Post Link

Form the first article, this quote was intended to be a condescending shot at poor ol' Chicago:



> Still, there is nothing as enticing to a beleaguered fan as hope, upside and potential.


but the sad thing for the NY fans is it applies equally to them as well.

From the George Willis article:



> Yes, he's only 23, as the front office keeps reminding us. But Robinson is only 21 and he already displays more fire and passion than the 6-11, 285-pound Curry. If the Knicks could package Robinson's desire with Curry's body, then they would have something to give them optimism for next season. Instead, there is little reason to believe Curry can make the jump from inconsistent to intimidator.
> 
> The Knicks must hope Curry improves with a good conditioning program during the offseason and a full-training camp. Maybe he'll mature and realize it takes more passion and dedication to be the kind of player the Knicks expect him to be. But that might be wishful thinking. You can tighten a player's body, but you can't necessary instill the intangibles that make great players great.


That is why I am happy we have the draft pick.


----------



## johnston797

Thanks for posting the article. Interesting stuff. And yes, much of it could have come off the boards.



NYTs said:


> Centers are hard to come by," a Pacific Division executive said. Curry, he said, "has got a track record" in the N.B.A., "and everything else is pie in the sky."
> 
> "You get a starting center who will be in the league for 10 years, then to me that's a good gamble," the executive concluded.
> 
> The Knicks also gambled on Curry's health. Bulls officials feared Curry might have a potentially fatal heart condition. The Knicks concluded otherwise after an examination. Curry has not reported any heart irregularities this season, and even with a $56 million contract, league executives say Curry is a marketable asset if the Knicks choose to trade him.


----------



## The ROY

Showtyme said:


> Bump. I know that there's more interesting things to talk about than Curry, since we're in the playoffs and he's not. But there's an article in the Times about him, basically rehashing all the Curry-lovers think about him...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/sports/basketball/19knicks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> 
> TheROY, this will irk you the most:
> 
> It's a funny read, because it basically covers everything this thread has been hashing out for months now. And it's obviously to a NY audience, who wants desperately to believe that this draft is terrible, even if...


LOL, that's funny...they're acting like Curry is doing ANYTHING for NY. Any player we draft this year will do alot more for this team than he's doing in NY. NY fans all over the net are saying how weak this draft is, it's ridiculous.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Bottom line: Eddy Curry > the 06' draft class?*



 smARTmouf said:


> I'm not counting on the Knicks being THIS bad next season as well...There is a chance they'd even be better than us.


WTF

What gives you ANYYYYYYY idea that they could be anywhere near as good as us?

They have 5x the talent we have with the BEST COACH in B-Ball and are at the BOTTOM of the league. We'll be adding a top 3 pick, a top 20 pick & free agent bigs. There's NOOOO way NY will even be in our league next year. The whole franchise needs to go to the NBDL.


----------



## GB

*Re: Bottom line: Eddy Curry > the 06' draft class?*

Curry is not a star. Not yet. He could become one.

Any of the players in the top 4 or 5 draft spots could become a star also.

The only way one team or the other comes out a clear winner in this is if Curry turns into a star or superstar and our pick doesn't...or our pick turns into a star or superstar and Curry doesn't. 

So NY is gambling, and the Bulls are gambling. But we have a productive system, coach and players. At minimum the pick will get us another talented role player that will push us even furthur ahead.

The pick may have even more value in a trade. 

So it's not really Curry versus Aldridge, Gay, Morrison, Bargnani anyway.


----------



## yodurk

ShamBulls said:


> Like Eddy does. :eek8:


Yeah, that's exactly what popped into my head. Most of us agree that Curry gives us something we currently lack, but still...he's a 14 pt, 6 reb, 1 block player. There's surely at least 1, probably more, players in this draft who will surpass that within the next few years. I think these experts are commenting more on Curry's raw ability than anything, with which I agree. 

As much as I hate to admit it though, with the right set of guards around him, Curry could still really blow up. Fortunately, the Knicks are a long way from having the right set of guards. I mean, if you put Curry in the Sun's stats-inflating system, I think you're looking at 20 ppg easy.


----------



## Wynn

Seems to me like Curry and Jackie Butler are having about the same type of impact on the Knick this season.


----------



## GB

Wynn---why do you drop the S's?


----------



## PowerWoofer

yodurk said:


> Yeah, that's exactly what popped into my head. Most of us agree that Curry gives us something we currently lack, but still...he's a 14 pt, 6 reb, 1 block player. There's surely at least 1, probably more, players in this draft who will surpass that within the next few years. I think these experts are commenting more on Curry's raw ability than anything, with which I agree.
> 
> As much as I hate to admit it though, with the right set of guards around him, Curry could still really blow up. Fortunately, the Knicks are a long way from having the right set of guards. I mean, if you put Curry in the Sun's stats-inflating system, I think you're looking at 20 ppg easy.


Yeah, I guess Phoenix would be a great place to Curry. Hell, TT is there and he's having a great time with them. No complaints from them so far, from what I've read. But isn't there another team Curry would thrive on?? Can you guess which team that is?? You're right, it's the Bulls!! Last year, we had everything we needed to be successful, at least it looked that way. Curry finally had gotten in shape, and we had guys that would pass him the ball in the low post and let him do his thing. And then when we couldn't do it anymore, we'd stick Gordon in there and let him fire away. AND IT WORKED!!!!!  Too bad we don't have Curry. I'm telling you, Curry sucks now because he's with NY. If Curry would have had Skiles on his *** all year to get in shape and would have had him to motivate him to play harder, I bet we'd be seeing a lot more production from Curry.

But now we'll never know if it could have continued to work out with Curry and Davis. So we'll have to build our frontcourt again, and I think it can be done. It's just that it takes more time to get good frontcourt players that can dominate than it takes to get guards who can pass a ball around. So let's hope Chicago is lucky come late June, and that we'll be seeing the future bigs of the Bulls in uniforms next season!!

(Oh, and I didn't want to start any more Curry debates. I just wanted to share my opinion of what I thought of the situation. That's it.)


----------



## Wynn

GB said:


> *Wynn!*---why do you drop the S's?


I don't think *Wynn!* ever had any S's. My Grandparents did drop the E, though, when they moved from Ireland to America. Ultimately, though, the pronunciation is the same and we save a lot on ink over the long-term.


----------



## Wynn

PowerWoofer said:


> Yeah, I guess Phoenix would be a great place to Curry. Hell, TT is there and he's having a great time with them. No complaints from them so far, from what I've read.


This is OT for this thread, but regardless of any public complaints, the Sun is 13-11 since Thomas joined them, with 5 of those losses by more than 15 points. It certainly doesn't appear that he's helping them, despite his stats.


----------



## GB

> Scott Skiles refused to gloat yesterday over the one-sided trade. Instead, the Bulls coach said it is too early to judge a deal of that magnitude.
> 
> "Ultimately, a trade like that will be measured on who we pick and how well Eddy performs," Skiles said. "We're happy to be in the postseason. In March, it didn't look like we would get there. But the experience of playing in big games last season proved to be invaluable for us."
> 
> Under Skiles, the Bulls were the polar opposites of the Knicks this season; they over-achieved, battled through adversity and conducted themselves as professionals. The Knicks only talk a good game.
> --
> "We have a lot of flexibility with our draft picks," Skiles said. "(GM) John (Paxson) has done a great job. We like our young players. We feel we have a good foundation."
> 
> Skiles added that it is unfair to judge Curry after one season. He feels Curry's development was slowed after he was forced out of the lineup last March after being diagnosed with a heart arrhythmia. Curry was unable to resume workouts until August.
> 
> "Now that he has medical clearance I don't see any reason why Eddy won't come to camp next season in shape and ready to have a good year," Skiles said.
> --
> When the Bulls visited the Garden in March, Skiles said the one thing the Bulls miss about Curry is his dunks. Curry took that as an insult, but Skiles claims he meant it as a compliment.
> 
> "There aren't a lot of guys that can back you down, turn around and dunk it," Skiles said. "This year was a crazy season for New York. But they're going to get better."


Ok now...everyone can feel better about Coach Skiles.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/410474p-347278c.html


----------

