# Garcia: Big day in life of Bulls' Curry shaping up



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Eddy Curry should know Monday how badly Isiah Thomas wants him.

Thomas, president of the Knicks, has been trying to find a way to land Curry for at least a year. He is Curry's only suitor but apparently is having second thoughts about pulling off a sign-and-trade for the Bulls' 6-foot-11-inch center.

*As of Sunday night, negotiations between the Knicks and Bulls were stalled, according to a source.*

Bulls general manager John Paxson balked at Thomas' initial offer to send Tim Thomas and Michael Sweetney and wants forward David Lee or Trevor Ariza, the source said...

...*Curry has until 11:59 p.m. Monday to accept the Bulls' one-year qualifying offer, but team officials have said they don't mind extending the deadline. If the Bulls and Knicks are close to a deal, that will happen.*

The Bulls could include Eric Piatkowski or Jannero Pargo in the deal.

The Knicks need better outside shooting, and Piatkowski could fill the bill. Pargo's agent, Mark Bartelstein, said Pargo would sign the Bulls' qualifying offer Monday unless he fits in a sign-and-trade...

...*Paxson did not respond to messages over the weekend but has said he will comment Monday*.



There's nothing really new here, exept confirmation that at this point tomorrow's deadline could be extended. It sounds like a deal could still go down, but it is not yet imminent. I wonder just how close it is, or isn't. 

We'll be watching and listening tomorrow.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

About time, at least we'll either get a little bit of action or at least some resolve to the whole thing.
I'm not sure which way I want it to go at this point anymore.


:raised_ey


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

If this is Isiah Thomas' attempt at hardball let me laugh. How about IT save Pax a lot of time and just give into his demands because he will end up doing that at the last second anyways.

Look at it this way Bulls fans. Either Pax gets exactly what he wants or Curry will be a Chicago Bull this season. Win-win situation for the Bulls. 

I bet the Sports editors of chicago are hoping that Curry signs the QO. They will have oodles of fun articles to write for at least a month.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

remlover said:


> If this is Isiah Thomas' attempt at hardball let me laugh. How about IT save Pax a lot of time and just give into his demands because he will end up doing that at the last second anyways.
> 
> Look at it this way Bulls fans. Either Pax gets exactly what he wants or Curry will be a Chicago Bull this season. Win-win situation for the Bulls.
> 
> I bet the Sports editors of chicago are hoping that Curry signs the QO. They will have oodles of fun articles to write for at least a month.



If Curry remains a Bull and they dont play him how exactly is that a win?

Also if Isiah steps away due to the Bulls demands that will only anger Curry's camp even more because they will certainly want to know why the Bulls are asking for so much for a guy they fel is such a huge risk and wont play him .

Its like asking for Blue book value on a car youve been saying has engine trouble for months.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Resolution would be nice. I just want something to happen to end this circus. I mean what the hell. How is David Lee a dealbreaker? I could see if it was Ariza. But David Lee? C'mon Zeke. Make this **** happen. Eddy Curry with Jerome James as his backup. How can you pass that up?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Yeah, I just want this stuff done with. Ariza would be wonderful. Kid could be a really good ballplayer. But yeah, I'm sure it would be a happy ending for Eddy to play with his buddy in New York.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> *Yeah, I just want this stuff done with*. Ariza would be wonderful. Kid could be a really good ballplayer. But yeah, I'm sure it would be a happy ending for Eddy to play with his buddy in New York.


becarefull what you wish for,it can get really boring around here with nothing to talk about


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

bulls said:


> becarefull what you wish for,it can get really boring around here with nothing to talk about


Not so much for around here, I'm sure there will be a 45421 page thread discussing why the Bulls won't even win 10 games next season without Curry. 

I'm talking about the team though. This stuff is a distraction, and getting it out of the way to start training camp would be a huge relief going into next season.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> If Curry remains a Bull and they dont play him how exactly is that a win?
> 
> Also if Isiah steps away due to the Bulls demands that will only anger Curry's camp even more because they will certainly want to know why the Bulls are asking for so much for a guy they fel is such a huge risk and wont play him .
> 
> Its like asking for Blue book value on a car youve been saying has engine trouble for months.


If Eddy signs the QO there are two possiblities. He refuses to take the DNA test and an arbitrator must decide the case:
He rules:
A) Eddy must take the test...He does and Dr Maron finds nothing that would warrent any concern and Eddy is back to playing.
B) Eddy does NOT have to take the test....Pax will most likely force Eddy to sign a waiver and Pax will bite his tongue and allow Eddy to play. 

Either way, if Eddy plays for the QO he will be highly motivated to get that big money deal next summer.

If we trade Eddy, we get something for him and wont have to deal w/ all that drama in the month of October.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I really hope the Bulls sign Eddy to a new contract. While I stand by my opinion that the Bulls have every right to test Eddy further, and get a DNA test if they want (with only the information related to potential heart conditions released to the team) and I believe the Bulls are entitled to whatever financial and liability protection they can legally muster, I do believe (hope?) Eddy is going to be healthy enough to play.

He is a good kid and I want him to succeed, and I would still like him to succeed on the Bulls.

And I DON'T want him traded because I DON'T want to face the prospect of logging on every day and seeing a never ending, daily-bumped Eddy Curry Update thread.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Here is what I don't understand about Zeke 

Under reported trades he's giving up expiring contracts and a 1st round draft pick..where he could keep his draft pick and his expiring contracts to be used more favourably come the deadline in a garage sale and bide his time to throw MLE dollars at Eddy next summer ..and he doesn't diminish his capacity to use those ending contracts in another beneficial way 

Eddy is obviously going to be on the market next summer..why the rush now and give it up when you don't really have to and your team is fairly set for the season 

???


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I really, REALLLY hope we don't trade him to NY. SEND HIM TO THE WEST!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

A summer focused on driving down Curry's market value immediately followed by outrage about not getting much in a trade for him.

It really is stunning.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Here is what I don't understand about Zeke
> 
> Under reported trades he's giving up expiring contracts and a 1st round draft pick..where he could keep his draft pick and his expiring contracts to be used more favourably come the deadline in a garage sale and bide his time to throw MLE dollars at Eddy next summer ..and he doesn't diminish his capacity to use those ending contracts in another beneficial way
> 
> ...



The Knicks will not have enough money to sign Curry under the cap next offseason. ANy deal they make will have to be a S&T deal so they may as well do it this season if they want to do it.

Personally I like the players (Sweetney, Ariza, Lee (NOT T. Thomas)) that the Knicks are offering up but I wouldn't do the deal. Although they are good and have potential, none of them is a young 7' big body center that led the league in fg% a year ago. If Thomas pulls this off, the Knicks will be good (depending on just HOW much they have to give up of course) and the Bulls will be very mediocre IMO. I think Pax is pushing this DNA thing too far, time to back off and get Eddy back into the "being a Bull" mindset he needs to be in.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> A summer focused on driving down Curry's market value immediately followed by outrage about not getting much in a trade for him.
> 
> It really is stunning.


Why is it still stunning to you? I thought that you figured out that has been Paxon's m.o. already by your continuous posting on the matter of eveil Bulls empire, along with Scootmay.

Instead, "I told you so" probably. ALthough, there I disagree with you. 

I don' think that you don't blame only one party here. Clearly both played by theri own agenda all summer long and we basically reach the point of no return.

Time to move on. That is all.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

If the holdup is David Lee then eventually Isiah will cave in and do it. I like Lee a lot and with him included with Sweets and TT it is a good deal and one that Pax should do. Do not underestimate how good Lee is.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It is a curse to be called a cornerstone of the franchise.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

If Paxon is so adament about getting Lee, it looks more and more likely Chandler will start at the center from now, which should be his natural position any way considering his offensive and defensive skill. THe only reason he was out power forward was that "twin tower" thing going on for the rest 4 years.

Time to start Chandler as a center.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Why is it still stunning to you? I thought that you figured out that has been Paxon's m.o. already by your continuous posting on the matter of eveil Bulls empire, along with Scootmay.
> 
> Instead, "I told you so" probably. ALthough, there I disagree with you.


Perhaps it should not be stunning. I guess somewhere I still harbored hope.

You won't see me typing the word "evil" very often if at all. 

I'm just shocked at how badly Paxson bungled this situation. We're about to lose a productive starting center for some scrap. All in the name of financial flexibility. 

Honestly, we better do something lights out with this Cap Space. Its been a cornerstone of nearly every decision made in the "right way" regime.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

remlover said:


> If Eddy signs the QO there are two possiblities. He refuses to take the DNA test and an arbitrator must decide the case:
> He rules:
> A) Eddy must take the test...He does and Dr Maron finds nothing that would warrent any concern and Eddy is back to playing.
> B) Eddy does NOT have to take the test....Pax will most likely force Eddy to sign a waiver and Pax will bite his tongue and allow Eddy to play.
> ...


 The arbitrator cant rule that Eddy must take the test only that the Bulls have the right to ask it of him according to the cba .

Eddy will refuse regardless of the arbitration 

I personally dont think it makes it to arbitration because as soon as this is passed to the players association it becomes a matter of what was negotiated into the new cba. But its been mentioned a number of times that dna testing was a sticking point in the negotiations so I expect them to directlly challenge stern on this to to change the cba to be worded correctly making the dna testing as not being able to required but allows the team to ask and for the player to be able to deny without being penalized in anyway.It seems as if Stern has said as much in his responses.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Basghetti80 said:


> If the holdup is David Lee then eventually Isiah will cave in and do it.


I totally agree. Thats kind of why I'm having a hard time believing in the accuracy of the reports at this stage. If Curry is such a priority for Zeke, how in the heck can David Lee be the hold up? Offer Curry $70 million without a DNA test but then refuse the deal because of the 30th pick in the draft, a player that is yet another redundant power forward on the Knicks? It just doesn't make sense.

Also, a very knowledgable poster (Bulls6) regarding the CBA and trades at realgm keeps saying Tim Thomas can't be included without AD also being included. I really don't see that happening. 

My prediction is that the QO deadline will be extended for a few more days today and the Knicks and Bulls will work something out that is somewhat dissimilar to what has been reported so far.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I totally agree. Thats kind of why I'm having a hard time believing in the accuracy of the reports at this stage. If Curry is such a priority for Zeke, how in the heck can David Lee be the hold up? Offer Curry $70 million without a DNA test but then refuse the deal because of the 30th pick in the draft, a player that is yet another redundant power forward on the Knicks? It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Also, a very knowledgable poster (Bulls6) regarding the CBA and trades at realgm keeps saying Tim Thomas can't be included without AD also being included. I really don't see that happening.
> 
> My prediction is that the QO deadline will be extended for a few more days today and the Knicks and Bulls will work something out that is somewhat dissimilar to what has been reported so far.


If the deal involves Lee then it possibly involves Rose and Isiah may be hesitant to trade all of his good jib frontline guys at once


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> If the deal involves Lee then it possibly involves Rose and Isiah may be hesitant to trade all of his good jib frontline guys at once


Is Lee jibby? 

If the deal involves Rose, I'm going to be upset unless the rest of the reported deal is sweetened with draft picks/Ariza. Long term contracts = bad. Rose has 3 years left on his.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Is Lee jibby?
> 
> If the deal involves Rose, I'm going to be upset unless the rest of the reported deal is sweetened with draft picks/Ariza. Long term contracts = bad. Rose has 3 years left on his.



Uhhh...No Lee isn't Jibby, he had all sorts of issues in college, I think he was kicked off of the team. Also a big pot smoker. On the other hand, his game isn't all that similar to Songalia like someone else said. He's sort of a 3/4, think Nocioni with more flash and ball handling. He also won the college slam dunk contest.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Is Lee jibby?
> 
> If the deal involves Rose, I'm going to be upset unless the rest of the reported deal is sweetened with draft picks/Ariza. Long term contracts = bad. Rose has 3 years left on his.


you just cant say 3 years is bad because you have to look at the how he fits into the Bulls salary structure .He basically takes AD's place as the hardworking vet on the frontline and he also has title experience.You also know he wont affect chemistry and will play any role asked.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I totally agree. Thats kind of why I'm having a hard time believing in the accuracy of the reports at this stage. If Curry is such a priority for Zeke, how in the heck can David Lee be the hold up? Offer Curry $70 million without a DNA test but then refuse the deal because of the 30th pick in the draft, a player that is yet another redundant power forward on the Knicks? It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Also, a very knowledgable poster (Bulls6) regarding the CBA and trades at realgm keeps saying Tim Thomas can't be included without AD also being included. I really don't see that happening.
> 
> My prediction is that the QO deadline will be extended for a few more days today and the Knicks and Bulls will work something out that is somewhat dissimilar to what has been reported so far.


I think the deal with Tim Thomas and AD is that the Knicks would immediately waive AD and he'd re-sign with the Bulls.

While I agree in theory on David Lee, I also think Bulls fans are approaching it from a one-sided perspective when they are saying "David Lee shouldn't be a dealbreaker". He appears to be just as much a dealbreaker for Paxson as he is for Thomas, or else a deal would have been done, no?

Given the relatively low amount of leverage the Bulls appear to have if they're committed to dumping Eddy (the phrase "none" comes to mind), I don't see why Thomas would throw us another bone.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> A summer focused on driving down Curry's market value immediately followed by outrage about not getting much in a trade for him.
> 
> It really is stunning.


Its only "stunning" if you buy into the baloney tossed around that the dispute with Eddy and the doctor merry-go-round was a Bulls campaign to drive down Eddy's market value.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> you just cant say 3 years is bad because you have to look at the how he fits into the Bulls salary structure .He basically takes AD's place as the hardworking vet on the frontline and he also has title experience.You also know he wont affect chemistry and will play any role asked.


Good point. I like Malik Rose, don't get me wrong. I like him alot. I just think he's overpaid. If the Bulls were going to overpay, I'd rather do it on Curry. That was my whole point with Curry - don't overpay for him given his game, his history, and the health issues.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Its only "stunning" if you buy into the baloney tossed around that the dispute with Eddy and the doctor merry-go-round was a Bulls campaign to drive down Eddy's market value.


I'll bet that Paxson called the league's insurance carriers and begged them not to insure Eddy's heart, just so he could drive down Eddy's trade value.

And I have no doubt that Pax called every insurance company on the face of the Earth and instructed all of them to deny Eddy insurance as well.

I'm pretty confident that Paxson instructed the Bulls' water boys to add insane amounts of caffeine to Eddy's Gatorade so that he would have an irregular heartbeat incident.

In fact, I'm pretty worried about ScottMay- if Paxson finds out that he's out here on the internet educating people about Eddy's medical condition, ScottMay might wind up at the bottom of Lake Michigan.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Its only "stunning" if you buy into the baloney tossed around that the dispute with Eddy and the doctor merry-go-round was a Bulls campaign to drive down Eddy's market value.


Not true. Paxson used other techniques to drive down Curry's value as well ("we'll match" for one).

Mission accomplished for Paxson. Curry's value is at an all-time low, at least in terms of other teams being able to act. Sadly Paxson is trying to trade him at this very moment. The best laid plans.....


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> While I agree in theory on David Lee, I also think Bulls fans are approaching it from a one-sided perspective when they are saying "David Lee shouldn't be a dealbreaker". He appears to be just as much a dealbreaker for Paxson as he is for Thomas, or else a deal would have been done, no?
> 
> Given the relatively low amount of leverage the Bulls appear to have if they're committed to dumping Eddy (the phrase "none" comes to mind), I don't see why Thomas would throw us another bone.


The Bulls have most of the leverage because they are the ones who make the final decision. Period. I agree that both sides have something on the other and that neither is dealing from strong place, but it is IT who has been trying to get this kid for a year. I just don't see how, now, when it appears to be within his grasp, David Lee of all people is the sticking point. 

I'm not knocking IT for it. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense. Sounds like posturing to me.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

link
The knicks just signed two players in Otis George and Steven Barber which takes their roster up to 17 players .Could they be preparing for a 3 for 1 deal ?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not true. Paxson used other techniques to drive down Curry's value as well ("we'll match" for one).
> 
> Mission accomplished for Paxson. Curry's value is at an all-time low, at least in terms of other teams being able to act. Sadly Paxson is trying to trade him at this very moment. The best laid plans.....


He did indeed state that he would match offers for his free agents.

Hardly the stuff of Illuminati-worthy conspiracy theories.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> He did indeed state that he would match offers for his free agents.
> 
> Hardly the stuff of Illuminati-worthy conspiracy theories.


Didn't Duhon's price go UP because a team was actually interested enough to sign him to an offer sheet?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> He did indeed state that he would match offers for his free agents.
> 
> Hardly the stuff of Illuminati-worthy conspiracy theories.


I'm not talking about any conspiracies.

I just think Paxson dropped the ball on this one. 

Mismanagement


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> He did indeed state that he would match offers for his free agents.
> 
> Hardly the stuff of Illuminati-worthy conspiracy theories.


Paxson also said the same of Chandler . . . . and then gave him a $63 million dollar guaranteed deal.

I guess his campaign of terror and intimidation just didn't work on Chandler.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Didn't Duhon's price go UP because a team was actually interested enough to sign him to an offer sheet?


I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that Paxson's strategies really worked other than Curry. We may have paid more for both Duhon and Chandler than we needed to. At least in Chandler's case he dissuaded other teams from making an offer, just like Curry.

At least Duhon and Chandler are resigned though. 

Also, obviously, Duhon's lower price tag opens up the list of teams able to realistically bid on him..


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Personally, I think Paxson is still PO'd about losing his starting job to BJ in the early 90's and he is trying to sabatoge the team.

He can't believe that last summer he traded away the team's leading scorer for "garbage", filled his roster with rookies, and they STILL made the playoffs.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Personally, I think Paxson is still PO'd about losing his starting job to BJ in the early 90's and he is trying to sabatoge the team.
> 
> He can't believe that last summer he traded away the team's leading scorer for "garbage", filled his roster with rookies, and they STILL made the playoffs.


I think Paxson is building a team in his own image. Average, but clean cut and jibby.

I guess its fun following an average team. I hope there are not any riots downtown if we squeak into the 2nd round of the playoffs in a year or two.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Of course, there is always the more believeable middle ground than the extremes here that there were a variety of factors at play, that the Bulls went too far in certain respects, and in doing so made a bad situation worse.

I don't doubt that the Bulls have a concern for Curry's health, but I also don't doubt they have a concern for their bottom line. I think it's very easy to conflate those issues and I think there's an inherent conflict in interest in doing so.

That situation was forced on the Bulls and Curry too, so I woudn't say it's the Bulls' fault. But their actions don't appear to be particularly mindful of the delicate nature of the situation either, and it appears to me that some of their overly strong statements and stances are what's got them now in a position where they seem to have little leverage and not a lot of good options left.

But hey... we'll save the attempts at sensible commentary for another day, everyone seems content to belittle each other with sarcastic nonsense and spout talking points. For a minute there I thought it was last year's election again. :dead:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree. *I'm not entirely convinced that Paxson's strategies really worked other than Curry. We may have paid more for both Duhon and Chandler than we needed to.*
> 
> At least Duhon and Chandler are resigned though.
> 
> Also, obviously, Duhon's lower price tag opens up the list of teams able to realistically bid on him..


 :laugh: 

Oh, I see. 2 out of 3 young free agents get very strong deals and thats because Paxson's deliberate attempts to drive down their value failed. So Paxson screwed those up.

The third, who is under the cloud of a difference of medical opinion regarding a potentially fatal heart issue, Paxson so successfully drove down his value that he screwed that one up too.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

What is so special about David Lee? Can anyone who has watched him play, give me some info about him? Is he a very cheap version of Songalia? Why is holdup in the trade b/c of Lee? 

One thing that has bothered me, is that if we trade Curry we become the new Knicks in terms of having no legit center, and having tons of PFs. WHY is Pax NOT ASKING for CHANNING FYRE? I'd accept the deal if we could get Fyre and some form of Ariza/Sweetney/future 1st. 

Ideally lets resign Eddy, but Pax, if Isiah really wants Eddy, play hardball and go for a legit player in Frye instead of your boy Lee.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Oh, I see. 2 out of 3 young free agents get very strong deals and thats because Paxson's deliberate attempts to drive down their value failed. So Paxson screwed those up.
> 
> The third, who is under the cloud of a difference of medical opinion regarding a potentially fatal heart issue, Paxson so successfully drove down his value that he screwed that one up too.





Wrong. The two high priced FAs didn't get any other offers. Mission accomplished on Pax's part. The purpose of "we'll match" is to dissuade offers. Come on man. 

The 3rd, a lower priced FA, had many more teams that could make an offer.... and the risk of locking up the salary and of the overall deal is not as high

Check out Kiki's quote today. It appears that there are plenty of teams interested in Curry. They just can't get at him.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Personally, I think Paxson is still PO'd about losing his starting job to BJ in the early 90's and he is trying to sabatoge the team.
> 
> He can't believe that last summer he traded away the team's leading scorer for "garbage", filled his roster with rookies, and they STILL made the playoffs.


I know I thinks thats why Pax took the job and why BJ eventually left as well.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Oh, I see. 2 out of 3 young free agents get very strong deals and thats because Paxson's deliberate attempts to drive down their value failed. So Paxson screwed those up.
> 
> The third, who is under the cloud of a difference of medical opinion regarding a potentially fatal heart issue, Paxson so successfully drove down his value that he screwed that one up too.


You must spread some reputation around being giving to Ron Cey again.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> *Wrong. The two high priced FAs didn't get any other offers. Mission accomplished on Pax's part. The purpose of "we'll match" is to dissuade offers. Come on man.*
> 
> The 3rd, a lower priced FA, had many more teams that could make an offer.... and the risk of locking up the salary and of the overall deal is not as high
> 
> Check out Kiki's quote today. It appears that there are plenty of teams interested in Curry. They just can't get at him.


So Pax succeeded in making sure Tyson didn't get any offers, for the purpose of driving down Tyson's value, then he went out and gave him a $10 million a year contract anyway?


Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeach.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The Bulls have most of the leverage because they are the ones who make the final decision. Period. I agree that both sides have something on the other and that neither is dealing from strong place, but it is IT who has been trying to get this kid for a year. I just don't see how, now, when it appears to be within his grasp, David Lee of all people is the sticking point.
> 
> I'm not knocking IT for it. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense. Sounds like posturing to me.


And the Bulls appear to be trying hard to get out from under this situation, and they don't have a year to wait around doing it. With so much on the line, why would David Lee of all people be the sticking point for Paxson?

The Bulls ability to say "no" means what exactly? That they go to court and either burn bridges entirely or have Curry not play (or both, since I don't imagine he'd be playing while the arbitration and suit are at issue).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> So Pax succeeded in making sure Tyson didn't get any offers, for the purpose of driving down Tyson's value, then he went out and gave him a $10 million a year contract anyway?


Of course Paxson did it for leverage in negotiations with both players. Duh.

Just like the Penguin says....



Ron Cey said:


> The Bulls have most of the leverage because they are the ones who make the final decision.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> What is so special about David Lee? Can anyone who has watched him play, give me some info about him? Is he a very cheap version of Songalia? Why is holdup in the trade b/c of Lee?
> 
> One thing that has bothered me, is that if we trade Curry we become the new Knicks in terms of having no legit center, and having tons of PFs. WHY is Pax NOT ASKING for CHANNING FYRE? I'd accept the deal if we could get Fyre and some form of Ariza/Sweetney/future 1st.
> 
> Ideally lets resign Eddy, but Pax, if Isiah really wants Eddy, play hardball and go for a legit player in Frye instead of your boy Lee.



Lee has a lot of potential. He flashed that potential at Florida and will very likely end up being a very solid 3/4 in the league. He has explosive hops and won a HS dunk contest. The kids jib isn't so great though. Think Andres Nocioni with more ball handling ability.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> So Pax succeeded in making sure Tyson didn't get any offers, for the purpose of driving down Tyson's value, then he went out and gave him a $10 million a year contract anyway?


BTW, i forgot, how much of that big 10 million a year is guaranteed?


----------



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

Mikedc said:


> And the Bulls appear to be trying hard to get out from under this situation, and they don't have a year to wait around doing it. With so much on the line, why would David Lee of all people be the sticking point for Paxson?


Jib factor baby, jib factor 
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=2054599&prov=st&type=lgns



> POSITIVES: Lee is an excellent position rebounder. He has decent athletic ability but plays a thinking big man's game on both ends of the court. Lee helped Florida in so many ways - helping out on drivers, setting picks to free Anthony Roberson and Matt Walsh for jump shots, getting a key blocked shot in a big moment. He has always been a very high percentage shooter, mainly because he knew exactly how far his range extends - to about 16 feet.





> SHORTCOMINGS: Lee is not a dynamic athlete. He will go against NBA players who can outjump and outrun him. At 230 pounds, he is lighter than many power forwards. Lee has room for growth in his game but is not a player with huge upside potential.


another site compared Lee's upside to Antonio Davis and downside to Joe Smith


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> BTW, i forgot, how much of that big 10 million a year is guaranteed?


Based on each and every media report I've seen, 100% of the $10 million a year is guaranteed, and Tyson can make even more based on incentives.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> another site compared Lee's upside to Antonio Davis and downside to Joe Smith


Funny thing is that Joe Smith has been a more productive player in many respects compared to AD.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Lee has a lot of potential. He flashed that potential at Florida and will very likely end up being a very solid 3/4 in the league. He has explosive hops and won a HS dunk contest. The kids jib isn't so great though. Think Andres Nocioni with more ball handling ability.


He was also considered a top 10 pick coming out of high school. That was when scouts saw him as a pure 3, rather than a 3/4. I think when we began to see his limited perimeter skills, that's when his stock slipped; that, along with the jib stuff Ace mentioned.


----------



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

kukoc4ever said:


> Funny thing is that Joe Smith has been a more productive players in many respects compared to AD.


I think either player in his prime is a good piece to any team.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Funny thing is that Joe Smith has been a more productive player in many respects compared to AD.



That's what I was thinking when I read that.
Anyways, I know alot of people don't like Lee, but I've been a fan of him, and I'd be glad to grab him if we have to deal with the Knicks.

I'd rather have a Curry that isnt pissed off and bitter though, but I guess we'll see what happens there.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

JRose5 said:


> That's what I was thinking when I read that.
> Anyways, I know alot of people don't like Lee, but I've been a fan of him, and I'd be glad to grab him if we have to deal with the Knicks.
> 
> I'd rather have a Curry that isnt pissed off and bitter though, but I guess we'll see what happens there.


I like Lee too but I think I would really be lobbying for Ariza if I were gonna do this deal with NYwhich I wouldn't do anyway.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Curry was the next Shaq
Chandler was the next KG
Kirk was the next Stockton
Gordon was the next AI or Baron Davis
Someone even said Deng might be a lot like Larry Bird

I wouldn't count on any of those "like another player" projections.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Curry was the next Shaq
> Chandler was the next KG
> Kirk was the next Stockton
> Gordon was the next AI or Baron Davis
> ...


Curry STILL is the next Shaq...just not there yet.
Chandler was only the next KG to people who make bad comparisons. Personally I have compared him to a sort of young Alonzo Mourning but with less offense.
I have only heard Gordon compared to Vinnie "Microwave" Johnson and that seems apt.
Never heard that about Deng, I don't see the comparisons though.


----------



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

ace20004u said:


> Curry STILL is the next Shaq...just not there yet.


Curry doesn't have enough drive to be the next Shaq, the next Duckworth maybe but not the next Shaq.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Curry doesn't have enough drive to be the next Shaq, the next Duckworth maybe but not the next Shaq.



Thats an opinion and you know what they say about those!

Seriously, I am tired of hearing everyone's conclusion that Eddy is a "lazy player". Sure, he looks a little sleepy eyed sometimes but he has done everything the Bulls have asked of him. He has gotten in shape, trimmed down, worked hard. A recent article said he is working out 5 days a week with Tim Grover and participating in some pickup scrimmages...Grover says he is in excellent shape. 

No offense LOB but I think the whole "lazy Eddy Curry" thing is a bit overblown and not entirely accurate.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I would not characterize Eddy as "lazy" but I would say he lacks "ambition" to be great.


----------



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

Ace I don't see how you can compare the 2 players, look at Shaq's 1st 4 years in the league. He was a freekin monster from the get go. Sure he had college that helped him but his numbers were outstanding . 
Even after 3 years in the league Curry came nowhere close to Shaq's rookie season where Shaq scored 
23 ,had 14 rebs and 3.5 blocks per game btw Shaq was 20 at the time. Keep up w/ your opinion, and I let the numbers speak for mine.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

remlover said:


> If this is Isiah Thomas' attempt at hardball let me laugh. How about IT save Pax a lot of time and just give into his demands because he will end up doing that at the last second anyways.
> 
> Look at it this way Bulls fans. Either Pax gets exactly what he wants or Curry will be a Chicago Bull this season. Win-win situation for the Bulls.
> 
> I bet the Sports editors of chicago are hoping that Curry signs the QO. They will have oodles of fun articles to write for at least a month.


 I got a kick reading that. "He's like a Svenjolly"


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Ace I don't see how you can compare the 2 players, look at Shaq's 1st 4 years in the league. He was a freekin monster from the get go. Sure he had college that helped him but his numbers were outstanding .
> Even after 3 years in the league Curry came nowhere close to Shaq's rookie season where Shaq scored
> 23 ,had 14 rebs and 3.5 blocks per game btw Shaq was 20 at the time. Keep up w/ your opinion, and I let the numbers speak for mine.


Shaq did have a lot of preperation at LSU, preperation that Curry lacked. I don't think Curry will ever match Shaq's rebounds but in the paint he is almost as deadly and he DID lead the league in fg% the season before last. The problem with letting numbers speak for you is that they can be misleading. I prefer watching a player and evaluating him based on his skills, not what his stats say. Maybe your right, or, maybe Curry is starting to get it and will be surprisingly good this season.


----------



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

Ace,

I think the numbers that I gave do account for Shaq's time at LSU. His Rookie season compared to Eddy's 4th is a pretty fair contrast IMO. Shaq was 20 at the time and Curry was 22 so I even gave Curry 2 years for maturity. 

http://www.basketball-reference.com...aquille+O'Neal&y2=1993&s=r&t=g&submit=Compare


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Ace,
> 
> I think the numbers that I gave do account for Shaq's time at LSU. His Rookie season compared to Eddy's 4th is a pretty fair contrast IMO. Shaq was 20 at the time and Curry was 22 so I even gave Curry 2 years for maturity.
> 
> http://www.basketball-reference.com...aquille+O'Neal&y2=1993&s=r&t=g&submit=Compare



True but Shaq played with some pretty dynamic pg's in his first few years in Orlando, guys like Anfernee Hardaway in his prime, Scott Skiles who, of course, holds the records for most assists in a game. They did an excellent job of getting Shaq the ball and Shaq was in better condition from the get go (although skinny) and became a focal point of their offense. In any case, relying on just the #'s your obviously correct. I will just say that from what I have observed from Curry the best is yet to come and I think it will be quite impressive.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I didn't know there were people who still think Eddy Curry will be as good as Shaq.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I didn't know there were people who still think Eddy Curry will be as good as Shaq.


Shaq does. He has even said as much. But I think it is relative. I think Eddy Curry will be a dominating low post scorer like Shaq. I think his defense will improve some but I don't know how close to Shaq he will get defensively. Obviously Curry will probably never be the volume rebounder that Shaq is. Curry has had a couple of head to heads with Shaq where he played him very close or even outplayed him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

tick tick tick tick tick tick tick


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Shaq was a 24/14/4 player at 20 years old in his rookie year. 

Besides being nowhere near the defender, rebounder or shotblocker that Shaq is, he isn't anywhere near Shaq at picking apart defenses with his passing. Curry shrivels up at the sight of double teams. Plus, obviously, Curry scores like 16 points per game. Shaq was up at 30 points per game his 2nd season, at the age of 21. 

Curry can be as good as Zydranus Ilgauskas if he works on some things.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Curry is the next Shaq?

Its funny, *when Curry is actually playing on the Bulls* and fans point out his shortcomings, the common response from those who favor Curry is that the Shaq-like expectations are too high and he should only be judged by what he brings to the table. 

Now that evil Paxson might trade him, Eddy is the next Shaq and his absence will cost the Bulls' whatever chance they had at a championship. 

If Curry ends up being traded this week, here's predicting that Eddy Curry expectations will continue to soar. Obviously, if he plays on another team he'll dominate like Shaq, move like the Dream, and get laid like Wilt.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> tick tick tick tick tick tick tick


. . . . . extension of time. :banana:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> . . . . . extension of time. :banana:


Has it been announced, or is that just we are still expecting?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Curry is the next Shaq?
> 
> Its funny, *when Curry is actually playing on the Bulls* and fans point out his shortcomings, the common response from those who favor Curry is that the Shaq-like expectations are too high and he should only be judged by what he brings to the table.
> 
> ...


Judging by the number of kids he has already fathered, I think Eddy already has the "get laid like Wilt" part down fairly well...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Has it been announced, or is that just we are still expecting?


No. Sorry if that was misleading. Thats just what I've been saying will happen. I expect this to drag on until later in the week with Curry ultimately being dealt.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Curry is the next Shaq?
> 
> Its funny, *when Curry is actually playing on the Bulls* and fans point out his shortcomings, the common response from those who favor Curry is that the Shaq-like expectations are too high and he should only be judged by what he brings to the table.
> 
> ...



He does have short comings but he still has the potential to be Shaq like. He is already Shaqlike in a lot of ways he works in the post. I don't think thats going to change wherver he goes to as long as he has someone to distribute to him in the post. 

I'm not trying to portray Paxson as part of the "evil empire". I actually like what Pax has done. I do think it is counterproductive to say "We're gonna go with what Cammon says" and then come back to the DNA test months after Cammon clears Curry to play. I'm not sure why Paxson is even doing it and it makes me scratch my head. Nevertheless, I still think Eddy has tons of potential.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> No. Sorry if that was misleading. Thats just what I've been saying will happen. I expect this to drag on until later in the week with Curry ultimately being dealt.


I have to agree with your speculation, though- I see no reason to extend the date for the QO unless a trade is being worked out.

IMO, if there is to be no trade, Pax is better off having Eddy sign the QO so he can get his DNA test request in front of a mediator ASAP.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I do think it is counterproductive to say "We're gonna go with what Cammon says" and then come back to the DNA test months after Cammon clears Curry to play.


Me too. Its also counterproductive to have Jeff Gillooly hire someone to kneecap Eddy Curry with a tire iron. Thats why its a good thing Paxson never did either. 

Paxson said the team was going to allow Eddy to "resume activity" per Cannom's recommendation. An allowance the Bulls had no say over in any event and, which even if they did (which they didn't) is significantly different than saying the team would give Curry a long term deal based on what Cannom said. These statements do not exist in a vaccuum. The context is just as important as the statement.

As for Curry's potential, I agree with you. From a physical talent standpoint, he has top 15 player type potential.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> tick tick tick tick tick tick tick


tick tick tick


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> The Knicks will not have enough money to sign Curry under the cap next offseason. ANy deal they make will have to be a S&T deal so they may as well do it this season if they want to do it.
> 
> Personally I like the players (Sweetney, Ariza, Lee (NOT T. Thomas)) that the Knicks are offering up but I wouldn't do the deal. Although they are good and have potential, none of them is a young 7' big body center that led the league in fg% a year ago. If Thomas pulls this off, the Knicks will be good (depending on just HOW much they have to give up of course) and the Bulls will be very mediocre IMO. I think Pax is pushing this DNA thing too far, time to back off and get Eddy back into the "being a Bull" mindset he needs to be in.



My point was Ace was that if a sign and trade is not worked out he will not really play too much this year and will not have a market beyond the MLE next summer

Zeke could still sign him for the MLE if that's all anyone else will offer him ..and before you talk about cap teams there is us , Atlanta ( been there done that ) Charlotte and New Orleans ( where GDP forecasts next year aren't even $5M let alone playing Eddy more than that)


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I totally agree. Thats kind of why I'm having a hard time believing in the accuracy of the reports at this stage. If Curry is such a priority for Zeke, how in the heck can David Lee be the hold up? Offer Curry $70 million without a DNA test but then refuse the deal because of the 30th pick in the draft, a player that is yet another redundant power forward on the Knicks? It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Also, a very knowledgable poster (Bulls6) regarding the CBA and trades at realgm keeps saying Tim Thomas can't be included without AD also being included. I really don't see that happening.
> 
> My prediction is that the QO deadline will be extended for a few more days today and the Knicks and Bulls will work something out that is somewhat dissimilar to what has been reported so far.


I've been saying that since last week ..that no Eddy Curry trade will include Antonio Davis 

Get over it people and move past that

Eric Piatowski and Adrian Griffin /or possibly ( but reluctantly )Jannero Pargo only

That gives $11M going to the new team 

That allows acceptance back of $8.25M to $15.5M approx

Eddy at half value or 120% of last season's salary is $4.8M and Pike and Griff ( signed at the minimum ) would be at $3.5M

Gee that's $8.3M 

Compliant deal ( in terms of the numbers )

If Sweetney or one of Lee/Ariza is a principal we can only look at salary ranges around late's $6M's tt $7m's 

Look at whose salary on the Knicks payroll fits this slot

It ain't hard guys


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Me too. Its also counterproductive to have Jeff Gillooly hire someone to kneecap Eddy Curry with a tire iron. Thats why its a good thing Paxson never did either.
> 
> Paxson said the team was going to allow Eddy to "resume activity" per Cannom's recommendation. An allowance the Bulls had no say over in any event and, which even if they did (which they didn't) is significantly different than saying the team would give Curry a long term deal based on what Cannom said. These statements do not exist in a vaccuum. The context is just as important as the statement.
> 
> As for Curry's potential, I agree with you. From a physical talent standpoint, he has top 15 player type potential.



Umm...sorry to nitpick but I think you are wrong here. I remember a Paxson quote distinctly that said they were going to go with whatever Cammons reccomendation was...then there is the backtracking. I wish I had the exact quote but it was very clear to me that Paxson had agreed to follow dr. Cannoms directives in the matter.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

So Sausage excuse me for being slow but you are saying Curry+Pike+Griffin(or Pargo) for Thomas+Sweetney+Lee(or Ariza) actually works? Because I was under assumption it did not.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> My point was Ace was that if a sign and trade is not worked out he will not really play too much this year and will not have a market beyond the MLE next summer
> 
> Zeke could still sign him for the MLE if that's all anyone else will offer him ..and before you talk about cap teams there is us , Atlanta ( been there done that ) Charlotte and New Orleans ( where GDP forecasts next year aren't even $5M let alone playing Eddy more than that)



You may have a point but I think Eddy will get more than MLE money next season even if Pax sits him a lot this year..which I also doubt will happen. Those ARE the teams under the cap for now...but that can change with trades and other moves and it very well could by the time Eddy is at market again.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I've been saying that since last week ..that no Eddy Curry trade will include Antonio Davis
> 
> Get over it people and move past that
> 
> ...


 :banana: 

So you say, Sausage, but look at the fact that every one of the Knicks middle salary guys have multiyear deals. Despite your suggestions, there's no way in hell Paxson is going to blow a boatload of 06 summer caproom for the services of Malik Rose.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> :banana:
> 
> So you say, Sausage, but look at the fact that every one of the Knicks middle salary guys have multiyear deals. Despite your suggestions, there's no way in hell Paxson is going to blow a boatload of 06 summer caproom for the services of Malik Rose.


Don't be so sure 

We'd already allocated that money in our plans anyway to pay Eddy which we will never do given the non negotiable stalemate of both parties

If Rose and Peggy Lee equal $7M average for 3 years it doesn't really get in the way of our free agency

I've been pointing to a Nesterovic and Rose swap in the deal too..possibly with SA's first round pick being transferred back to San Antonio

Rose and Ariza works with Rose being swapped for Rasho in a 3 way and with Pike and Griff being laid off to a cap team with considerations


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Plus its the only way a deal can work without giving up guys you don't want to


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Umm...sorry to nitpick but I think you are wrong here. I remember a Paxson quote distinctly that said they were going to go with whatever Cammons reccomendation was...then there is the backtracking. I wish I had the exact quote but it was very clear to me that Paxson had agreed to follow dr. Cannoms directives in the matter.


The truth of that matter is, at that point, Eddy was not under contract with the Bulls. What he chose to do during the summer was his decision, and the Bulls had absolutely no bearing on that. To illustrate this, let's take a little walk down memory lane...Jamal Crawford's activity during the summer of 2004. Many folks around here thought that Jamal should've been working out at the Berto Center. Others cried fowl at the idea and maintained that Jamal, as a FA, should not have felt compelled to abide by any of the Bulls' requests to work out at the Berto Center during the summer. Now let's fast foward to June when Dr. Cannom's diagnosis became known. What would your reaction have been if Pax, in June, had demanded that Eddy, who became a FA and was no longer at all obligated to abide by the Bulls' requests until tendered a new contract, remain inactive until he took a DNA test? You guys would've said that it stank to high heaven and that Pax had sabotaged Eddy's chances of signing an offer sheet.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> The truth of that matter is, at the point, Eddy was not under contract with the Bulls. What he chose to do during the summer was his decision, and the Bulls had absolutely no bearing on that. Let's take a little walk down memory lane...Jamal Crawford's activity during the summer of 2004. Many folks around here thought that Jamal should've been working out at the Berto Center. Others cried fowl at the idea and maintained that Jamal, as a FA, should not have at all felt compelled to abide by any of the Bulls' requests to work out at the Berto Center during the summer. Now let's fast foward to June when Dr. Cannom's diagnosis became known. What would your reaction have been if Pax, in June, had demanded that Eddy, who became a FA and was no longer at all obligated to abide by the Bulls' requests until tendered a new contract, remain inactive until he took a DNA test? You guys would've said that it stank to high heaven and that Pax had sabotaged Eddy's chances of signing an offer sheet.


true. And that is essentially what Pax has done by saying "we will abide by Dr. Cannoms decision" and now bringing up the DNA test thing again. I don't think Pax is doing it because he has malevelont intentions but whatever his intentions it certainly is making life suck for Eddy Curry.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Don't be so sure
> 
> We'd already allocated that money in our plans anyway to pay Eddy which we will never do given the non negotiable stalemate of both parties
> 
> ...


Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but mark me down as saying Paxson will not take on a multiyear deal worth more than 5 million next year from the Knicks, even if he has another trade in mind.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

But I just think it's downright naive to maintain that the demand for a DNA test is new information to Eddy (i.e. when you mention Pax "bringing up the DNA test thing again"). There's no doubt that it's recently become a bigger issue in the press, but again, I have hard time believing that this is shocking news to Eddy. This is something Eddy has known since Dr. Maron's original diagnosis, and I'd be shocked if Pax was not insisting upon a DNA test since the preliminary stages of negotiations. The fact that not much of a big deal was made about the test during the summer, in my opinion, just shows what a commendable job Pax did in something that he was rebuked for...taking contract negotiations to the press.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Umm...sorry to nitpick but I think you are wrong here. I remember a Paxson quote *distinctly that said they were going to go with whatever Cammons reccomendation was*...then there is the backtracking. I wish I had the exact quote but it was very clear to me that Paxson had agreed to follow dr. Cannoms directives in the matter.


I don't think you are nitpicking. I think you are wrong. Its important to "nitpick" when looking at what someone said. You'll get no argument from me there. 

If you can find that quote, I'd be interested in reading it. It would surprise me very much to see that I'd missed such a controversial statement. It also seems strange to think that Paxson, before Cannom had even made a recommendation, would openly state that he was going to go along with it. 

I think you are misremembering the quote. When Cannom cleared Eddy to "resume activity" the Bulls, through Paxson, said they ("we") would go along with it. That was the context of the quote I'm thinking of. Perhaps you are referring to a completely different quote, however.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> But I just think it's downright naive to maintain that the demand for a DNA test is new information to Eddy (i.e. when you mention Pax "bringing up the DNA test thing again"). There's no doubt that it's recently become a bigger issue in the press, but again, I have hard time believing that this is shocking news to Eddy. This is something Eddy has known since Dr. Maron's original diagnosis, and I'd be shocked if was not insisting upon a DNA test since the preliminary stages of negotiations. The fact that not much of a big deal was made about the test during the summer, in my opinion, just shows what a commendable job Pax did in something that he was rebuked for...taking contract negotiations to the press.



Huh? Paxson is on record as saying he would go by what dr. Cannom said, Dr. Cannom cleared Eddy to return to physical activity and he has been practicing and everything has been fine...then all of the sudden Pax gets back on this DNA test thing again. I mean, I am sure they have asked Eddy and have told him they would like him to take it and all but if you say your going by what Dr. Cannom said there is no need for it...drop it already.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I've been saying that since last week ..that no Eddy Curry trade will include Antonio Davis
> 
> Get over it people and move past that
> 
> ...



so your saying no ad=no TT? couldnt we do Curry(resigned @ 10mil=5mil outgoing)+pike+resigned griff+OH? that comes out to around 12mil outgoing.TT sweets and ariza= 16.7 incoming,thats almost a 5mill diff and i dont think that will work.without TT i dont like any deal with NY that doesnt inc frye and or Q.

i doubt NY would do this but curry,pike,griff for Q,sweet and frye.its very close about 1mil off so i know it should work..i would even add a pick and maybe pargo for that deal..


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think you are nitpicking. I think you are wrong. Its important to "nitpick" when looking at what someone said. You'll get no argument from me there.
> 
> If you can find that quote, I'd be interested in reading it. It would surprise me very much to see that I'd missed such a controversial statement. It also seems strange to think that Paxson, before Cannom had even made a recommendation, would openly state that he was going to go along with it.
> 
> I think you are misremembering the quote. When Cannom cleared Eddy to "resume activity" the Bulls, through Paxson, said they ("we") would go along with it. That was the context of the quote I'm thinking of. Perhaps you are referring to a completely different quote, however.


Yeah, I wish I had the quote but it is pretty old now and I have never been good at digging up old quotes. To the best of my ability to recall it was: "We will trust Dr. Cannom's judgement and go by whatever his diagnosis is"...something very similar...maybe someone better at producing quotes can find it. Or, maybe, as you suggested, I AM misremembering it. However, it seems odd that they would accept Cannom's diagnosis as good enough for Eddy to resume practice but not good enough to play since you could die from either activity with a bad heart.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Huh? *Paxson is on record as saying he would go by what dr. Cannom said*, Dr. Cannom cleared Eddy to return to physical activity and he has been practicing and everything has been fine...then all of the sudden Pax gets back on this DNA test thing again. I mean, I am sure they have asked Eddy and have told him they would like him to take it and all but *if you say your going by what Dr. Cannom said there is no need for it*...drop it already.


I think you should get some backup for this repeated assertion of yours.

EDIT: I saw the part in your next post about not being good at finding quotes. Maybe someone who agrees with what you are saying will pitch in and help.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

If we send out Eddy, Othella, and Pike, we could get Thomas, Sweetney (and Lee, if we can get him).

Eddy, Pike, and Pargo for Lee and Thomas could work if Eddy gets a massive salary per year, somewhere between 13 and 14 million. That's a lot to give him, but I suppose NY could just offer him a two year deal worth 28 million.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Yeah, I wish I had the quote but it is pretty old now and I have never been good at digging up old quotes. To the best of my ability to recall it was: "We will trust Dr. Cannom's judgement and go by whatever his diagnosis is"...something very similar...maybe someone better at producing quotes can find it. Or, maybe, as you suggested, I AM misremembering it. However, it seems odd that they would accept Cannom's diagnosis as good enough for Eddy to resume practice but not good enough to play since you could die from either activity with a bad heart.


This is the entirety of a short piece by John Jackson in the Sun-Times on July 3, 2005. It is archived.



> Though the Bulls haven't made an official announcement, operations chief John Paxson confirmed Saturday that center Eddy Curry -- sidelined since suffering an irregular heartbeat before a game March 30 -- has received medical clearance to begin working out again.
> 
> Curry, who became a restricted free agent on Friday, had traveled to Los Angeles to meet with renowned cardiologist David Cannom on Thursday.
> 
> ...


----------



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

Didn't Pargo sign a QO, if so, how can you trade him? I thought when I suggested the same thing could be done w/ Curry I was proven wrong.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> This is the entirety of a short piece by John Jackson in the Sun-Times on July 3, 2005. It is archived.


Thanks!

There was a different quote I think but this one works:

and we're going to follow Dr. Cannom's guidelines."


Why follow his guidelines only as they pertain to working out? I mean, that could kill ya too. Whats the point in trusting his advice to clear Eddy to do one potentially dangerous thing but then not another? I still haven't found the exact one I was seaerching for though.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Thanks!
> 
> There was a different quote I think but this one works:
> 
> ...


That one Scott found is the one I was thinking of, Ace.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That one Scott found is the one I was thinking of, Ace.


Ok, well even that one says they are going to go by Cannoms guidlines, why would they do that when it comes to working out, which would be potentially lethal if cannom was wrong, and not accept Cannom's guidlines for playing? I mean...maybe I am just stupid but it makes no sense to me.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Ok, well even that one says they are going to go by Cannoms guidlines, why would they do that when it comes to working out, which would be potentially lethal if cannom was wrong, and not accept Cannom's guidlines for playing? I mean...maybe I am just stupid but it makes no sense to me.


Note where Paxson says they don't have a say no matter what. So why say you won't allow it when you have no authority to say that? 

Plus, hollowly "allowing" a player to "resume activity" when you can't prevent it anyway is a lot different than clearing him to play in an NBA basketball season. Its also a lot different than giving a player a contract for tens of millions of dollars.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Note where Paxson says they don't have a say no matter what. So why say you won't allow it when you have no authority to say that?


You can lawyer up all you want but Pax said

_"we're going to follow Dr. Cannom's guidelines."_

Why did he say it? Was this a mistake by Paxson? Was he trying to paint a false picture?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Ok, well even that one says they are going to go by Cannoms guidlines, why would they do that when it comes to working out, which would be potentially lethal if cannom was wrong, and not accept Cannom's guidlines for playing? I mean...maybe I am just stupid but it makes no sense to me.


ace,

I've been down this road with Ron Cey before. His interpretation of the article makes perfect sense so long as you aren't hidebound by the conventional definitions of words and phrases like "we" and "no restrictions".

If, however, you aren't willing to suspend what you know about the English language, you'll arrive at the same conclusion I did: *despite being fully aware at the time of Maron's desire to have Eddy take a DNA test, John Paxson and the Bulls doctors understood and accepted Dr. Cannom's diagnosis and course of treatment.* At some point -- late September, in all likelihood --that position changed, and Cannom became merely a doctor found by Eddy and his representation to clear him.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> You can lawyer up all you want but Pax said
> 
> _"we're going to follow Dr. Cannom's guidelines."_
> 
> Why did he say it? Was this a mistake by Paxson? Was he trying to paint a false picture?


<VAGUELY here discussion for passes that statement person other the past talking pointless and hominem ad>

< obligatory vaguely ad hominem pointless talking past the other person >

No! It was a mistake by you. You didn't actually read it. If you did, it didn't mean what it says. It's all a sort of collective dislexia that affects people that don't <STRIKE>slurp</STRIKE> pray at the altar daily!

< / obligatory vaguely ad hominem pointless talking past the other person >
</ person other the past talking pointless hominem ad vaguely obligatory>

It's a pretty odd picture to be painting if you follow Ron Cey's line that the DNA test is largely a liability trope anyway. On one hand, he's said the Bulls are scared to death of liability issues, so much so that they've pushed for the DNA test come hell or high water.

On the other hand, you've got Paxson needlessly giving an impression he agrees with Cannom's diagnosis. If the Bulls were that concerned, the smart thing to do would have been, at that point, to reiterate the desire for the DNA test. 

Similarly, the smart thing to do might have been to avoid throwing around terms like "negligent" when taking sides in a dispute between renowned cardiologists. Ya know, just for the historical record.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> ace,
> 
> I've been down this road with Ron Cey before. His interpretation of the article makes perfect sense so long as you aren't hidebound by the conventional definitions of words and phrases like "we" and "no restrictions".
> 
> If, however, you aren't willing to suspend what you know about the English language, you'll arrive at the same conclusion I did: *despite being fully aware at the time of Maron's desire to have Eddy take a DNA test, John Paxson and the Bulls doctors understood and accepted Dr. Cannom's diagnosis and course of treatment.* At some point -- late September, in all likelihood --that position changed, and Cannom became merely a doctor found by Eddy and his representation to clear him.


Your interpretation on the matter of FACT. Others can interpret otherwise alhtough you do seems to think that yours is the only correct one. Anyway, all summer long you were on the crusade against evil Bulls empire and it's getting really, really old and boring. 

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

Plus, I am beginning to think that you are actually Oliver Stone in disguise. :brokenhea :brokenhea :brokenhea


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Your interpretation on the matter of FACT. Others can interpret otherwise alhtough you do seems to think that yours is the only correct one. Anyway, all summer long you were on the crusade against evil Bulls empire and it's getting really, really old and boring.
> 
> :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:
> 
> Plus, I am beginning to think that you are actually Oliver Stone in disguise. :brokenhea :brokenhea :brokenhea


Speaking of things that are getting really really old and boring, how about you?

You never seem to add anything except posts intended to criticize other people. 

More likely than not it's because you simply don't know anything about basketball, and therefore can't talk about it, but I also hold out the possibility you're just a worthless piece of ****.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Speaking of things that are getting really really old and boring, how about you?
> 
> You never seem to add anything except posts intended to criticize other people.
> 
> More likely than not it's because you simply don't know anything about basketball, and therefore can't talk about it, but I also hold out the possibility you're just a worthless piece of ****.


Wow, someone peed in your Cheerios today. Was it Dr. Maron?

Perhaps a little harsh, Mike? You definitely made a point, though.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Media Day at the Berto Center starts at 5:30 - perhaps we'll have some answers about a few things soon. Perhaps not.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but mark me down as saying Paxson will not take on a multiyear deal worth more than 5 million next year from the Knicks, even if he has another trade in mind.


Pax wanted to sign Malik Rose the summer before this one when the Spurs retained him

Loved his jib and the toughness he brings ( although he is a 6'5 power forward )


Anyway I think the way you have to look at Malik Rose is what is a reasonable cost if you were to sign outright 

$3M is probably the upper end of his market if someone really wants him..kind of like Othella Harrington money.

He earns $6M this season

At the end of this season he only has 2 more seasons left at an average cost of $6.75m

So by then we will be paying him around an extra $3.5M a year for 2 years above his market

The first question is 

_ Is he valuable on our team without Harrington and Davis ? _

The answer is yes

The second question is 

_ Where is our position of need in free agency or in trades through our cap space and who are our targets at what cost ? _

Its not the guard corp with Hinrich, Duhon , Gordon and Basden committed for awhile yet 

Deng is at the 3

Then you have wing support players like combo forward Andres Nocioni and Forward/Guard Trevor Ariza if he can be included with Malik Rose . So we're good at guards and on the wings 

Then we would have Songaila, Rose at the power forward spots ( I am assuming Allen, Davis and Harrington are gone )

Chandler at Center 

Quite obviously we have get Center depth ..which is why I am intrigued by swapping Rose for Rasho 

But even if this was not possible ..it basically puts Nene, Nazr Mohammed , Joel Pryzibilla and Kelvin Cato in the front line as our free agency targets in a $7M to $10M range when we would have around $18M to spend 

Personally I would like to sign Nene and do what it takes and just let Malik Rose equal the cost of Harrington , Allen and Davis in what you would have to pay for them in free agency..kind of like a consolidation exercise

Better yet ..if we could swap him for Rasho ...add Nene in free agency and add further depth upfront with our mid first round pick ..say like Josh Boone and a shooter like say Reddick with SA's pick


*

Nene
Chandler
Deng
Gordon
Hinrich

bench

Nesterovic
Songaila
Nocioni
Ariza
Duhon

Boone
M.Allen ( resigned )
Basden
Reddick
Pargo

*

So the trade would be Curry and Harrington to New York for $10M 

Rose ,Ariza and Jackie Butler ( cut ) for $7.8M ( plus SA's pick to the Bulls )

Curry is out at $4.8M and Othella at $3M - $7.8M

Matches

Sure we get Rose back at $3M over his market but in terms of cost its a 1 for 2 deal ( Rose and Othella = FMV of $6M and we're paying $6M ..only for Rose - not Rose and Harrington )

But to compensate we get Ariza and a late first round pick 

To only chew an extra $3.5M in cap space for 2 years when we don't really need it anyway given our spread and where our needs are , AND , when we can lay our hands on Ariza and a 1st rounder as well..in the circumstances its a no brainer for me


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> You can lawyer up all you want but Pax said
> 
> _"we're going to follow Dr. Cannom's guidelines."_
> 
> Why did he say it? Was this a mistake by Paxson? Was he trying to paint a false picture?


What are your answers to those questions?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Pax wanted to sign Malik Rose the summer before this one when the Spurs retained him
> 
> Loved his jib and the toughness he brings ( although he is a 6'5 power forward )
> 
> ...


Your reasoning is well thought out, Sausage, as expected. However, I still think we will discover this week that Paxson will not take on such a contract.

Also, your idea to turn Rose into Rasho is a little strange, seeing that San Antonio chose to part with Rose as opposed to Rasho this last year. Circumstances do change, but I'm not sure why San Antonio would want Rose back even if they are willing to part with Rasho. They only have Nazr under contract for one more year, and they will need at least two centers (Rasho and Oberto) if they intend to keep Duncan at the 4. Plus, San Antonio discovered last year that Big Shot Bob is still ageless. He is still more than capable of taking Duncan's mop up minutes at the 4 spot.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> On the other hand, you've got Paxson needlessly giving an impression he agrees with Cannom's diagnosis. *If the Bulls were that concerned, the smart thing to do would have been, at that point, to reiterate the desire for the DNA test.*


You mean publicly? Because for all the huffing and puffing around here, none of you guys have any idea what the Bulls have been requiring of Curry all along. Not that waiting for the truth is a deterrent to dramatic accusations and condemnation around these parts.

Paxson was clearly speaking only of "resuming activity" and getting back into the gym. Those are his own darn words for pete's sake. That the Three Amigos continue to equate this with an 82 game NBA season and a long term contract is as hilarious as it is transparent.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Speaking of things that are getting really really old and boring, how about you?
> 
> You never seem to add anything except posts intended to criticize other people.
> 
> More likely than not it's because you simply don't know anything about basketball, and therefore can't talk about it, but I also hold out the possibility you're just a worthless piece of ****.


Jinkees! :curse:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Paxson was clearly speaking only of "resuming activity" and getting back into the gym. Those are his own darn words for pete's sake.


Please.

Paxson said, "Dr. Cannom has cleared Eddy to resume activity...and we're going to follow Dr. Cannom's guidelines."

Dr. Cannom cleared Eddy to play basketball. So the only reasonable explaination is that Paxson is talking about basketball.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Speaking of things that are getting really really old and boring, how about you?
> 
> You never seem to add anything except posts intended to criticize other people.
> 
> More likely than not it's because you simply don't know anything about basketball, and therefore can't talk about it, but I also hold out the possibility you're just a worthless piece of ****.


Right back at you, you worthless piece of ****. How about this for a comeback?

Totally uncalled for. If one person can say almost same thing day after day as he please, another can certainly express his own displeasure, no?
Anyway I thought at leat you were above this kind of chlidish remark but I have been wrong before and I was certainly wrong about you.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You mean publicly? Because for all the huffing and puffing around here, none of you guys have any idea what the Bulls have been requiring of Curry all along. Not that waiting for the truth is a deterrent to dramatic accusations and condemnation around these parts.


Err... the truth of what he said is right there in print. If the Bulls didn't agree, it seems pretty odd that they'd have said all the things they said about the "terrific news" and, your interpretation of their weasel words or not, generally giving the impression they bought off on Cannom's diagnosis and plan.



> Paxson was clearly speaking only of "resuming activity" and getting back into the gym. Those are his own darn words for pete's sake.


Uh huh. Those are some of his words, and some of yours.



> That the Three Amigos continue to equate this with an 82 game NBA season and a long term contract is as hilarious as it is transparent.


Furthering his inability to discuss basketball politely with another individual, Ron Cey lumps people together and and argues against the fiction he's created. He fails to see this is both rude and has nothing to do with discussing basketball or the Bulls.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Right back at you, you worthless piece of ****. How about this for a comeback?
> 
> Totally uncalled for. If one person can say almost same thing day after day as he please, another can certainly express his own displeasure, no?


Certainly. That's precisely what I was doing.

You, however, have just been taking shots at people for a long time. Rather than offering anything constructive or engage in a discussion you just complain about other people here. 

Then you cry like a little girl if somebody takes a shot at you. Nope, I don't have much respect for that at all. Even most of the guys I disagree with routinely here, I respect, like, and enjoy debating with.



> Anyway I thought at leat you were above this kind of chlidish remark but I have been wrong before and I was certainly wrong about you.


A childish remark for someone acting like a child. If you stopped with the lame bashing of other people and actually contributed something to the Bulls-oriented discussion you'd get a more adult response deserving of your more adult behavior.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Also, your idea to turn Rose into Rasho is a little strange, seeing that San Antonio chose to part with Rose as opposed to Rasho this last year. Circumstances do change, but I'm not sure why San Antonio would want Rose back even if they are willing to part with Rasho. They only have Nazr under contract for one more year, and they will need at least two centers (Rasho and Oberto) if they intend to keep Duncan at the 4. Plus, San Antonio discovered last year that Big Shot Bob is still ageless. He is still more than capable of taking Duncan's mop up minutes at the 4 spot.


It was a pretty tough decision apparently as TD and Rose are super tight and the Spurs regarded him highly ..but when Naz was available it was the right trade to make for RC Buford

But.. the Spurs have Oberto and Nazr at Center and the rights to Ian Mahinni

And let's not forget everyone's favourite Kiwi scrub , Sean Marks

They have TD and Bob Horry and the rights to Luis Scola at PF 

Horry is an outside shooting bigman whilsty Rose is a post player ..both complement each other well as TD backup

Rasho seemed to lose his way in the mix when Naz was added and now with Obertto being added and depth as strong as ever..it kind of makes some sense to reacquire role playing super jib king of the locker room kind of guy in Malik Rose for harmony/stability

Plus he has one year less on his contract than Rasho

I think it makes a bunch of sense for the Spurs


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Cannom gave his report, and Pax made his statement, a week or two before it was reported that Eddy's contract wouldn't be insured by the league.

I think a lot of people are skipping over the issue that even Eddy's agents and lawyers can't find one single insurance company on the planet to insure Eddy's heart, even with the "Dr's scorecard" being 4-1 in Eddy's favor. Not even Lloyd's of London, where one can get all kinds of strange and bizzare items or body parts "insured", was willing to take on the risk.

One can only safely assume that the insurance companies are taking Maron's word for it- why wouldn't they issue insurance to a completely healthy heart?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Certainly. That's precisely what I was doing.
> 
> You, however, have just been taking shots at people for a long time. Rather than offering anything constructive or engage in a discussion you just complain about other people here.
> 
> ...


So you said. But seriously, don't you think that you ad Scottmay both push this eveil empire conspiracy thing to its grave over this summer? Not that other camp didn't do the same thing. My point is that yes, I have been reading both side all summer and quite frankly both side run out of any new argument, if any, long time ago. ANd also both camp did such great job pushing their own argument with their own designated posters, there practically nothing else to contribute on this matter. You know yourself that you were having exact same conversation with exact same poster with no new argument on this matter since forever.

Just like I used to praise when someone post great stuff, I will express my pleasure as i please whether it fit your taste or not. This is internet forum after all, no?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Furthering his inability to discuss basketball politely with another individual, Ron Cey lumps people together and and argues against the fiction he's created. He fails to see this is both rude and has nothing to do with discussing basketball or the Bulls.


I prefer my method to calling someone a "worthless piece of ****". :laugh: 

Methinks someone had a bad day. It happens. Peace out fellas. We're just rehashing the hash at this point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Not even Lloyd's of London, where one can get all kinds of strange and bizzare items or body parts "insured", was willing to take on the risk.


According to a person I know that works for them, since they went public even Lloyds is reluctant to offer policies like the one Curry would need. Supposedly they do not do that type of business much anymore. That's all I know about this issue so feel free to fire away.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> So you said. But seriously, don't you think that you ad Scottmay both push this eveil empire conspiracy thing to its grave over this summer?


Kindly review my posts over the summer and show me where I called the Bulls "evil" or concluded it was all a "conspiracy"?

The fact is you can't because I said no such things. I've said I think the Bulls were mixing together their legitimate interest in making a good deal and their legitimate interest in Curry's health, but that doesn't make them evil. I expressly said so a couple of times. I also don't think it makes them good or anything. I said I think the've handled the situation poorly, but that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. I simply think they could have done better. And finally I think the genie they were threatening to let out of the bottle with this legal issue is a downright scary one that doesn't need to get out. There's no good from it, and there wasn't any good for the Bulls by going there. So evil? No. But not good. Understandable? Sure. But that doesn't make it great. Conspiracy? No. But not well done either.

I realize that might be overly complex for you though, so if all that reduces to is "Bulls Evil!", then that's fine. In the future I'll be sure to use nice short words so you get the drift without thinking too hard.


----------

