# Why Not Trade E. Curry to CHA?



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

The Bobcats look like they are in desperate need of a player who can put the ball in the basket. One of the easiest ways to do that, a favored style of Larry Brown, is to play an inside-outside halfcourt game in which the big man is the focal point of the team's offense. When healthy, Curry is more than proficient in fulfilling this role. Those skills warranted him All-Star considerations just 2 seasons ago before a string of bad luck occurred that likely will spell the end of his Knick career. 

Larry Brown loves reclaimation projects, which probably explains his interest in Iverson....a guy who reportedly left Philly for because of their poor relationship. With Tyson Chandler in rank, I could see the Bobcats pairing the two together in the starting lineup like Chicago once did. Both players effectively cover the other's flaws and both are young enough to steadily improve with one another.

How about the Knicks send Eddy Curry and $3 million cash to CHA for Raja Bell and someone like Nazr Mohammed. The Bobcats likely won't need Bell any longer with Allen Iverson in the ranks and the Knicks certainly could use his skills in our rotation. Sure, we'll be stuck with Nazr's contract for the 2010 season but at least Bell's $5.3 million a year contract would have expired; effectively positioning us for 2 max contracts for that offseason. With Mohammed's poor health and old age, we may very well luck out and see him retire which would help free even more cash for our franchise. I could also see another deal where we pay yet another $3 million with Mohammed and exchange him for an expiring contract ala Brian Cardinal.

Let's get it done Donnie!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> When healthy, Curry is more than proficient in fulfilling this role.


Disagree completely. He is a good finisher around the basket and can be a post-up threat when the other 4 players do all the work for him, but beyond that he is an awful guy to build your offense around. For one, he is a terrible passer. IMO, you never want to build an offense around someone who doesn't have some kind of basketball IQ or passing ability. Second, he is a turnover MACHINE. Part of this is due to the poor basketball IQ. The other part is he's constant making dumb mental errors like getting offensive fouls, traveling, trying to put the ball on the floor only to have it stripped by another player. The Bulls and Knicks have tried to build around him but it just doesn't work because there are no dynamics to his game whatsoever. 

However, this is a dilemma because if you're not running alot of offense through him, what good is he at all? He is a liability on rebounding and defense. So if you aren't using him for scoring, you might as well just sit his butt on the bench. I have to wonder if Eddy Curry's calling is as a backup center in this league. Maybe you guys should find a team who has a good defensive-minded center already, but will need a scoring type like Curry to back him up. The Sixers come to mind with Dalembert being the starter. Maybe Curry has a place there alongside Dalembert and Brand. Curry is the first big guy off the bench and he can play alongside both of the other 2 guys.

As a Bulls fan, I can tell you that I'm glad to have this guy off my team!



> Those skills warranted him All-Star considerations just 2 seasons ago before a string of bad luck occurred that likely will spell the end of his Knick career.


Uh, no offense -- there is alot more to it than that. Yeah, he's had some bad luck. No, I don't think that's why he suddenly became a worthless player. Curry just isn't hungry to play basketball. He's never seemed to care; it's evident in his practice habits and his overall demeanor on the court. This is a guy who just happened to have amazing basketball talent but probably never wanted to play basketball if he weren't so dominant at it (prior to NBA at least). He's in it for the money. No money, and he wouldn't even be trying to get back to the court right now.

Is that the guy that anybody wants on their basketball team? (at least in a significant role?)



> Larry Brown loves reclaimation projects, which probably explains his interest in Iverson....a guy who reportedly left Philly for because of their poor relationship.


Larry Brown despises Eddy Curry and his work habits. I was under the impression that LB was incredibly frustrated with Eddy just like Skiles was in Chicago.



> With Tyson Chandler in rank, I could see the Bobcats pairing the two together in the starting lineup like Chicago once did. Both players effectively cover the other's flaws and both are young enough to steadily improve with one another.


Having watched Curry & Chandler play together in Chicago, I can tell you they were a terrible fit playing together. On paper you might think they "cover each other's flaws", but in reality there is a severe lack of basketball IQ between the two of them. Essentially this is having 2 big men on the floor together, neither of which has court vision or can make an effective pass. Hence, your ball movement must then rely on the other 3 players. 3 on 5 isn't a good way to run your offense and get ball movement going.

The most success the Bulls had with Curry & Chandler was when Skiles coached us to a 47-35 record. Except, these guys RARELY played together; instead, we had Curry starting (Antonio Davis was the PF, who did a great job covering up Eddy's flaws) while Tyson Chandler was the backup center. 



> How about the Knicks send Eddy Curry and $3 million cash to CHA for Raja Bell and someone like Nazr Mohammed. The Bobcats likely won't need Bell any longer with Allen Iverson in the ranks and the Knicks certainly could use his skills in our rotation. Sure, we'll be stuck with Nazr's contract for the 2010 season but at least Bell's $5.3 million a year contract would have expired; effectively positioning us for 2 max contracts for that offseason. With Mohammed's poor health and old age, we may very well luck out and see him retire which would help free even more cash for our franchise. I could also see another deal where we pay yet another $3 million with Mohammed and exchange him for an expiring contract ala Brian Cardinal.
> 
> Let's get it done Donnie!


If the Cats trade for Curry it's only because his contract is shorter than whatever they would end up trading away. I guarantee Larry Brown wants nothing to do with this guy, and LB seems to be calling alot of shots in Charlotte nowadays; apparently part of the deal he & Jordan have for having him coach there.

As I suggested above, I would think Philly is a better target; they could probably use someone like Curry to back up Dalembert. Heck, since the Brand project isn't working out, maybe they trade Brand to you guys for Curry? Philly would save alot of money in the process which is the main incentive.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Disagree completely. He is a good finisher around the basket and can be a post-up threat when the other 4 players do all the work for him, but beyond that he is an awful guy to build your offense around. For one, he is a terrible passer. IMO, you never want to build an offense around someone who doesn't have some kind of basketball IQ or passing ability. Second, he is a turnover MACHINE. Part of this is due to the poor basketball IQ. The other part is he's constant making dumb mental errors like getting offensive fouls, traveling, trying to put the ball on the floor only to have it stripped by another player. The Bulls and Knicks have tried to build around him but it just doesn't work because there are no dynamics to his game whatsoever.


At this point, who do the Bobcats have to run their offense through? The answer is pretty much no one, making a guy like Eddy valuable simply because he can score by creating his own shot. There is no way to deny that he's a poor passer (or terrible with turnovers) but on a team like that, who is he going to pass to that's a better offensive option than him? These current Bobcats remind me a lot of the Bulls of yesteryear, which Curry enjoyed his most team success. With more veteran seasoning and incentive to have a breakout season because of his financial woes, I think Eddy Curry can depulicate that season.




yodurk said:


> However, this is a dilemma because if you're not running alot of offense through him, what good is he at all? He is a liability on rebounding and defense. So if you aren't using him for scoring, you might as well just sit his butt on the bench. I have to wonder if Eddy Curry's calling is as a backup center in this league. Maybe you guys should find a team who has a good defensive-minded center already, but will need a scoring type like Curry to back him up. The Sixers come to mind with Dalembert being the starter. Maybe Curry has a place there alongside Dalembert and Brand. Curry is the first big guy off the bench and he can play alongside both of the other 2 guys.
> 
> As a Bulls fan, I can tell you that I'm glad to have this guy off my team!



As poor a rebounder and defender Eddy is for his size and athleticism, the Bobcats do both exceedingly well and don't need him to be that for their team. They need his scoring and considering that they have no better options there at the moment, could forcefeed him the ball like we did in 06-07. He converts shots at such a high rate and draws so much attention that his time on the floor is more a pro than a con.

I've also thought recently that Eddy might be a solid backup center for the type of team you described but definitely not with the Sixers. On a team like the Bobcats, I think he is without a doubt a starter though. As much as your happy to have Eddy off your team, isn't it ironic that he provides exactly what the Bulls are looking for in the paint?




yodurk said:


> Uh, no offense -- there is alot more to it than that. Yeah, he's had some bad luck. No, I don't think that's why he suddenly became a worthless player. Curry just isn't hungry to play basketball. He's never seemed to care; it's evident in his practice habits and his overall demeanor on the court. This is a guy who just happened to have amazing basketball talent but probably never wanted to play basketball if he weren't so dominant at it (prior to NBA at least). He's in it for the money. No money, and he wouldn't even be trying to get back to the court right now.
> 
> Is that the guy that anybody wants on their basketball team? (at least in a significant role?).


No offense taken. It has become painfully clear here in NY that Eddy's main focus is the money...which is exactly why I think the Bobcats should roll the dice on him. He is DEEP in debt and recently had to foreclose on his home in Chicago. With his new contract coming due, Eddy knows he needs to get his act together. This reason, he's already lost close to 40 pounds and is still looking to lose more in hopes of dupping another team into signing him to a big contract. Eddy in shape is a dangerous player in this league and I suspect he's looking to have a breakout season.





yodurk said:


> Larry Brown despises Eddy Curry and his work habits. I was under the impression that LB was incredibly frustrated with Eddy just like Skiles was in Chicago.


Larry Brown despises everyone. Didn't he despise Allen Iverson also and is currently lobbying to bring him to Charlotte.




yodurk said:


> Having watched Curry & Chandler play together in Chicago, I can tell you they were a terrible fit playing together. On paper you might think they "cover each other's flaws", but in reality there is a severe lack of basketball IQ between the two of them. Essentially this is having 2 big men on the floor together, neither of which has court vision or can make an effective pass. Hence, your ball movement must then rely on the other 3 players. 3 on 5 isn't a good way to run your offense and get ball movement going.
> 
> The most success the Bulls had with Curry & Chandler was when Skiles coached us to a 47-35 record. Except, these guys RARELY played together; instead, we had Curry starting (Antonio Davis was the PF, who did a great job covering up Eddy's flaws) while Tyson Chandler was the backup center.


Both Curry and Chandler were NBA babies when they were playing with one another in Chicago. Since that time, Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry were considered all-star candidates at different points in their career. If Chandler's main agenda is defense and Curry's scoring, the two should work beautifully together. If not, the Bobcats have different ways of mixing and meshing the two with different players to help limit their court time with one another. After all, Chandler is no stranger to the bench. The likelihood of those two not working well together is slim IMO while the downside is minimal.





yodurk said:


> If the Cats trade for Curry it's only because his contract is shorter than whatever they would end up trading away. I guarantee Larry Brown wants nothing to do with this guy, and LB seems to be calling alot of shots in Charlotte nowadays; apparently part of the deal he & Jordan have for having him coach there.
> 
> As I suggested above, I would think Philly is a better target; they could probably use someone like Curry to back up Dalembert. Heck, since the Brand project isn't working out, maybe they trade Brand to you guys for Curry? Philly would save alot of money in the process which is the main incentive.



With Larry Brown you can't guarantee anything, which is why he's become an enigma in the league to begin with. He once despised Allen Iverson and now apparently is his staunchest supporter; go figure. One thing is for sure and that is the Bobcats are not afraid to gamble or make trades adverse to their financial flexibility. That much was made evident from their trades for Vladimir Radmanovic for Adam Morrison and Shannon "aka Chris" Brown, despite Radmanovic being a win now player and having a longer term contract. Then there was the Desagna Diop trade that made very little sense with Emeka Okafor and Nazr Mohammed. The list continues with the Jason Richardson trade and who can forget about the Emeka Okafor trade?

As for that proposed Philly-NY trade, it would be horrible. The Knicks have no real use for Elton Brand especially with the number of years attached to his contract. The only reason the Knicks trade Eddy Curry is for a shorter contract or one that can actually improve the team.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Even with AI and Gerald Henderson, there is no way that Charlotte include Raja Bell in a trade for Eddy Curry, even because Larry likes Raja and he is really an useful piece to a team, which make including him in a trade for Eddy Curry unlikely.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Zuca said:


> Even with AI and Gerald Henderson, there is no way that Charlotte include Raja Bell in a trade for Eddy Curry, even because Larry likes Raja and he is really an useful piece to a team, which make including him in a trade for Eddy Curry unlikely.


19ppg and 7rpg when healthy and the focal point of a team would definitely be considered more valuable than Raja Bell. Larry likes Raja but by no means would he make him untouchable. Just a month ago, the Bobcats proposed trading Bell for Kelenna Azuibuke of the Warriors.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> 19ppg and 7rpg when healthy and the focal point of a team would definitely be considered more valuable than Raja Bell. Larry likes Raja but by no means would he make him untouchable. Just a month ago, the Bobcats proposed trading Bell for Kelenna Azuibuke of the Warriors.


If Eddy Curry is the supposed focal point of a team as you make him out to be, why then would you trade him for Raja Bell and Nazr Mohammed? Either you don't honestly believe that he's the focal point of the team and are trying to make a hard sell or you must think extremely highly of Bell and Mohammed. I'm leaning toward the former in which case you really needn't make a hard sell; nobody is buying. Speak all you want about Curry nearly being an all-star; it's irrelevant. He was nearly an all-star because he put up empty point numbers in the largest market in the United States. Of course he is going to nearly be an all-star. Hell, Nate Robinson was nearly an all-star. 

If you want to lobby stats, he's also the only person to have a stat named after him, the Eddy Curry line, which is players that have more turnovers than assists, blocks, and steals combined. In his last full season, only two players were below the Eddy Curry line, Curry himself and Hakeem Warrick. In his best season with the Knicks, he posted a P.E.R. of 17 with 2849 minutes. We're three seasons removed from that, and last season saw Brook Lopez, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Brad Miller, Dwight Howard, Al Horford, Emeka Okafor, Nene, Mehmet Okur, Al Jefferson, Andrew Bynum, Shaquille O'Neal, Andres Biedrins, Marcus Camby, Tim Duncan, and Yao Ming all post up better productivity. That would put Curry's three year removed best season in the bottom half of the league in terms of starting productivity. Nobody is going to buy this guy at over ten million a season for two years unless there are other incentives laden within the deal or we're trading him for someone with a longer contract.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

If you want someone like Nazr Mohammed then sure.Nazr is completely useless.Curry is more of a mix of good and bad.Of course he's annoyingly oblivious to the finer points of team basketball and incapable of passing out of a double team without turning it over.Maybe he can come down to Charlotte and give our economy a boost by spending his money like a drunken whore.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> If Eddy Curry is the supposed focal point of a team as you make him out to be, why then would you trade him for Raja Bell and Nazr Mohammed? Either you don't honestly believe that he's the focal point of the team and are trying to make a hard sell or you must think extremely highly of Bell and Mohammed. I'm leaning toward the former in which case you really needn't make a hard sell; nobody is buying. Speak all you want about Curry nearly being an all-star; it's irrelevant. He was nearly an all-star because he put up empty point numbers in the largest market in the United States. Of course he is going to nearly be an all-star. Hell, Nate Robinson was nearly an all-star.


The answer your looking for is pretty simple. Eddy Curry is a fit for the Bobcats and not a fit for an uptempo oriented Knick team only looking to get faster. I certainly do believe that Eddy is capable of being one of the best post players in the game when in shape (which he sounds like he is) and has incentives to play well. We can not deny though that his trade value is fairly low because of his past lackluster season and perception he has formed around the league. He certainly may not be an all-star even in shape but he is of that similar caliber for center's in the league and scores in a manner that often has resulted in championships. 

BTW, I don't ever recall Nate Robinson sniffing the all-star game aside from the dunk contest. If he did though, it may say something more about the lack of legitimate PG play in the Eastern Conference (where guys like Jameer Nelson and Maurice Williams are surprisingly all-stars) than of him being all-star caliber. East or Western conference, Eddy can score with the best of big men if in shape.




urwhatueati8god said:


> If you want to lobby stats, he's also the only person to have a stat named after him, the Eddy Curry line, which is players that have more turnovers than assists, blocks, and steals combined. In his last full season, only two players were below the Eddy Curry line, Curry himself and Hakeem Warrick. In his best season with the Knicks, he posted a P.E.R. of 17 with 2849 minutes. We're three seasons removed from that, and last season saw Brook Lopez, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Brad Miller, Dwight Howard, Al Horford, Emeka Okafor, Nene, Mehmet Okur, Al Jefferson, Andrew Bynum, Shaquille O'Neal, Andres Biedrins, Marcus Camby, Tim Duncan, and Yao Ming all post up better productivity. That would put Curry's three year removed best season in the bottom half of the league in terms of starting productivity. Nobody is going to buy this guy at over ten million a season for two years unless there are other incentives laden within the deal or we're trading him for someone with a longer contract.


Considering that Eddy played in only 2 games last season AND was severely out of shape for both, don't you think it's a little ridiculous to include that as accurate of his usual play? 

You listed several players with better P.E.R.'s than Curry during his best NBA season but gloss over the fact that those numbers don't necessarily reflect the kind of impact a player may have in changing a game. I've never suggested Curry being anything more than what he is; an excellent post scorer. He doesn't rebound, he doesn't block shots or play defense well for that matter (resulting in a lower PER) but ultimately this game comes down to scoring more points than the other team. When Eddy is on the floor and playing healthy, he changes the landscape of a game significantly by providing better floor spacing in addition to the providing the ability to convert shots at a high percentage, while drawing a significant number of fouls. On a team like the Bobcats that have none of the big men you mentioned as being presumably better than him, Eddy Curry is worth the trade. The underlying fact is that Curry adds a dimension to that team (one that most winning teams need) while the team collectively masks the lack of dynamic to his game: his flaws are the team's strengths, while his strengths are the teams weaknesses. $3 million is more than enough incentive (with the inherent advantages from adding Curry) to make this trade happen, especially with Nazr Mohammed being disgruntled.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Diable said:


> If you want someone like Nazr Mohammed then sure.Nazr is completely useless.Curry is more of a mix of good and bad.Of course he's annoyingly oblivious to the finer points of team basketball and incapable of passing out of a double team without turning it over.*Maybe he can come down to Charlotte and give our economy a boost by spending his money like a drunken whore.*


Finally another profound perspective, LOL. It's a fair trade though and Eddy would make a much bigger difference for that team if healthy and in shape than what your shipping out, especially if you get Iverson.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Actually we're better when we run too.We just don't have a coach who can figure it out.Charlotte isn't a slow down team,they're just a little light in personell..Curry wouldn't be a great fit for anyone right now.He's still not in good enough shape to play basketball for more than limitted minutes and he's simply not a smart basketball player.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Diable said:


> If you want someone like Nazr Mohammed then sure.Nazr is completely useless.Curry is more of a mix of good and bad.Of course he's annoyingly oblivious to the finer points of team basketball and incapable of passing out of a double team without turning it over.Maybe he can come down to Charlotte and give our economy a boost by spending his money like a drunken whore.





Diable said:


> Actually we're better when we run too.We just don't have a coach who can figure it out.Charlotte isn't a slow down team,they're just a little light in personell..Curry wouldn't be a great fit for anyone right now.He's still not in good enough shape to play basketball for more than limitted minutes and he's simply not a smart basketball player.


You almost hit the nail on the noggin. Your not running with Brown and if your not running, your going to need a way to score in the halfcourt. Eddy Curry can do that. You guys have Desagna Diop and Tyson Chandler who are both capable of playing the 5, which should allow Eddy to get his basketball instincts as sharp as they once were and ease his way back into being a team's best low post option. Or, you can have Nazr Mohammed at a relatively similar price rot on the bench for the same span of time as Curry.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Diable said:


> If you want someone like Nazr Mohammed then sure.Nazr is completely useless.Curry is more of a mix of good and bad.Of course he's annoyingly oblivious to the finer points of team basketball and incapable of passing out of a double team without turning it over.Maybe he can come down to Charlotte and give our economy a boost by spending his money like a drunken whore.





Diable said:


> Actually we're better when we run too.We just don't have a coach who can figure it out.Charlotte isn't a slow down team,they're just a little light in personell..Curry wouldn't be a great fit for anyone right now.He's still not in good enough shape to play basketball for more than limitted minutes and he's simply not a smart basketball player.


You almost hit the nail on the noggin. Your not running with Brown and if your not running, your going to need a way to score in the halfcourt. Eddy Curry can do that with his post game. You guys have Desagna Diop and Tyson Chandler who are both capable of playing the 5, which should allow Eddy to get his basketball instincts as sharp as they once were and ease his way back into being a team's best low post option. Or, you can have Nazr Mohammed at a relatively similar price rot on the bench for the same span of time as Curry. The decision seems easy to make IMO.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

urwhatueati8god said:


> If Eddy Curry is the supposed focal point of a team as you make him out to be, why then would you trade him for Raja Bell and Nazr Mohammed? Either you don't honestly believe that he's the focal point of the team and are trying to make a hard sell or you must think extremely highly of Bell and Mohammed. I'm leaning toward the former in which case you really needn't make a hard sell; nobody is buying. Speak all you want about Curry nearly being an all-star; it's irrelevant. He was nearly an all-star because he put up empty point numbers in the largest market in the United States. Of course he is going to nearly be an all-star. Hell, Nate Robinson was nearly an all-star.
> 
> If you want to lobby stats, he's also the only person to have a stat named after him, the Eddy Curry line, which is players that have more turnovers than assists, blocks, and steals combined. In his last full season, only two players were below the Eddy Curry line, Curry himself and Hakeem Warrick. In his best season with the Knicks, he posted a P.E.R. of 17 with 2849 minutes. We're three seasons removed from that, and last season saw Brook Lopez, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Brad Miller, Dwight Howard, Al Horford, Emeka Okafor, Nene, Mehmet Okur, Al Jefferson, Andrew Bynum, Shaquille O'Neal, Andres Biedrins, Marcus Camby, Tim Duncan, and Yao Ming all post up better productivity. That would put Curry's three year removed best season in the bottom half of the league in terms of starting productivity. Nobody is going to buy this guy at over ten million a season for two years unless there are other incentives laden within the deal or we're trading him for someone with a longer contract.


Very quality post. I've always liked the Eddy Curry line because it effectively shows on paper just how incompetent of a player he is. (Not to mention it has captured selfish players like Zach Randolph before)

I agree about the "almost all-star" version of Curry being bogus. Even playing the best ball of his career, he was still rebounding at a paltry rate and pretty close to leading the league in turnovers. I think the brief run of success the Knicks had at the time was more from David Lee just being a really great complement to Curry. Lee could compensate for Curry's lack of rebounding, and offensively Lee is awesome in the high post where he can pass, shoot, play pick and roll -- essentially letting Curry just camp out all by himself in isolation. (Note: The reason Tyson Chandler doesn't work w/ Curry is because Chandler is totally incapable of playing high post ball; that's absolutely a prerequisite for your other 4 Curry teammates)


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Because it takes 2 sides to agree to a deal, and noone wants Eddy Curry.

He's basically Jerome James mach II at this point, until he proves otherwise.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

MB30 said:


> Because it takes 2 sides to agree to a deal, and noone wants Eddy Curry.
> 
> He's basically Jerome James mach II at this point, until he proves otherwise.


Kinda like how no one would trade for Zach Randolph? Kinda like how no one would want Jamal Crawford? Kinda like the same story with Jerome James? Funny that all those guys got moved despite people like yourself stating otherwise. I got another question for you. Don't you guys get tired of being wrong about situations like this one?


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Kinda like how no one would trade for Zach Randolph? Kinda like how no one would want Jamal Crawford? Kinda like the same story with Jerome James? Funny that all those guys got moved despite people like yourself stating otherwise. I got another question for you. Don't you guys get tired of being wrong about situations like this one?


Zach was traded to a desperate team (Memphis) for a player that they wouldn't use (Quentin Richardson).
Crawford was traded to Hawks for an expiring contract player (Speedy) that won't play for the guard-loaded Warriors and a disappointing lottery pick in Acie Law.

It's not impossible that Knicks trade Eddy, but I really doubt that a team would send someone useful while cheaper in a trade for him (like Raja Bell).

An idea here is that NY should try to ship both Eddy and Jeffries to Sactown for Kenny Thomas (expiring) and Beno Udrih. Sacramento may do it because they're not going anywhere this season neither in the 10-11, NY take an expiring contract in Kenny Thomas (who won't play anyway) while taking a longer contract in Udrih, but at least he can be pretty useful as a backup PG when Duhon leaves.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Zuca said:


> Zach was traded to a desperate team (Memphis) for a player that they wouldn't use (Quentin Richardson).
> Crawford was traded to Hawks for an expiring contract player (Speedy) that won't play for the guard-loaded Warriors and a disappointing lottery pick in Acie Law.
> 
> It's not impossible that Knicks trade Eddy, but I really doubt that a team would send someone useful while cheaper in a trade for him (like Raja Bell).
> ...


Raja Bell is a 33 year old, role player. By no means would he be more valuable to a team still looking to build a winner than a 26 year old center whose shown the ability to score in the paint at will.

You forget that Zach Randolph was traded twice since he was tagged as "untradeable" because of his ballhogging ways. The same with Jamal Crawford. Ultimately, the Bobcats are far from as good a situation as the Grizzlies, Clippers, Warriors or Hawks but apparently still have money to spend in order to get better.

I also would LOVE that trade with the Kings but ultimately I do not believe they'd make it since neither Curry or Jefferies would be useful to that team and the significant loses the Maloof's have incurred because of our economy. They supposedly have been losing hundreds of millions of dollars.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Because Charlotte, like every other team in the league, has no interest in him.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Disagree completely. He is a good finisher around the basket and can be a post-up threat when the other 4 players do all the work for him, but beyond that he is an awful guy to build your offense around. For one, he is a terrible passer. IMO, you never want to build an offense around someone who doesn't have some kind of basketball IQ or passing ability. Second, he is a turnover MACHINE. Part of this is due to the poor basketball IQ. The other part is he's constant making dumb mental errors like getting offensive fouls, traveling, trying to put the ball on the floor only to have it stripped by another player. The Bulls and Knicks have tried to build around him but it just doesn't work because there are no dynamics to his game whatsoever.
> 
> However, this is a dilemma because if you're not running alot of offense through him, what good is he at all? He is a liability on rebounding and defense. So if you aren't using him for scoring, you might as well just sit his butt on the bench. I have to wonder if Eddy Curry's calling is as a backup center in this league. Maybe you guys should find a team who has a good defensive-minded center already, but will need a scoring type like Curry to back him up. The Sixers come to mind with Dalembert being the starter. Maybe Curry has a place there alongside Dalembert and Brand. Curry is the first big guy off the bench and he can play alongside both of the other 2 guys.
> 
> ...


this post borders on trolling because its so lacking in facts and full of negative conjecture...Brown wants Iverson ....whose disdain for practice is legendary and brown is known as a coach who values practice as much as games...so how can anyone claim he doesn't want curry without any inside knowledge?

also curry and chandler actually played in the 2nd and 3rd most used lineups for that 47 win bulls team...so they played together quite abit.

http://www.82games.com/0405CHI2.HTM


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> You forget that Zach Randolph was traded twice since he was tagged as "untradeable" because of his ballhogging ways.


I've written about Zach already. Clippers traded a bench player that wasn't playing well for them (Tim Thomas) and Mobley (who ended not playing for Knicks) for Zach and Mardy. Grizzlies dealt a player they wouldn't use for him (and Grizzlies are in the same situation I'm putting the Kings here, they're not 2010 players, so it won't hurt them much adding Zach). This may sound contradictory, but I think that NY should've kept Zach. He is really better than Al Harrington, especially in D'Antoni system. But I understand the 2010 plan.



TwinkieFoot said:


> The same with Jamal Crawford. Ultimately, the Bobcats are far from as good a situation as the Grizzlies, Clippers, Warriors or Hawks but apparently still have money to spend in order to get better.


Hawks choose to move two useless players for him instead of keeping them while also having to resign Flip Murray... Most people agree that it was a good trade for Hawks.



TwinkieFoot said:


> I also would LOVE that trade with the Kings but ultimately I do not believe they'd make it since neither Curry or Jefferies would be useful to that team and the significant loses the Maloof's have incurred because of our economy. They supposedly have been losing hundreds of millions of dollars.


Yes. Knowing that the Maloof brothers are losing lots of money, it's a signal that they won't be 2010 players. But they still have to pay the minimum salary cap. Their actually expected salaries to 2010 is something close 35 millions (Hoopshype).
There are actually rumors that Kevin Martin may be traded (Link: http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/60690/20090720/could_kings_trade_martin/ ), and they've drafted Evans, so maybe they can move Kevin for a young PG and another expiring (I would love to see Memphis dealing Conley with an expiring contract and the Denver or LA Lakers pick for him, so they could put O.J. to play PG)

But the main point here is that Sacramento won't be hunting for big free agents next season. So maybe it can be worthful for them to pay more in 2010 season while having a bigger relief in 2011.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Zuca said:


> I've written about Zach already. Clippers traded a bench player that wasn't playing well for them (Tim Thomas) and Mobley (who ended not playing for Knicks) for Zach and Mardy. Grizzlies dealt a player they wouldn't use for him (and Grizzlies are in the same situation I'm putting the Kings here, they're not 2010 players, so it won't hurt them much adding Zach). This may sound contradictory, but I think that NY should've kept Zach. He is really better than Al Harrington, especially in D'Antoni system. But I understand the 2010 plan.


Ultimately what both those "untradeable" players got in return was what the Knicks valued most. Why not Eddy Curry I guess is the question I should ask you?

I also agree Randolph is better than Harrington in this system. Both are chuckers but at least Randolph eclipses Harrington in every facet of the game aside from possibly defense.





Zuca said:


> Hawks choose to move two useless players for him instead of keeping them while also having to resign Flip Murray... Most people agree that it was a good trade for Hawks.


No arguing there.



Zuca said:


> Yes. Knowing that the Maloof brothers are losing lots of money, it's a signal that they won't be 2010 players. But they still have to pay the minimum salary cap. Their actually expected salaries to 2010 is something close 35 millions (Hoopshype).
> There are actually rumors that Kevin Martin may be traded (Link: http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/60690/20090720/could_kings_trade_martin/ ), and they've drafted Evans, so maybe they can move Kevin for a young PG and another expiring (I would love to see Memphis dealing Conley with an expiring contract and the Denver or LA Lakers pick for him, so they could put O.J. to play PG).
> 
> But the main point here is that Sacramento won't be hunting for big free agents next season. So maybe it can be worthful for them to pay more in 2010 season while having a bigger relief in 2011.


What is the minimum payroll for a team? I guess that would mean a lot in this discussion. If Kevin Martin is available (and I think he should be since Evans seems a better fit at the 2), the Knicks should look into a deal immediately. Nate Robinson, Wilson Chandler, Larry Hughes and a protected draft pick for Kevin Martin might be a good starting point for such a deal.

I also think Mayo at the PG would be a misutilization of his skills.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> this post borders on trolling because its so lacking in facts and full of negative conjecture...Brown wants Iverson ....whose disdain for practice is legendary and brown is known as a coach who values practice as much as games...so how can anyone claim he doesn't want curry without any inside knowledge?
> 
> also curry and chandler actually played in the 2nd and 3rd most used lineups for that 47 win bulls team...so they played together quite abit.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0405CHI2.HTM


Grinch, you've seen enough of my posts over the years to know I don't troll. I saw a Curry thread and felt like putting my opinion in there. 

Technically you are correct about Curry & Chandler playing together at times, but let's not pretend like it was an effective combo. According to that link you posted, they had a combined -61 in those two lineups you mentioned. In fact, our second most utilized lineup had Hinrich/Gordon/Nocioni/Chandler/Curry, and they produced an abysmal net turnover percentage of 14%. That's awful. 

Clearly the most effective lineup was the one that had Antonio Davis & Curry playing together (the link you posted indicates as much, yes?); Davis was a much better complement to Curry's playing style. That's why Curry & AD played together far more often than Curry-Chandler.

As for Larry Brown, lest people forget that him & Iverson went to an NBA Finals together. There is undoubtedly a mutual respect there, even if LB knows Iverson is the farthest thing from a saint. Curry on the other hand caused nothing but headaches for Brown; they had a horrendous season for the Knicks and LB wasn't even motivated to play him more than 26 minutes a game. Comparing Curry to Iverson in this case is a major stretch, IMO.

Sure I'm speculating, but what are message boards for?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Grinch, you've seen enough of my posts over the years to know I don't troll. I saw a Curry thread and felt like putting my opinion in there.
> 
> Technically you are correct about Curry & Chandler playing together at times, but let's not pretend like it was an effective combo. According to that link you posted, they had a combined -61 in those two lineups you mentioned. *In fact, our second most utilized lineup had Hinrich/Gordon/Nocioni/Chandler/Curry, and they produced an abysmal net turnover percentage of 14%. That's awful. *
> 
> ...


Are you aware of the fact that none of the players in that lineup (Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Chandler, Curry) had more than a season or two experience up until that point? That turnover statistic may be a result of them being NBA babies than a reflection of their capabilities as players, especially now. The underlying fact was that lineup WAS productive and the Chandler/Curry duo represented 2 of their 3 best lineups.

As much as Iverson went to the Finals under Brown, your forgetting how tumulteous their relationship was before any of that was even realistic. Hell, he tried trading Iverson for an injuried Grant Hill it was so bad. Curry and Brown's relationship never reached such a low; nor ever had the opportunity to win together long term.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> The underlying fact was that lineup WAS productive and the Chandler/Curry duo represented 2 of their 3 best lineups.


No they weren't. They were two of the most used lineups. Of all the lineups consisting of Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler on the floor at the same time, the opponents outscored them at an average of 17 points per 100 possessions. Given the Bobcats pace of 88.3 possessions per 48 minutes, that's about 15 points to the other team. The experiment failed.



> As much as Iverson went to the Finals under Brown, your forgetting how tumulteous their relationship was before any of that was even realistic. Hell, he tried trading Iverson for an injuried Grant Hill it was so bad. Curry and Brown's relationship never reached such a low; nor ever had the opportunity to win together long term.


Eddy Curry has been in the league for eight years now. At eight years, Allen Iverson had been to the playoffs five times. He had been to the Finals once. He had an M.V.P. award. He lead his team through six playoff round victories. He had been an All-Star five times. Eddy Curry has been to zero playoff games. He has advanced in the playoffs zero times. He won zero M.V.P.'s. He's been to the all-star game zero times. There is zero correlation between Eddy Curry and Allen Iverson in terms of what their performance has been.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

Once again, the best trade scenario in regards to unloading Eddy Curry and Jared Jeffries lies with the Rockets.

Knicks trade:

Wilson Chandler
Al Harrington
Jared Jeffries
Eddy Curry
Chris Duhon

Rockets trade:

Brent Barry
Tracy McGrady
Brian Cook
Chuck Hayes

The Knicks are forced to give up their short term success by trading two of their top players for next year in Duhon and Harrington. They also give up a prospect in Chandler. It is a lot to give up, but Curry and Jeffries are horrible pieces with horrid contracts that require giving away good assets in return for taking on financial liabilities. The only reason the Rockets would even consider the deal is because they have absolutely no center for next season. Maybe it's too much to be giving up in your mind, but that's the only scenario that's realistic at all.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> The underlying fact was that lineup WAS productive and the Chandler/Curry duo represented 2 of their 3 best lineups.


I'm splitting hairs here, and I may even be wrong which I'm happy to admit. But if I'm reading that 82games link accurately, it is saying that 2 of their 3 *most utilized* lineups had Curry & Chandler together. 

If I'm right on that, this is very misleading for 2 reasons:

a) The #1 most utilized lineup was far and away the most effective (and far and away the most utilized); and this lineup did not include Curry & Chandler together. Just Curry & Davis. Once you get to #2 thru #6 they are more or less in the same usage range, none of which are particularly high.

b) Just because they were utilized at times doesn't mean they were effective. #2 most frequent lineup does not equal the #2 best lineup (quite the opposite actually, that #2 lineup was actually one of their worst!).


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Are you aware of the fact that none of the players in that lineup (Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Chandler, Curry) had more than a season or two experience up until that point? That turnover statistic may be a result of them being NBA babies than a reflection of their capabilities as players, especially now.


As for this point, you could be right. After all, the Bulls' key veterans in 04-05 were Antonio Davis & Othella Harrington, and neither of them were part of that lineup.

But then again, that Bulls team was incredibly young anyways so you can't say youth was the cause of anything. Fact of the matter was they had 4 rookies (Duhon, Hinrich, Noch, Gordon), a 2nd yr guy (Hinrich), and Tweedle Dee/Tweedle Dum who despite being 4th year players were still only 21/22 years old. 

They won 47 games by obviously relying on young players to get them there. So to say that Hinrich, Gordon, and Nocioni were the cause of that poor lineup may not be accurate. Maybe it was just that you can't have 2 big guys on the floor together when neither of them knows how handle or pass the ball, or even hit a 10 foot jumper!


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*This is one great reading thread....one after another*

Dont let me interfare, everyone been throwing up some strong points in this Post. I'm liking this read....great counter-attacking response after another. 
Best I read on Eddy Curry in so many forums. 

*Twinkie....*great post, u are right Larry Brown offense need Eddy Curry, especially after they traded for Tyson Chandler (and are entertaining FA Allan Iverson). 
A healthy Curry is dangerous down-low, he will bring double-teams and oponents staying in foul-trouble the first 3 quarters. 

*Yodurk....*your absolutely right about Curry never showing much interest in B-Ball since starting his career in the NBA. However, Curry played a giant-role his last season with the Bulls as the entire offense in their frontcourt (Bigmen) with Davis, Chandler, and Harrington. 
It freed-up the athleticism in SF-Deng & SF-Nocioni to be rookie sensations with rookie SG-Ben Gordon being the closer of so many games that season. 

*Urwhatueat....*u threw the big wrench into the trading-machine with the "Curry Line". Great move. Curry terrible passing skills and leading the league in turn-overs with only 26 mpg.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

yodurk said:


> I'm splitting hairs here, and I may even be wrong which I'm happy to admit. But if I'm reading that 82games link accurately, it is saying that 2 of their 3 *most utilized* lineups had Curry & Chandler together.
> 
> If I'm right on that, this is very misleading for 2 reasons:
> 
> ...



The two were very effective b/c it through opositions off ballance of who to defend of the two "raw" centers playing twin-towers. 
Tyson Chandler played the (defensive) PF position so well that season that everyone looked at Chandler as a PF. 
The following season without Curry & Davis to play at the Center position it made Tyson Chandler performance at the center-position look lost in space.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Kiyaman said:


> The two were very effective b/c it through opositions off ballance of who to defend of the two "raw" centers playing twin-towers.


Appreciate the kinds words above.On this statement, again it depends what you mean. I think having Chandler/Curry as a flip-flopping rotation is/was very effective. They both bring different valuable things to the table. But when it comes to them being on the floor together, I can't get past these stats (as well as what my eyes always told me having watched the two play quite a bit together). IMO, these stats are pretty clear as day on the Curry/Chandler "playing together" debate. Keep in mind they were 4th year pros at the time and were both entering their primes (Curry as a 16 ppg scorer, Chandler as a 10 reb per game player). 

http://www.82games.com/0405CHI2.HTM

Hinrich-Gordon-Nocioni-*Chandler-Curry* = -55 (horrendous)
Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-*Chandler-Curry* = -6
Hinrich-Piatkowski-Nocioni-*Chandler-Curry* = +6
Duhon-Gordon-Nocioni-*Chandler-Curry* = +9
Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-*Chandler-Curry* = -6
Duhon-Hinrich-Nocioni-*Chandler-Curry* = -10

*Chandler-Curry summary ---> 4 negatives (including 1 very big negative), 2 positives; net difference of -61*

Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-*Davis-Curry* = +63 (phenomenal)
Duhon-Hinrich-Nocioni-*Davis-Curry* = -15
Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-*Davis-Curry* = +16
Duhon-Piatkowski-Nocioni-*Davis-Curry* = +7

*Davis-Curry summary ---> 1 negative, 3 positives (including 1 very big positive); net difference of +71. *

Duhon-Hinrich-Nocioni-*Davis-Chandler* = +3
Duhon-Gordon-Nocioni-*Davis-Chandler* = +20
Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-*Davis-Chandler *= +22
Duhon-Hinrich-Gordon-*Davis-Chandler* = +11
Hinrich-Gordon-Nocioni-*Davis-Chandler* = +11
Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-*Davis-Chandler* = -15

*Davis-Chandler summary ---> 1 negative, 4 positives (including 2 moderately large positives); net difference of +52*

Hinrich-Gordon-Nocioni-*Harrington-Chandler* = +0
Duhon-Gordon-Nocioni-*Harrington-Chandler* = +21

Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-*Harrington-Curry* = +10

Duhon-Hinrich-Nocioni-*Harrington-Davis* = +16

*The Othella Harrington summary ---> 0 negatives, 1 neutral, 3 positives; net difference of +47.*




> Tyson Chandler played the (defensive) PF position so well that season that everyone looked at Chandler as a PF.
> The following season without Curry & Davis to play at the Center position it made Tyson Chandler performance at the center-position look lost in space.


I agree that Chandler was lost in space in 05-06. Part of this undoubtedly was physical, as he sorta took the summer off to prevent injury while his contract negotiations were happening. Part was mental, as his friend Curry and father figure Davis had just been traded. The other part was, the Bulls really lacked bulk/strength when Curry/Davis left and we didn't sufficiently replace that void. Othella and Songaila were not big enough. IMO, it took it's toll on Chandler that year combined with those other issues.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I'll probably make this my last post on this thread b/c I've rambled OT too much. I actually learned some neat things about how friggin valuable Antonio Davis was to the Bulls back on that 47 win team! We were just a much better team with Davis on the floor. The combos of Davis/Curry & Davis/Chandler were really solid.

To remind others why I was making this point to begin with, it's the long-winded way of saying that Charlotte would regret trading for Curry *unless *they made him a dedicated backup to Tyson Chandler. 

If ya'll are looking to trade Curry, I think the best fit for him would be finding an Antonio Davis clone; that is, a tough veteran who can rebound, defend, and hit a mid-range jumpshot (with some basketball IQ mixed in). If Rasheed Wallace were still a Piston, I'd say Sheed is a great fit since the Pistons need bigs pretty badly. However, now that he's on the Celtics I think they are content with Perkins in the middle and won't be tampering with that lineup.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

to yodurk

you said curry and chandler rarely played together and you based your initail post on that incredibly false opinion.

you basically have been trying to justify yourself on this thread ever since .(and for your personal knowledge on this forum whenever you trash a player with stuff that isn't true or to inflame others its trolling, whether or not you meant to is immaterial)

the simple truth is curry was valuable, as was chandler, as was davis, all for differnt reasons but valuable nontheless, and the belief that the bulls were on the rise had to do with all of them and their departure from the club put the team in a situation that was poor in comparison which has been discussed ad nasuem on the bulls boards.

i actually dont disagree with you final analysis that a davis-like player would be a good fit with curry..that kind of player fits in with just about ever team, you can never have enough good defending , good rebounding, leaders who could post up but also had a good enough jumper to provide spacing...he wasn't that far removed from being an all-star level player in the nba in 04-05...and that has nothing to do with Curry , AD was just a good basketball player.

in theory AD's strengths are also Jordan Hill's , he is supposedly a good defending , good rebounding player , who can post up with a jumpshot good enough to provide spacing.

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/jordan-hill



> NBA Comparison: Chris Bosh
> 
> Strengths: One of the most improved players this year … Has the ideal size and length for a PF … He has worked on his body, adding some bulk and definition to an already wiry frame; this new strength allows him to get great position on the block where he is able to utilize a number of moves, but he prefers the left shoulder hook shot … He is comfortable operating from the high post, either shooting a nice looking midrange shot, or utilizing his quickness and putting the ball on the floor to get to the hoop … His faceup game developed nicely; not only has he become a consistent threat out to about 17 feet, but he has added some nice sweep and jab moves to go along with it … Even with the added muscle, he has maintained good mobility and quickness … This season he is playing big minutes but he continues to battle and run the floor, showing a very good motor … He has become a rebounding force on both ends of the floor, he attacks the O glass relentlessly and is able to use his body to control the paint on the defensive end … He has cut down his fouls and increased blocks to 3 per game, proving not only that he is a defensive presence but also that he has become more disciplined … With his developing frame and ability to knock down midrange shots, he has the potential to become a very good weapon in screen & roll situations …


i personally think curry should just be allowed to play to his strengths, he is a high % finisher who draws fouls very well , D'antoni's system is about creating and converting better shots than allowed , when he is allowed to play off the ball Curry creates passing lanes with his movement and power and generally can convert at better than 60% in those instances , without having to fight for position every possesion would allow him to preserve his stamina , and would allow players who are actually good at making decisions on the court and passing to do so.

just being a big agile man with excellent natural gifts who has to be accounted for is impact enough in ways not easily seen by the eye ...the knicks actually improved in rebounding margin when curry joined them by 3.5 over the previous season , and their margin improved the next season with curry playing over 35 mintes a game , and decreased the next season as curry's minutes decreased , last season with him playing a total of 12 minutes the knicks were outrebounded by 4.0 boards a game ...an 8.5 swing from 06-07 of 2 years prior when they enjoyed a 4.5 advantage.

http://www.nba.com/knicks/stats/2006/index.html

the bulls were unchanged in that department , if curry were as bad for rebounding as people say all that would be impossible , but its true...especially considering the knicks lost their best rebounders the previous offseason (sweetney went to the bulls , kurt thomas and his 10.4 avg. to the suns)

and bear in mind i know curry is not a good rebounder , but his influence on the boards is obvious , even if its just him blocking out and wearing down opponents with his often oversized body allowing his teammates to grab more boards over more tired opponents.

+/- isn't the end all be all of value , phil jackson used to post up shaq more in the begininng of quarters and focused more on kobe at the end of them ...but because shaq garnered alot of foul calls early in quarters but was a poor free throw shooter +/- didn't really show the impact ...they were better at the end of quarters in large part because the other team was usually in foul trouble often lesser players on the court , or players who played defnse less agressively because a foul meant 2 free throws, and of course Kobe is a good free throw shooter ...of course the stats would show the team was better off going with Kobe , even though the groundwork for such an advantage was laid early in the quarters by shaq.

to a lesser degree the same stuff happened with the bulls in 04-05 , skiles would pound the ball in til the other teamed double teamed and when the results went south he went back to a perimeter based offense ...it may not have shown up in the stats +/- but the end result is they won...and if it didn't benefit his team skiles wouldn't have done it...skiles' history as a coach is that he would prefer not to use a low post up game in any substantial fashion.

in conclusion an in shape curry is a starter in the nba and if used properly a very good one.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> to yodurk
> 
> you said curry and chandler rarely played together and you based your initial post on that incredibly false opinion.
> 
> you basically have been trying to justify yourself on this thread ever since .(and for your personal knowledge on this forum whenever you trash a player with stuff that isn't true or to inflame others its trolling, whether or not you meant to is immaterial)


He wasn't wrong. Of the top twenty lineups that the Bulls put out there, Curry and Chandler were only on the court at the same time 600 minutes out of the 1896. That's about 32 percent of the time or 16 minutes a game. That's nothing considering that these two guys were two of the top four draft picks taken only three years earlier. Furthermore, the team was -46 with them on the court at the same time and +154 with them on the court separately. The two cannot coexist.



Da Grinch said:


> just being a big agile man with excellent natural gifts who has to be accounted for is impact enough in ways not easily seen by the eye ...the knicks actually improved in rebounding margin when curry joined them by 3.5 over the previous season , and their margin improved the next season with curry playing over 35 mintes a game , and decreased the next season as curry's minutes decreased , last season with him playing a total of 12 minutes the knicks were outrebounded by 4.0 boards a game ...an 8.5 swing from 06-07 of 2 years prior when they enjoyed a 4.5 advantage.


Kurt Thomas, Michael Sweetney, Malik Rose, Nazr Mohammed, Jerome Williams. Those were the big men in pre-Curry.

Post-Curry consisted of David Lee, Jackie Butler, Malik Rose, Antonio Davis, and Channing Frye. Let's not forget that this was Frye pre-bulked up when he was a candidate for rookie of the year for a good part of the season. Lee's rebounding ability is also exceptionally noted and has been throughout his career. Even Curry himself rebounded pretty well that year under Larry Brown, a head coach who's teams haven't been out rebounded in over ten years. Curry's rebounding percentage peaked that year and fell the following year and the year after that. The pre and post Curry rosters are completely different. The roster was completely turned over, the coaching was completely turned over, and to use that as an argument is a complete cop out.



> +/- isn't the end all be all of value , phil jackson used to post up shaq more in the begininng of quarters and focused more on kobe at the end of them ...but because shaq garnered alot of foul calls early in quarters but was a poor free throw shooter +/- didn't really show the impact ...they were better at the end of quarters in large part because the other team was usually in foul trouble often lesser players on the court , or players who played defnse less agressively because a foul meant 2 free throws, and of course Kobe is a good free throw shooter ...of course the stats would show the team was better off going with Kobe , even though the groundwork for such an advantage was laid early in the quarters by shaq.
> 
> to a lesser degree the same stuff happened with the bulls in 04-05 , skiles would pound the ball in til the other teamed double teamed and when the results went south he went back to a perimeter based offense ...it may not have shown up in the stats +/- but the end result is they won...and if it didn't benefit his team skiles wouldn't have done it...skiles' history as a coach is that he would prefer not to use a low post up game in any substantial fashion.


In your last argument you argue that Curry obviously positively impacted rebounding seeing as how the Bulls numbers didn't improve. In this argument you use him as a positive impact as an offensive player, yet the Bulls team went on to shoot at a higher percentage and score three more points per game than the previous year. By the same token, the Knicks went on to shoot at a lesser percentage with Curry and score two points per game less than the year before. By your argument Curry is an awful offensive player given the decline of the Knicks with him and improvement of the Bulls without him.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> to yodurk
> 
> you said curry and chandler rarely played together and you based your initail post on that incredibly false opinion.
> 
> you basically have been trying to justify yourself on this thread ever since .(and for your personal knowledge on this forum whenever you trash a player with stuff that isn't true or to inflame others its trolling, whether or not you meant to is immaterial)


I admit that I used a poor choice of words -- i.e., my liberal use of the word "rarely" -- but as the gentleman above point out, it was not very far from the truth. To say that it was an "incredibly false opinion" is not exactly accurate either. We're basically arguing semantics now, so I apologize for the misunderstanding; didn't know a poor choice of words would upset you. As for the trolling stuff, IMO this is just friendly back and forth debate. I don't see what's wrong about trying to justify opinions, that's the whole point of this board and I've pretty much asserted my posts as opinions, or so I thought. I also don't see anyone particularly upset here, but if that happened again my apologies. 

The Bulls board has been dead lately so I found this to be an interesting topic; to talk about if/how an untapped talent like Curry might revive his career. My position (or intent of position) from the get-go was that there could be better more realistic fits than Charlotte, and that it'll be hard and be a tough sell to get Curry into a good fit.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

> Post-Curry consisted of David Lee, Jackie Butler, Malik Rose, Antonio Davis, and Channing Frye. Let's not forget that this was Frye pre-bulked up when he was a candidate for rookie of the year for a good part of the season. Lee's rebounding ability is also exceptionally noted and has been throughout his career. Even Curry himself rebounded pretty well that year under Larry Brown, a head coach who's teams haven't been out rebounded in over ten years. Curry's rebounding percentage peaked that year and fell the following year and the year after that. The pre and post Curry rosters are completely different. The roster was completely turned over, the coaching was completely turned over, and to use that as an argument is a complete cop out.



Curry first season as a Knick, Davis & Taylor were his rebounding PF. 
Frye was Curry's back-up center untill Larry Brown seen the potential in center Jackie Butler. Frye played PF with center Jackie Butler. 
David Lee played the SF position for Larry Brown. 

Curry & Tyson Chandler was a 8 to 12 minute wreckon crew tandem in coach Skiles first half of each game that season. 
To me Antonio Davis was a poor-poor bigman teacher and guider to Curry & Chandler. The two Centers game changed for the better when hustling PF-Othello Harrington, with the athletic SF rookies Deng & Nocioni came to the team. 

The Bulls without Jamal Crawford stupid decision-making at the PG and SG changed the whole outlook of the team. Especially with Ben Gordon taking advantage of every Bulls oposition in the 4th quarter, where Eddy Curry first half did put alot of teams in foul trouble. 

The Knicks without Jamal Crawford last year showed an entire better offense for the guards and bigmen....untill Crawful twin Hughes joined the team...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

urwhatueati8god said:


> He wasn't wrong. Of the top twenty lineups that the Bulls put out there, Curry and Chandler were only on the court at the same time 600 minutes out of the 1896. That's about 32 percent of the time or 16 minutes a game. That's nothing considering that these two guys were two of the top four draft picks taken only three years earlier. Furthermore, the team was -46 with them on the court at the same time and +154 with them on the court separately. The two cannot coexist.


both curry and chandler avg. less than 30 minutes a game ...playing 16 min. is a big chunk of time ...plus curry missed 19 games that season over the last month and change so alot of those minutes were in games they couldn't have played together due to that.






> Kurt Thomas, Michael Sweetney, Malik Rose, Nazr Mohammed, Jerome Williams. Those were the big men in pre-Curry.


all at the time considered good rebounders




> Post-Curry consisted of David Lee, Jackie Butler, Malik Rose, Antonio Davis, and Channing Frye. Let's not forget that this was Frye pre-bulked up when he was a candidate for rookie of the year for a good part of the season. Lee's rebounding ability is also exceptionally noted and has been throughout his career. Even Curry himself rebounded pretty well that year under Larry Brown, a head coach who's teams haven't been out rebounded in over ten years. Curry's rebounding percentage peaked that year and fell the following year and the year after that. The pre and post Curry rosters are completely different. The roster was completely turned over, the coaching was completely turned over, and to use that as an argument is a complete cop out.


they were even better the next year when frye got worse, and AD gone...rose was worse as well.

the following year they got zach who is one of the league's best rebounders , combined with lee playing more the knicks should have improved on the boards ...but got much worse ......you call what i wrote a cop out....but you dont explain why as curry's minutes go up they got better there , and as his minutes went down they got worse despite the fact that most of those minutes went to very good rebounders....to me vaguely calling me out ....without any real explaination why is a cop out.







> > In your last argument you argue that Curry obviously positively impacted rebounding seeing as how the Bulls numbers didn't improve. In this argument you use him as a positive impact as an offensive player, yet the Bulls team went on to shoot at a higher percentage and score three more points per game than the previous year. By the same token, the Knicks went on to shoot at a lesser percentage with Curry and score two points per game less than the year before. By your argument Curry is an awful offensive player given the decline of the Knicks with him and improvement of the Bulls without him.
> 
> 
> its funny you just said i copped out for not giving enough detail about team personel , and then you do it in the next paragragh....the bulls got better because of internal improvement plain and simple, their top 4 scorers in 04-05 sans curry all scored more and shot higher % the next year.
> ...


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> both curry and chandler avg. less than 30 minutes a game ...playing 16 min. is a big chunk of time ...plus curry missed 19 games that season over the last month and change so alot of those minutes were in games they couldn't have played together due to that.


That still doesn't negate the fact that they didn't perform well together and 1.25 quarters is not that much time.



Da Grinch said:


> all at the time considered good rebounders


Thomas, Mohammed, and Sweetney were the only ones that could be considered good rebounders. Outside of that, They had no real quality big men in terms of rebounding.



Da Grinch said:


> they were even better the next year when frye got worse, and AD gone...rose was worse as well.


Davis's departure lead to the team's best rebounder in Lee getting an additional 500 minutes. Meanwhile, the team added Renaldo Balkman who was the teams next best rebounder as a rookie and put up better rebounding numbers than anybody on the team previously.




Da Grinch said:


> the following year they got zach who is one of the league's best rebounders , combined with lee playing more the knicks should have improved on the boards ...but got much worse ......you call what i wrote a cop out....but you dont explain why as curry's minutes go up they got better there , and as his minutes went down they got worse despite the fact that most of those minutes went to very good rebounders....to me vaguely calling me out ....without any real explaination why is a cop out.


The Knicks went from shooting .457 to .439 while the opponents went to .474 after shooting .460. That means that the Knicks went from having 3453 chances at an offensive rebound and 3545 chances at a defensive rebound to having 3790 chances at an offensive rebound and 3527 at a defensive rebound. Defensive rebounds are obviously much easier to grab as been proven throughout the history of the statistics and the Knicks gave up far more defensive rebound opportunities than they had thanks to their horrible defense.






> its funny you just said i copped out for not giving enough detail about team personel , and then you do it in the next paragragh....*the bulls got better because of internal improvement plain and simple, their top 4 scorers in 04-05 sans curry all scored more and shot higher % the next year*.
> 
> they also won 6 less games and defensively were almost 3 points worse ....maybe you would care to explain that?


That part should pretty much explain itself.

Tyson Chandler collapsed under the weight of exclusively playing center for his first year.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

No one wants Curry so to boost his trade value teams would have to see how he performs this season, before they are willing to make any offers for him.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

urwhatueati8god said:


> That still doesn't negate the fact that they didn't perform well together and 1.25 quarters is not that much time.


16 min. when neither player plays even 30 is a big chunk of time ...especially when considering curry missed 19 games.



> Thomas, Mohammed, and Sweetney were the only ones that could be considered good rebounders. Outside of that, They had no real quality big men in terms of rebounding.


all 3 of the quality rebounders you named were gone by the time the next season started ...yet they improved on the boards without them and curry in their place.




> Davis's departure lead to the team's best rebounder in Lee getting an additional 500 minutes. Meanwhile, the team added Renaldo Balkman who was the teams next best rebounder as a rookie and put up better rebounding numbers than anybody on the team previously.


really?

davis was traded to the raptors in jan. 06 Lee was a rookie and davis was finished anyway who is to say he wouldn't have gotten those minutes anyway since he was superior to davis at that point...not meanwhile but the next year during balkman's rookie year...and the bulk of balkman's playing time came at the expense of lee who was hurt late in the season....so how much he helped on the boards is very questionable since it came at the expense of Lee being unable to play.

also Davis' rebound rate was behind Lee's malik rose's, frye, curry, jackie butler's and even matt barnes...i dont think his rebounding was that important .




> The Knicks went from shooting .457 to .439 while the opponents went to .474 after shooting .460. That means that the Knicks went from having 3453 chances at an offensive rebound and 3545 chances at a defensive rebound to having 3790 chances at an offensive rebound and 3527 at a defensive rebound. Defensive rebounds are obviously much easier to grab as been proven throughout the history of the statistics and the Knicks gave up far more defensive rebound opportunities than they had thanks to their horrible defense.


ok....in the year be4 EC 04-05 the knicks shot .451 they allowed .467...they were at -0.7 in rebounding
in 05-06 the knicks shot .455 allowed .467 the knicks had a 2.8 edge in rebounding.
in 06-07 the knicks shot .457 and allowed .460 and were at a 4.5 advantage in reb.
in 07-08 the knicks shot .439 and allowed .474 and were at a -0.1 disadvantage
last season the knicks shot .445 and allowed .480 and were at a -4.0 disadvantage on the boards.

there is no correllation between the shooting % and rebounding ability...it wildly fluctuates ...but the knicks having legit centers gives them an edge on the boards...that is obvious.









> Tyson Chandler collapsed under the weight of exclusively playing center for his first year.


chandler was the only quality big getting minutes, songalia , malik allen ,a now very overweight sweetney an old othella harrington was not cutting it...add to that he was diagnosed with aesthma early in the season , it was a wasted year.


----------

