# DH Article: Bulls pass on Williams; Curry looks to be traded



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> The Bulls have taken a pass on re-signing former first-round draft pick Jay Williams.
> 
> Williams visited the Berto Center recently and worked out while several Bulls played pickup game.
> 
> ...


Interesting notes on Curry...



> Curry’s camp is telling the Bulls they should trade him now or lose him for nothing in return next year.
> 
> The Bulls’ offer to Curry includes just one guaranteed season worth about $5 million to $6 million, according to a team source.


http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=95544


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*

I think we should trade him now for a future draft pick. Or Else this could be like the Horace Grant Situation all over again


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*

I think pax won't trade him right now cause if curry plays shows that he's fine THIS YEAR, he'll probably throw alot of cash at him next year although he's unrestricted.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*

Not to high jack the thread with more Eddy Curry talk, but since it's discussed in this McGraw piece I might as well put it here.

I've come to the conclusion that Eddy has a major screw loose. With everything that he HASN'T proven, not to mention the UNINSURED contract that he would have to sign right now, why does he think he's in position to say, "trade me now, or I'm gone next summer"? He's not grasping the concept that his value is at an all time low, and that he absolutely has alot to prove in the upcoming season. Personally I think he's bluffing just for leverage. And my prediction is if the Bulls offer him the most money as an UFA next summer then I'm betting he'll stay. And if another team offers more, then I think he'll go there. I don't think he has the balls to turn down a larger Bulls' offer based on principles; he's going for the money either way. 

And even if Curry did leave for nothing, I've already stated in other threads how and why we'd have suitable fallback options by gaining nearly $24M in cap room. I know many posters agree with me on that; I know others disagree, too, so no sense rehashing it all again. I don't think of it as "losing a #4 draft pick for nothing" when we find a way to replace him without losing any of our other assets necessarily.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i am beginnning to think that edward just does not get it.

anyway, i edited the title to reflect what is sure to become the main conversation in this thread!

and as far as jay will goes, it's my opinion he would have been a MAJOR distraction had the bulls signed him. i recall his rookie year it was all about jay, and you know what i'm saying.

and pargo staying is good. who knew he was the team comedian. oh wait, he was the one who nicknamed nocioni "teen wolf"!!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> and as far as jay will goes, it's my opinion he would have been a MAJOR distraction had the bulls signed him. i recall his rookie year it was all about jay, and you know what i'm saying.


That's a good point, miz. I don't think anyone's even brought that point up yet! Also factor in that Jay's chances for becoming a starting PG again are basically slim to none, and there's just no reason to bring him here.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

I don't think curry is the one that made this statement, it was his CAMP, so we shouldn't judge curry on this.... eddy probably doesn't care as long as he's paid... I don't think curry would mind coming here the season after next if we offer him the most


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Curry is doing the smart thing. From McGraw's article, he has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GAIN by accepting the Bulls' offer.

The Bulls are offering only one year guaranteed at the below market price of $5-6M - which is basically just the QO. If things go well and he doesn't have heart problems, then he gets locked into a below market contract. If things go bad and he has to quit, he doesn't get anything besides what he's guaranteed to get with the QO.

Curry would have a screw loose if he accepted such a deal.

From the Bulls' perspective, this is a silly offer to make. It offers nothing to Curry whatsoever. No incentive to sign it at all.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



yodurk said:


> Not to high jack the thread with more Eddy Curry talk, but since it's discussed in this McGraw piece I might as well put it here.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that Eddy has a major screw loose. With everything that he HASN'T proven, not to mention the UNINSURED contract that he would have to sign right now, why does he think he's in position to say, "trade me now, or I'm gone next summer"? *He's not grasping the concept that his value is at an all time low, and that he absolutely has alot to prove in the upcoming season. Personally I think he's bluffing just for leverage.* And my prediction is if the Bulls offer him the most money as an UFA next summer then I'm betting he'll stay. And if another team offers more, then I think he'll go there. I don't think he has the balls to turn down a larger Bulls' offer based on principles; he's going for the money either way.
> 
> And even if Curry did leave for nothing, I've already stated in other threads how and why we'd have suitable fallback options by gaining nearly $24M in cap room. I know many posters agree with me on that; I know others disagree, too, so no sense rehashing it all again. I don't think of it as "losing a #4 draft pick for nothing" when we find a way to replace him without losing any of our other assets necessarily.



do ya think edward and "his camp" are "negotiating through the press"? sure looks that way.

it is my opinion that edward's greatest loyalty is to the almighty dollar. not that there's anything wrong with that. the guy has bills to pay. 

the sam smith "report" on CLTV - discussed in the thread here said the offer was 2 years guaranteed with incentives that could push the overall value to 60+. if i were edward i wouldn't dismiss this so quickly. 

edward thinks that he has earned a max deal. edward is delusional. this is just my opinion.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

nanokooshball said:


> I don't think curry is the one that made this statement, it was his CAMP, so we shouldn't judge curry on this.... eddy probably doesn't care as long as he's paid... I don't think curry would mind coming here the season after next if we offer him the most


That could very well be true; might just be "agent talk" I suppose. But the decision is ultimately Eddy's, and seeing how the guy apparently has financial woes, that's why I think he'll stay if we offer him the most money next summer. Of course, that will only happen if, a) Eddy gains insurance for his next contract, and b) He proves that he can play a full season of 30 minutes a night while doing what he does best. As far as I'm concerned, there's not much reason to put much of an investment in that right now.


----------



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

I am getting tired of Eddy and his trade demands. It's pretty evident that he's looking for that major pay day and with his health issues, his value is at an all time low. 

He has to be one of the dumbest players around. One team wanted him and he left Atlanta because his woman had a baby shower to attend. How many guys do know that would come up with any excuse to not attend a shower? Honey, I would love to go to the shower, but this team is offering me millions. 

I used to have some hope that Eddy could be an elite player in this league but I don't know of many elite players that are as stupid as Eddy appears to be. His best option now is to shut his mouth, get into shape and hope that his health allows him to continue to play the game.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Curry is doing the smart thing. From McGraw's article, he has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GAIN by accepting the Bulls' offer.
> 
> The Bulls are offering only one year guaranteed at the below market price of $5-6M - which is basically just the QO. If things go well and he doesn't have heart problems, then he gets locked into a below market contract. If things go bad and he has to quit, he doesn't get anything besides what he's guaranteed to get with the QO.
> 
> ...


Good post, Mike. In Curry's defense, I do think the Bulls' offer should be at least 1-year guarenteed for around $8M (w/ option years following), so at least he has an incentive to sign this instead of the QO. I bet if Curry counter-offered with this proposal, the Bulls would probably accept. The only problem is, it doesn't sound like Curry's camp would settle for this. For everything I've read, I get the impression he wants several or more years guarenteed which just ain't happening.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



mizenkay said:


> do ya think edward and "his camp" are "negotiating through the press"? sure looks that way.
> 
> it is my opinion that edward's greatest loyalty is to the almighty dollar. not that there's anything wrong with that. the guy has bills to pay.
> 
> ...


Can you point to any evidence, post-heart problems, that Eddy's asking for a max deal?

If McGraw's report today is true, logic dictates not that Eddy's turned down Smith's rumored deal, but rather that nothing of the sort was ever offered in the first place. Unless the Bulls have some bizarro-world approach to negotiating and make less appealing counteroffers.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



ScottMay said:


> Can you point to any evidence, post-heart problems, that Eddy's asking for a max deal?
> 
> If McGraw's report today is true, logic dictates not that Eddy's turned down Smith's rumored deal, but rather that nothing of the sort was ever offered in the first place. Unless the Bulls have some bizarro-world approach to negotiating and make less appealing counteroffers.



no i cannot. just offering my opinion of the situation. sorry about that.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



yodurk said:


> And even if Curry did leave for nothing, I've already stated in other threads how and why we'd have suitable fallback options by gaining nearly $24M in cap room. I know many posters agree with me on that; I know others disagree, too, so no sense rehashing it all again. I don't think of it as "losing a #4 draft pick for nothing" when we find a way to replace him without losing any of our other assets necessarily.


$24 million to spend on gems like Chris Wilcox and Al Harrington and other players whose former teams have little interest in keeping. Sweet. It's funny that people are dreadfully afraid of giving Curry a couple of guaranteed years and petrified by the concept of overpaying him, when by definition we'll almost certainly be wildly overpaying whatever f/a's we bring in with that $24 million. 

Anyway, if the Bulls depart from the Pistons model and decide it's in their best interests to land a "superstar," the $24 million alone simply isn't going to get the job done. Put our max offer up against a max offer from a team in a warm-weather city and a low/no income tax state, and we will lose that bidding war. We will, in fact, have to use a combination of assets (one of which COULD have been Curry) and our cap space to get that player.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Curry would have a screw loose if he accepted such a deal.
> 
> From the Bulls' perspective, this is a silly offer to make. It offers nothing to Curry whatsoever. No incentive to sign it at all.


I agree. If this is indeed the offer, there is no incentive for Curry to sign it. None.

The only thing I'm hoping is just poor wording in the article is this part:



> Curry’s camp is telling the Bulls they should trade him now *or lose him for nothing in return next year.*


I hope, prior to the media filter, that this statement was "*risk* losing him for nothing". There is a huge difference. If Curry and Rose have told the organization that if Curry isn't dealt now that he is leaving next summer no matter what, then he is becoming exactly what I feared he would become under the QO: A selfish distraction.

I don't mind losing Curry (even if it is for "nothing"), as I've stated repeatedly. What I do mind is the distraction he could be until he leaves. This could be the first step down that road if: (a) it has been reported accurately; and (b) it is not simply a hollow bluff leading up to October 1.


----------



## MagillaGorilla (Jul 8, 2004)

Getting back to Jay Will, has any reporter commented on how he looks on the court? I haven't read anything. I'd like to know if he's showing anything out there, or if he looks washed up now.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

I read an article where it was reported that during one of Jay's workouts he shot the ball very well, but his lateral movement was not up to par.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*

Bulls really need to give Eddy more leeway, they are being unfair, at least from what the articles are showing. But like always, there is more to the story, and Paxson is probaly offering more. This is inconsistent from what I've seen at other places. I've seen the Bulls offering Eddy a 55 million dollar contract over 6 years with the first 2 years garaunteed for about 15 million. There is more to the story, and now with Songaila and (Pargo?) back on board, Eddy is OUR ONLY FOCUS. Paxson should do nothing but be on the phone or talking to people with nothing but things that involve Eddy Curry. I think what Paxson really should say, is to tell Eddy to work out with Antonio Davis, Tyson Chandler, and see what kind of playing shape he is in. But once again, keep in mind Eddy hasn't sat down in a room with Paxson yet. When it comes to face to face meetings, just in a room with Paxson, Reindsorft, and Rose, things seem to get done a lot faster than the stupid blabber of phone convos. 

Also, if the one year garaunteed for Eddy is real for 5-6 million, it should come to no surprise that Eddy isn't taking it. The qualifying offer for Eddy is about 5.15 million or so, so whats he gain by taking a 5.5 or 5.6 or whatever, that isn't enough money to justify the terms Eddy is getting. Give him 2 million above his QO, so that would be about 7 million more, and give him a 2nd garaunteed year. That is about 15 million over 2 years garaunteed, and then the other 4 years kick in if he remains healthy, that is so much more attractive to Curry than receiving the Qualifying Offer over 6 years, with only the first year garaunteed. So basically either way he will make the QO pretty much if the 1 year 5-6 is correct. That is ridiculous, and Paxson shouldn't even make a stupid offer like that, Eddy has nothing to gain from that. But I doubt any of this is true, I bet there is 1 more year garaunteed and an extra million or two attached.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*

What a ridiculous offer from Paxson.

Complete joke. 

If you didn’t want the guy, you should have traded him last season PAX. Now you’ve dithered your way into a bad situation.

Haha…”Hey we made an offer and he decided not to take it. Its his choice.”…. LOL what a sham. All we care about is what is best for Eddy… LOL.

Now we’re in the process of losing yet another asset for nothing. And there may be a distraction to this season, which is only natural when you treat your employees shoddily by trying to low-ball them.

One step forward, one step back. How to build a perpetually average team? Ladies and gentlemen your Chicago Grizzlies!!!!

What's so freaking hard about signing the guy to a 3 year, 24 million dollar deal, with incentive based options on the end of it? Jeez.

When the Wizards wiped the floor with our "jib-a-rific" boy scouts people whined "but we didn't have Curry and Deng." Yet we're willing to lose Curry for nothing. Grr.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Let Curry take the qualifying offer. I don't think he's going to get a ton of suiters next year, at least not a lot willing to offer huge amounts of money. One of Sam Smith's earlier columns on the whole subject indicated Pax did try to trade him during last season and wasn't offered anyone or anything worth while. To take just anyone in a trade isn't good if you end up with someone who could turn out to be another problem player. 

Losing Horace Grant didn't really hurt the Bulls.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

some more thoughts...

earlier in the summer i believe it was reported that pax and leon rose sat down and discussed the "parameters" of a potential deal - heart issues and insurance being a concern obviously.

maybe pax did suggest a shorter three year deal to edwards camp and the notion of that was rejected by them. again, i am guessing. cause i would agree with you k4e that it would have been a much better deal to offer - but we just don't know what was discussed at that point.

so now it's either the qualifying offer or the multi-year deal that is now being reported - and yes, i guess sam smith was off (surprise!) in his estimation that the deal was 2 years guaranteed.

the point is, it takes two to tango. how sure are we that the idea of a 3 year deal wasn't just outright dismissed? we don't. again i am just guessing. 

if you are pax are you staking the long-term financial flexibility of the team on a multi-year guaranteed deal for major money on a guy who can't get insurance, has a questionable work ethic to begin with, and frankly who thinks that he is worth more than he really is? 

if edward wanted a huge deal he probably could have gotten one from atlanta - the hawks seemed ready willing and able to pony up. but what does edward do? he leaves a day early to attend a baby shower? ok. so edward isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

what would bulls fans say if pax had given into edwards demands? they would have crucified him.

i think the best thing at this point for edward is to take the QO - and pax said as much in his Score interview earlier in the month. 

but as ron cey correctly points out - if this is a "trade me or else" stance from curry, i fear that he will become a major distraction to what the bulls want to achieve this season. he needs to shut his mouth.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

narek said:


> Losing Horace Grant didn't really hurt the Bulls.


I sure think it did.

The Magic defeated the Bulls with Pip and a returning MJ…. But no legit PF.

Only Krause's brilliant trade for Rodman saved us.

One step forward, one step back.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> maybe pax did suggest a shorter three year deal to edwards camp and the notion of that was rejected by them. again, i am guessing. cause i would agree with you k4e that it would have been a much better deal to offer - but we just don't know what was discussed at that point.
> 
> the point is, it takes two to tango. how sure are we that the idea of a 3 year deal wasn't just outright dismissed? we don't. again i am just guessing.


Why would that offer now be off the table if Paxson was willing to offer it? It sure would make him look even better in the press IMO and Curry much worse. Paxson should still have the offer there if he's willing, for the good of the team.





> if you are pax are you staking the long-term financial flexibility of the team on a multi-year guaranteed deal for major money on a guy who can't get insurance, has a questionable work ethic to begin with, and frankly who thinks that he is worth more than he really is?


We're still going to be far under the cap next season if we signed Curry to 8 mil per. That's the point... its only a 3 year deal and we're still going to be able to have our free agent summer bonanza next year. 

I have doubts about our magical free agent summer coming up. We’ve been though this once before a few years back, and it went very poorly. The environment here is a lot better now…. But the quality of FAs available is much lower. A trade is always an option… but that does not seem like a reliable Plan A.



> if edward wanted a huge deal he probably could have gotten one from atlanta - the hawks seemed ready willing and able to pony up. but what does edward do? he leaves a day early to attend a baby shower? ok. so edward isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.


Same could be said about Chandler. Except Paxson decided to resign him. Chandler didn't visit anyone that we know of, especially Atlanta. I agree it was stupid on Curry's part... but who cares? 

What we should want in the end is Curry in a Bulls uniform happy and productive or a reasonable return on this investment. Paxson looks like he's going to achieve neither of these.



> what would bulls fans say if pax had given into edwards demands? they would have crucified him.


What exactly are his demands? I don't really know at this point either. I think Eddy should be happy w/ 3 years, 8 mil with a nice option on the end. Paxson is basically saying F.U. to the Curry camp with that offer. Not too bright, IMO.




> but as ron cey correctly points out - if this is a "trade me or else" stance from curry, i fear that he will become a major distraction to what the bulls want to achieve this season. he needs to shut his mouth.


Paxson should know that the obvious reaction to his horse-crap offer will be discontent. Hey Eddy, I left a big bag of dung in your locker room over the offseason... why are you complaining? What a baby!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I have said it once, I will say it again. Eddy is making a big mistake by not taking Paxsons offer. It had incentives. Since Eddy did not take the test he was asked to take, he has raised red flags to not only the bulls but every team out there. 

What I dont understand is, all the other teams are watching this. Why doesn't someone offer the money that many of you are throwing around and bashing Paxson for not doing it? I see no one. Not one team has taken a chance with Eddy. One would think that if other teams thought Eddy was all that, someone would try and steal him from us right now. But no one has done a thing. Do you think it is because the value for Eddy is low?? 

I have also said this before. I see Eddy having a bad season this season and it will backfire on him. He will not get big money, anywhere. 

He had a chance to get an offer from Atlanta and never worked our for them. That was a chance to get big money, yet a baby shower was more important. 

Something else is going on here.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I sure think it did.
> 
> The Magic defeated the Bulls with Pip and a returning MJ…. But no legit PF.
> 
> ...



dont forget ho grant was on the magic and ate the bulls up hitting mid range J's


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> dont forget ho grant was on the magic and ate the bulls up hitting mid range J's


You are correct sir.

I also remember the classy Bulls organization placing a quote from Grant about not missing the Bulls on the jumbo-tron when he was shooting FTs to help the boos rain down in that series.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



kukoc4ever said:


> What a ridiculous offer from Paxson.
> 
> Complete joke.
> 
> ...



The only part where I can agree with you is that the Bulls' offer is relatively pointless, if it is indeed the 1-year guarentee of $5-6M as McGraw reports. 

After that, I'm not buying this garbage of "if Pax didn't want him, he should've traded him a long time ago." (And I'll even ignore the fact that we were only offered GARBAGE for Eddy in the first place.) Why does this offer, if true, even remotely suggest that Pax doesn't want Eddy on the Bulls? The Bulls are merely trying to avoid being screwed over, both from losing millions of uninsured dollars and being hit with salary cap restraints. As a Bulls fan, the last thing I want is to have an Allan Houston/Grant Hill type rotting on the IR while not having the cap room to find a suitable replacement. 

No matter what Pax does it's a roll of the dice. Just to summarize (and this assume Eddy would accept a 3-year, $27M deal which I'm not entirely convinced of)...

*Scenario A:* We sign Eddy to the 3-year deal, he has no problems, and continues where he left off last season: 17 ppg & 6 rpg in about 32 min/game. Pax looks like a genius for having faith in Eddy's health.

*Scenario B:* We sign Eddy to the 3-year deal, has starts experiencing irregular heart beats again after a few months, and the docs recommend he hangs it up. The result...we're paying Eddy for nothing; we have $14M in cap room to sign Eddy's replacement for about $8-10M (Nene?); and we have only $4M to upgrade the team elsewhere. 

*Scenario C:* We sign Eddy to the QO, he has no problems, and continues where he left off last season: 17 ppg & 6 rpg in about 32 min/game. Eddy receives some 5-year offers (edited: 5 is now the max length) for $70M. The Bulls then must decide if they think it's worth topping that to retain him (as I said earlier, Eddy's principles aren't worth losing $5-10M on in his case). *NOTE: For some reason, all Pax-bashers are assuming this is what's gonna happen, and you fail to recognize the possibility of the other scenarios. IMO, this possibility it no more likely than any of the others.

*Scenario D:* We sign Eddy to the QO, he has no problems, but reverts to the Eddy we've all come to know. Occasional strong play, but overall just alot of inconsistency; 15 ppg in the paint, but alot of turnovers and poor rebounding. The result is that he gets some moderate offers from the few teams with cap space, starting at $6-7M per year; but the Bulls decide whether it's worth topping that, and Eddy simply signs for whoever offers him the most money.

*Scenario E:* We sign Eddy to the QO, he starts having heart problems, yada yada yada. The results are that we avoid a catastrophe, and now have $22-24M to sign a center AND make a big upgrade somewhere else on the roster. Pax is lauded by everyone for sticking to his guns (except a few stubborn posters on this board, of course).

Bottomline, I don't think Eddy Curry has the drive, mindset, or work ethic to make us pay for not extending him this summer. And I think he'll see similar results as he did this summer; unwhelming offers and nowhere near the money he wants. I find Scenario C highly unlikely...I think either Scenario D or E will come to pass.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> and as far as jay will goes, it's my opinion he would have been a MAJOR distraction had the bulls signed him. i recall his rookie year *it was all about jay, and you know what i'm saying.*


*
* :clap: 

That was one of the things I hated most about "Jay." I wouldn't want him back on this team even if he was 100% healthy. I could only imagine reporters sticking microphones in his face after every loss, with Jay ranting about another DNP. Then we would have the pleasure of another Lacy Banks exclusive interview with Jay's mom and pop demanding another trade.  



> and pargo staying is good. who knew he was the team comedian. oh wait, he was the one who nicknamed nocioni "teen wolf"!!


And don't forget the "post-haircut" Nocioni ... Michael J. Fox :laugh: 

Seriously, I would take Pargo over Jay every time.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why would that offer now be off the table if Paxson was willing to offer it? It sure would make him look even better in the press IMO and Curry much worse. Paxson should still have the offer there if he's willing, for the good of the team.
> 
> We're still going to be far under the cap next season if we signed Curry to 8 mil per. That's the point... its only a 3 year deal and we're still going to be able to have our free agent summer bonanza next year.
> 
> ...



listen, my entire post was *pure speculation.* i said that IF the IDEA of a three year deal was dismissed intially by edward and rose, then an ACTUAL three year deal probably never existed. right? see cause i don't think it ever got that far. again, i was SPECULATING - and it's not like it's edward's fault that he has a health situation now, but he does, and it is my OPINION that he is in denial about it. 

so as far as edward acting like a baby to the point it affects his game and the lockerroom atmosphere... well you know what will happen if he does that. skiles will sit his *** down right quick. it's up to curry now to PROVE everyone wrong and *i hope he is healthy enough both physically and MENTALLY to do that.* like yodurk pointed out, it's up to eddy now. eddy has never really been mentally all that tough.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



yodurk said:


> After that, I'm not buying this garbage of "if Pax didn't want him, he should've traded him a long time ago." (And I'll even ignore the fact that we were only offered GARBAGE for Eddy in the first place.) Why does this offer, if true, even remotely suggest that Pax doesn't want Eddy on the Bulls? The Bulls are merely trying to avoid being screwed over, both from losing millions of uninsured dollars and being hit with salary cap restraints. As a Bulls fan, the last thing I want is to have an Allan Houston/Grant Hill type rotting on the IR while not having the cap room to find a suitable replacement.


The same argument can be made for signing a young player with a history of incapacitating back problems to a long term deal from the cap standpoint. Paxson didn't have a problem with that.

One of the teams that likely became better than us this off-season, the Cavs, also does not have a problem of taking a similar risk in signing Z to a long term deal. Now they have a very productive starting center and a chance to make some noise in the east. Paxson's bungling of the Curry situation has our Bulls stuck in the mire with the Wizards and Knicks, at least according to pre-season rankings.

Getting valuable players to come here via free agency is a very risky strategy, as we have seen in the past. Bird in hand is better, IMO, especially when that bird is already an above average NBA center. 



> No matter what Pax does it's a roll of the dice. Just to summarize (and this assume Eddy would accept a 3-year, $27M deal which I'm not entirely convinced of)...
> 
> *Scenario A:* We sign Eddy to the 3-year deal, he has no problems, and continues where he left off last season: 17 ppg & 6 rpg in about 32 min/game. Pax looks like a genius for having faith in Eddy's health.
> 
> ...


Why do you think E is likely? Every doctor has cleared him, at the risk of being likely sued or at least publicly humiliated if wrong. What probability do you assign to E happening? If you respect the opinions of the leading heart doctors, it has to be very, very low. If not, then it would be high I guess.

In the end, I think your bottom-line assessment of Curry's mental makeup is what really drives your thought process of accepting losing Curry. That's cool... the injury to Curry... which every doctor has cleared him of... is really just noise. Everyone is entitled to their opinion... although I think our play in the Wizards series, MikeDCs good analysis of our play with and without Curry and statistical comparators like PER and EFF say otherwise... that Curry is one of the 2 or 3 most valuable members of the team (DCs stuff may not rank him that way).

I think Curry is a very important part of this team now and going forward. To lose him for nothing is a bungle of epic proportions.... but dithering away assets and getting nothing in return is exactly what is going to keep this team average barring great development from our dwindling supply of potentially very productive players, IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> so as far as edward acting like a baby to the point it affects his game and the lockerroom atmosphere... well you know what will happen if he does that. skiles will sit his *** down right quick. it's up to curry now to PROVE everyone wrong and *i hope he is healthy enough both physically and MENTALLY to do that.* like yodurk pointed out, it's up to eddy now. eddy has never really been mentally all that tough.


I agree that its pretty much solely up to Eddy at this point. The team has pretty much abandoned him, only offering a contract trivially better than the one they are obligated by the CBA to offer. And, the team option has value to the Bulls, so it can be argued that their offer is actually worth less than the QO.

Its up to Eddy, I agree. Pax has left him high and dry, even though we all know his primary concern is Eddy's wellbeing.

The guy does not seem to be a very strong individual mentally at this point, i agree, although he's productive by almost all measures when he's on the court, which is what matters. This heart and contract situation must really be taking a toll on Curry and his family, and I feel for them. Its going to be a tough year for Curry, dealing with his medical fears, the resentment he probably feels about being screwed in the UFA game while Chandler is richly compensated, and knowing that your hometown team clearly does not really have faith in you. Tough times for Curry. Let's hope someone is looking out for him, cause it sure ain't the Bulls.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

I find it dissapointing that Eddy is taking his frustration out on Paxson and the Bulls. It's not their fault no other team has offered Curry a contract. It's not their fault Eddy has a heart problem and is unable to get insurance (not Eddy's fault either). 

It seems to me, just from looking on the outside, that the Bulls have treated Eddy well ever since he was drafted. They were patient, they forced him into shape, and they put Eddy's health above everything else. It's dissapointing. I thought Eddy would show some loyalty.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jimmy said:


> It's not their fault no other team has offered Curry a contract.


In a way it is. Paxson approached this off-season with a strategy of "we'll match all offers on our FAs." The intended consequence of this strategy is exactly to dissuade other teams from offering Curry a contract. Its worked pretty well in Curry's case, he's up ****'s creek. I think that we signed Chandler and Duhon to pretty much market value, perhaps higher than market value, which makes its effectiveness somewhat questionable. 



> It's not their fault Eddy has a heart problem and is unable to get insurance (not Eddy's fault either).


No, you are right on this one. Their decision to not take the risk to sign him anyway, given that every doctor has cleared him, is questionable in my mind, especially when it will most likely lead to us getting nothing in return for him except another heaping, steaming helping of Cap Space.



> It seems to me, just from looking on the outside, that the Bulls have treated Eddy well ever since he was drafted. They were patient, they forced him into shape, and they put Eddy's health above everything else. It's dissapointing. I thought Eddy would show some loyalty.


Loyalty to the team that is low-balling you after using strategies intended to drive down your value? Hmmm.... I don't think so.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



kukoc4ever said:


> The same argument can be made for signing a young player with a history of incapacitating back problems to a long term deal from the cap standpoint. Paxson didn't have a problem with that.
> 
> One of the teams that likely became better than us this off-season, the Cavs, also does not have a problem of taking a similar risk in signing Z to a long term deal. Now they have a very productive starting center and a chance to make some noise in the east. Paxson's bungling of the Curry situation has our Bulls stuck in the mire with the Wizards and Knicks, at least according to pre-season rankings.
> 
> Getting valuable players to come here via free agency is a very risky strategy, as we have seen in the past. Bird in hand is better, IMO, especially when that bird is already an above average NBA center.


Tyson just finished 1 full season with ZERO problems. That tells us he's gotten past what ailed him. He found a way to overcome the back spasms. Lucky for Tyson (and the Bulls, for that matter), the timing worked in his favor. He got healthy, played great, and vaulted his stock just as he became a free agent. Ilgauskas has played not 1, not 2, but THREE seasons of healthy basketball on those surgically repaired feet; all of which he averaged 30 min/game or more. Insurance or not, it's obvious that he's found an effective way to stay on the court, whether it's his off-season conditioning program or whatever else it could be. 

Eddy has proven NOTHING regarding his heart. It feels good to have the docs clear him, but they have been unable to find a treatment for his condition which is kind of frightening, and even they can't predict for sure whether the irregular heartbeat will return at some point. If Eddy had this happen to him last season instead, we would all have different thoughts on what Eddy's worth right now; that includes Pax.




> Why do you think E is likely? Every doctor has cleared him, at the risk of being likely sued or at least publicly humiliated if wrong. What probability do you assign to happening? If you respect the opinions of the leading heart doctors, it has to be very, very low. If not, than it would be high I guess.


I don't think Scenario E is likely...I said it's highly likely it will be *either* D or E, that's all (I'd say D has the highest probability of all 5). In other words, I find it highly unlikely that Eddy will have a bust out season this year and make us regret not reupping him. I think he will still have questionable value next off-season, even if he does stay healthy. And consequently, I still think other teams won't be throwing big bucks at him, which would mean the Bulls could offer more $$$ AND for 6 years, not 5 like other teams. If there's anything I'm sure of about Eddy, he'll go whereever the most money is; that includes the Bulls. (As a sidenote, we could also sign-and-trade him next summer to a capped out team who wants him, unless I'm mistaken.)



> In the end, I think your bottom-line assessment of Curry's mental makeup is what really drives your thought process of accepting losing Curry. That's cool... the injury to Curry... which every doctor has cleared him of... is really just noise. Everyone is entitled to their opinion... although I think our play in the Wizards series, MikeDCs good analysis of our play with and without Curry and statistical comparators like PER and EFF say otherwise... that Curry is one of the 2 or 3 most valuable members of the team (DCs stuff may not rank him that way).
> 
> I think Curry is a very important part of this team now and going forward. To lose him for nothing is a bungle of epic proportions.... but dithering away assets and getting nothing in return is exactly what is going to keep this team average barring great development from our dwindling supply of potentially very productive players, IMO.


As I've said before, I want Curry on the Bulls. I'm pretty sure Pax does, too, which is why I don't want people saying all this crap about Pax trying to screw over Curry, trying to trade him, never wanting his best interests, etc. Pax just wants a HEALTHY Eddy Curry and not damaged goods; I like that our GM is cautious about something like this. Maybe he'd be worth the risk if he were Tim Duncan, or even someone the caliber of Elton Brand or Zach Randolph. But he's a player that is replaceable in terms of team success (not skill set, persay), as we discussed yesterday; Ron Cey worded it better than I could've.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



yodurk said:


> . But he's a player that is replaceable in terms of team success (not skill set, persay), as we discussed yesterday; Ron Cey worded it better than I could've.


That's just the opinon of a couple of posters. 

We'll see how replaceable he really is. 

Our team sure looked pretty lousy against the average Wizards without him. We'll see if a suitable replacement is found, if need be.

In the meantime, it looks like a season of average ball and Cap Space dreaming is what's being served.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm not at all concerned about Curry being "a distraction" or not playing worth a damn. He was playing for a contract this past year and just fine.

As far as the threat to "leave the Bulls with nothing", thats legitimate negotiation. I don't get why folks expect the Bulls to be able to play as much hardball as they want to get as much leverage as they can, but then get their panties in a bunch when a player does exactly the same thing.

From what I can tell, things are very simple. The Bulls believe Curry's heart condition is going to continue to be a problem. Curry believes he's fine. Nothing else seems to explain what we see happening very well. I tend to think the Bulls aren't being very smart about this, but it's still in everyones' interest to work things out.

As far as him being replaceable, let's just be clear and not move the goalposts to score points in this argument. I see a lot nonsense statements when people talk how easy it is to replace guys. I mean, we didn't miss Horace Grant? Huh??? In the end we didn't miss him because we got exceedingly lucky with Krause's high risk/high reward - swing for the fences trade for Dennis Rodman.

We didn't miss him because we were very lucky and the Rodman thing worked out well. It very well could have been different and I don't think it's smart to just assume we'd always get that lucky.

From another perspective, we theoretically could have kept Grant and traded for Rodman - we would likely have been even better then.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

> the injury to Curry... which every doctor has cleared him of... is really just noise.


K4E, do you have any reservations whatsoever about Curry's health? Or do you honestly think this is all simply "noise"?



> Getting valuable players to come here via free agency is a very risky strategy, as we have seen in the past. Bird in hand is better, IMO, especially when that bird is already an above average NBA center.





> I think Curry is a very important part of this team now and going forward. To lose him for nothing is a bungle of epic proportions.... but dithering away assets and getting nothing in return is exactly what is going to keep this team average barring great development from our dwindling supply of potentially very productive players, IMO.


The problem here is that your outlook of this whole situation rests on a premise that you believe is already a given. You undoubtedly assume that Eddy will not have any health setbacks and will be at least as good a player, if not better, as he was before this whole episode. But again, that's far from a given; there is still a great deal of uncertaintly with respect to that. From my point of view, that "bird" WAS indeed an above average NBA center. But as far as I'm and clearly many others are concerned, Eddy's anything but a bird in the hand right now. Eddy's situation is not analogous to those of Chandler or Duhon (or any other typical scenarios with young FAs for that matter). 

Before this whole episode took place, I would've agreed with your viewpoint, K4E. Eddy was indeed a valuable asset, and we would've been foolish to let him go for nothing and not resign him. However, the circumstances have certainly changed. Simply retaining Eddy will not make the past 6 months disappear; likewise, it doesn't assure him a clean bill of health. Until we can be assured of his health and whether he will have the mental fortitude to return to the level of play he was performing at right before his episode, I can't look at Eddy as an asset in the sense that you have declared him. In my mind, giving Eddy a lucrative, long-term guaranteed deal to simply make him feel happy and appreciated is futile if we can't be assured that he'll be able to play at a high level again, let alone stay healthy. IMO, committing a long-term, lucrative deal to an even moreso underachieving Eddy Curry would be "a bungle of epic proportions."


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*

The bulls were a dynasty without Grant, and they were one with him.

Mj carried the team enough said.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> From another perspective, we theoretically could have kept Grant and traded for Rodman - we would likely have been even better then.


Longley
Ho. Grant
Rodman
MJ
Pippen 

:biggrin: :headbang:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> K4E, do you have any reservations whatsoever about Curry's health? Or do you honestly think this is all simply "noise"?


No, I definitely have reservations. That's why I think a 3 year deal at about 8 million per would be a fair compromise for both sides. If Curry was being offered this, and turned it down, then I would probably be singing a different tune. If there was no injury, then I would expect Curry be offered a deal similar to Chandler's.

I'm not a doctor, that's for sure. But based on what I've read it seems about as safe as any other injury from the team's standpoint, in terms of basketball production. Let's say Chandler messes up his back or blows out his knee, then in effect he's just as useful to the organization as an unavailable Eddy Curry due to health reasons. Now, the insurance issue certainly plays a part here I would think. Also, there is a lawsuit issue if Curry heaven forbid dies on the court or practicing that I don't really understand. Also, the risk of Curry being gone forever is higher with the heart injury. But, once again, I’ll trust the leading doctors in the field on this one.

I would think that the bar to be "cleared to play" would be much higher for Curry's situation than for a typical sports related injury. I would think a respected heart doctor would be much more leery of clearing a player if the result if he's wrong is the patient dies. Maybe I'm wrong about this, like I said, I'm not in the medical industry. 

Also, and perhaps I'm wrong about this, I would think a heart injury would be easier to come back from than a fouled up back or ravaged knee from a basketball standpoint. As long as Curry can run long and hard on a treadmill at Hoops while being monitored and the docs say he's OK to go, I'm pretty confident that he's OK to go. Its not going to affect his game physically, I would think. There could be a mental issue with Curry being afraid to over-exert himself cardiovascularly, but that's also true with a knee injury I would think. As long as Curry can run, he should still be able to play basketball the way he did before. If a player is coming off a knee or back surgery, you never know if they can be the same player they used to be before the injury. I think we would have a much better feel in this regard in Curry's situation, as long as his body can perform cardiovascularly, which we should be able to know ahead of time with reasonable certainty, if we trust the leading doctors in the field.




> The problem here is that your outlook of this whole situation rests on a premise that you believe is already a given. You undoubtedly assume that Eddy will not have any health setbacks and will be at least as good a player, if not better, as he was before this whole episode. But again, that's far from a given; there is still a great deal of uncertaintly with respect to that. From my point of view, that "bird" WAS indeed an above average NBA center. But as far as I'm and clearly many others are concerned, Eddy's anything but a bird in the hand right now. Eddy's situation is not analogous to those of Chandler or Duhon (or any other typical scenarios with young FAs for that matter).
> 
> Before this whole episode took place, I would've agreed with your viewpoint, K4E. Eddy was indeed a valuable asset, and we would've been foolish to let him go for nothing and not resign him. However, the circumstances have certainly changed. Simply retaining Eddy will not make the past 6 months disappear; likewise, it doesn't assure him a clean bill of health. Until we can be assured of his health and whether he will have the mental fortitude to return to the level of play he was performing at right before his episode, I can't look at Eddy as an asset in the sense that you have declared him. In my mind, giving Eddy a lucrative, long-term guaranteed deal to simply make him feel happy and appreciated is futile if we can't be assured that he'll be able to play at a high level again, let alone stay healthy. IMO, committing a long-term, lucrative deal to an even moreso underachieving Eddy Curry would be "a bungle of epic proportions."



These are all good points and I agree his value has diminished due to uncertainty, founded or unfounded.

That's why I recommend a 3 year deal starting at 8 mil. Much lower than he would receive if fully healthy, at least from a guaranteed years standpoint, using Chandler and Dalembert as a comparison. Its not that "long-term" and not MAX lucrative. Seems like a good compromise between the two parties. Gives Curry some stability and a chance to hit the big jackpot in 3 years, and does not put the Bulls on the hook to be horribly screwed in the long term. Paxson didn't have a problem commiting 2 years to an over-the-hill Pippen. I would think, given what we know about the injury, that the expected value of Curry at this point is much higher than Pippen was at that point, yes? With any guaranteed contract there is some risk. Pippen being too hurt to play effectively for the Bulls is the same from a basketball standpoint, and a payroll standpoint, as Curry dropping dead on the court. And the odds of Curry dropping dead should be miniscule, if we trust the leading doctors in the industry.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I feel as if the issues are not with the contract for his talent but for the insurance that is making Paxson and Reinsdorf think twice about giving him a huge deal. We can all bash the front office but the fact remains that no team, not one has offered a contract larger than ours to Eddy Curry. Why outbid yourselves basically for a player that has no other options. To act like Curry is this innocent fresh-faced youngster getting reamed by a evil, heartless corporation is simply being naive. Paxson is trying to be smart and Curry wants to get paid.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



kukoc4ever said:


> That's just the opinon of a couple of posters.
> 
> We'll see how replaceable he really is.
> 
> ...


Our team looked lousy without him because we didn't replace him with anybody; Lawrence Funderburke was the best we could muster up on short notice. When I say he's replaceable, we don't mean with over-the-hill vets. Let's wait and see which young FA big man emerges in the upcoming year. I'd place my bets on Nene, as do others which is why his name keeps coming up. 

If you're so confident Curry will have a solid year, then I find it highly unlikely the Bulls are just average next season. The whole team will be back from last year, plus it looks like we've upgraded in several ways (Basden > Frank Williams, Songaila/Allen >>> Reiner). Like Mike said, having Eddy on the QO shouldn't screw up all the great things this team has going.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



Sixerfanforlife said:


> The bulls were a dynasty without Grant, and they were one with him.
> 
> Mj carried the team enough said.


MJ was the leader, no doubt.

But the team could not beat Penny and Shaq's magic without Rodman or Grant.

Jordan never won a title without a top-notch power forward.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I feel as if the issues are not with the contract for his talent but for the insurance that is making Paxson and Reinsdorf think twice about giving him a huge deal. We can all bash the front office but the fact remains that no team, not one has offered a contract larger than ours to Eddy Curry. Why outbid yourselves basically for a player that has no other options. To act like Curry is this innocent fresh-faced youngster getting reamed by a evil, heartless corporation is simply being naive. Paxson is trying to be smart and Curry wants to get paid.


If a player gets injured in the NBA, you still have to pay him, yes? Or does this league insurance cover teams in the case of a player like Pippen, when he's basically too hurt to play but still on the roster? I don’t know all of the complexities of this NBA League insurance plan. Teams pay for unproductive or hurt players all the time. It’s the cost of doing business in the NBA… you have to usually give long term deals and there is a chance you may get screwed. That’s just how it works, IMO.

I do think Curry is pretty much a fresh faced kid. I don't think his agent is however.

As for another team not offering a deal...
1.) There are not many teams with the cap space to offer a fair deal
2.) Paxson's "we'll match all offers" was probably a factor as well.

We're not talking about an unrestricted, cap-free market here. We're talking about a restricted free agent in a cap constrained market. That's why the "no team made an offer" argument is weak, IMO. Chandler didn't get an offer from another team either... and obviously he has high value.

And, I don't think letting this situation deteriorate into a scenario where you will likely get nothing in return for an asset is particularly "smart" on Paxson's part.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



yodurk said:


> Our team looked lousy without him because we didn't replace him with anybody; Lawrence Funderburke was the best we could muster up on short notice. When I say he's replaceable, we don't mean with over-the-hill vets. Let's wait and see which young FA big man emerges in the upcoming year. I'd place my bets on Nene, as do others which is why his name keeps coming up.


But you also shouldn't bring his name up without mentioning that his RFA status makes him pretty unlikely to get ahold of.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Enough of the HO Grant talk. Come on, these are 2 completely different teams. The greatest player to ever play the game, along with a top 7 small forward of all time. This team doesn't have either, but Eddy is a better player compared to Grant, and more of this team depends on a productive Eddy than that team did on a productive ho.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm a little disappointed that this comes from Mike McGraw. But please, click the article and read it before jumping on this thread like it's hot news. Because from the tone of the article, it's not hot news at all.

Not that I'm a fan of Sam or Marlen or Lacy, but when big news actually happens, they tend to jump on board with some ridiculously inflated article. The last we've heard from Pax, about a week ago, is like this:



> John Paxson isn't pursuing a sign-and-trade for Eddy Curry, the Bulls general manager said Wednesday in an interview on WSCR-AM 670.
> 
> "If we were to do it, we'd have to get something we really like in return, and I don't think that's very realistic," Paxson said.
> 
> ...


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,2967812.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

The Pax quote is on the interview from the Score, which is found on 670's website. Miz provided the links in the media clips sticky thread we have, and it's also in the "Pax on the Score" thread.

McGraw, here, looks like he's just re-hashing what's been happening with the negotiations. It's a lot of media color, to me, when he adds in ultimatum vocabulary that we really haven't heard from either side at all. 

The fact of the matter is, if Eddy wants a serious contract, he has no leverage except to go to the Bulls. In terms of financial concern, we are his best shot. And Pax has a very good feel for the market, because he was extremely shrewd in the way he went about contract negotiations. "Bring me an offer sheet and I'll match it", he said. Everyone in the league probably knows that he's good for his word, but who will be the brave team with cap space that'll step up and test it?

As a result, Eddy has no offer sheet from anyone, and has nothing but the QO in front of him. The QO is better than nothing.

In terms of AFTER the QO, Eddy's best bet for a good contract is STILL to get an offer from the Bulls, with Bird raises in it. I don't expect that he'll play his way into a max deal, and if he does get that kind of respect in the market, regardless of health conditions, the Bulls will be right here to offer it with Bird raises. It'll be his perogative to turn that down if it's made, but then it will have turned into something personal and spiteful, and I think Pax knows that Leon Rose is just trying to play hardball, when he knows that Curry and himself have a mutual respect for each other. Pax is NOT giving him Crawford treatment, or making ANY hints that Eddy won't be a part of this team's long-term future. He has only made statements and expressed sentiments that he cares for Eddy's health and that the organization wants to make the best business decision they can possibly make and still give Eddy as much as they can give.

There is no alienation of Eddy, and if he earns a max contract this year, then I expect the Bulls to make an offer and to include Bird raises in it. Paxson has proven that his strategy to trust the market has worked this summer; I anticipate it will be similar next summer. I only see five teams that will have cap space to make him an offer; I don't see any of them acting rashly. If Boston or Philly had cap space, I'd be a lot more scared. Charlotte, New Orleans... I'm not as worried about.

So, once again, this whole thing is blown out of proportion. 

1. I think McGraw is just adding color to what we already know. This is not big news, otherwise it would have merited an article on its own and seen counterparts at the Trib and the Sun-Times.

2. Even if Eddy's camp is in ultimatum mode, I don't think it can be anything but a bluff. And I'll wait till I hear from Pax on the radio or a direct quote elsewhere before I make any conclusions about the negotiations taking on a sour attitude or anything.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> The fact of the matter is, if Eddy wants a serious contract, he has no leverage except to go to the Bulls. In terms of financial concern, we are his best shot. And Pax has a very good feel for the market, because he was extremely shrewd in the way he went about contract negotiations. "Bring me an offer sheet and I'll match it", he said. Everyone in the league probably knows that he's good for his word, but who will be the brave team with cap space that'll step up and test it?
> 
> As a result, Eddy has no offer sheet from anyone, and has nothing but the QO in front of him. The QO is better than nothing.


There is an inconsistency to how Paxson dealt/is dealing with Curry and Chandler.

Neither found offer sheets, mostly because of the techniques Paxson employed (and to how UFA works in general... and the fact we're in a cap based pay structure), IMO.

Chandler still was signed to a long-term lucrative deal. Curry is not signed at this point, and looks to be faced with a pretty crappy deal.

So, for Chander its "go find an offer, if you don't get one we'll still pay you a long-term, big $$$ deal."
For Curry, its "go find an offer, if you don't get one, well, what kind of lube do you like young man? Oh yah, sorry about the heart thing. We really, really do care about you."


Of course, Chandler was appearing in all the Bulls promotional materials before he was signed... and didn't visit any other teams... seems to point to an understanding being reached ahead of time IMO.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I just dont think you can compare chandler's situation and curry's. EC could be declared unable to play at anytime next year due to his HCM. If he has another issue and some cardiologists says he cant play the bulls are on the dime for his salary for the entire contact.

If EC wants a contact all he has to due is sign a waver that if his heart condtion pervents him from playing the bulls are off the dime and can cut him. Of course they do not want to due this.


Ec thinks he is a max player but no one, and i mean no one is goint to offer him that kind of money if there is a chance he could spend five years on the bench in a suite making ten mil a year.

This is a business. Pax's offer is basically if you can play we will pay you but if you go down because of your heart we are not going to pay you.

EC and his agent live in la la land if they think they are getting 60 million dollars if there is a chance he can not play.

david


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

sloth said:


> Enough of the HO Grant talk. Come on, these are 2 completely different teams. The greatest player to ever play the game, along with a top 7 small forward of all time. This team doesn't have either, but Eddy is a better player compared to Grant, and more of this team depends on a productive Eddy than that team did on a productive ho.


Horace Grant played in the All Star Game in 1994. He was on the All Defensive 2nd Team four times. In 1993-94, he averaged 15.1 points and 11 rebounds a game. That's a significantly better season than Eddy has had yet. Will Eddy have a season that good? He would probably have to score at least 20 points per, with the way he rebounds.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> There is an inconsistency to how Paxson dealt/is dealing with Curry and Chandler.
> 
> Neither found offer sheets, mostly because of the techniques Paxson employed (and to how UFA works in general... and the fact we're in a cap based pay structure), IMO.
> 
> ...


Maybe the treatment was different because the situation was different. Hmmm.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I didn't think Horse Grant ever played in an allstar game. is that my mistake?

david


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Maybe the treatment was different because the situation was different. Hmmm.


I concur. It isn't exactly a mystery why they have been treated differently in the offseason. One has to be pretty naive to still be posing this question/issue.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Maybe the treatment was different because the situation was different. Hmmm.





bbertha37 said:


> I concur. It isn't exactly a mystery why they have been treated differently in the offseason. One has to be pretty naive to still be posing this question/issue.


Right, but look at the post i was replying to. I didn't see a mention of a difference between the two.... that was my point... that there is a difference. Its not just "find an offer and i'll match it."


Clearly there is a huge difference to how Paxson values these two players.

Neither found offer sheets.

Only one gets the big payday.

The one who got sick but is now healthy gets screwed.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Eddy wouldn't be making trade demands if Paxson took care of him like he should. Paxson is trying to squeeze pinch every penny here, and it looks like it will cost him one of his franchise cornerstones. Possibly for nothing.

I've said it all summer, if I'm Eddy I take the QO and say **** You Paxson. Because what Paxson is offering is most likely the minimum of what Eddy will get next year good year or not. I mean, look at Jerome James. The NBA has always paid it's centers, no matter the quality. And if Eddy is as good as he was in the second half of last year, there's little doubt about him getting some very serious penny. And going to a franchise that actually wants him. The Bulls have not shown him an ounce of loyalty, and they should be fully prepared for the consequences of that. It's ridiculous to string your starting center along like this all summer. Even if we did sign him, this is a whole summer where we haven't been able to do jack with Eddy, as far as working him out the way we want. Young teams need stability, and with Paxson's slow action, we're getting anything but. No one on the Bulls really knows who is going to be playing next year. 

We're having a pretty awful offseason so far.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Right, but look at the post i was replying to. I didn't see a mention of a difference between the two.... that was my point... that there is a difference. Its not just "find an offer and i'll match it."
> 
> 
> Clearly there is a huge difference to how Paxson values these two players.
> ...


Transmark doesn't seem to share your viewpoint that Eddy once sick and now healthy. That's pretty important here.

K4E, I wish Eddy was coming back long term. Honestly, I think Paxson is taking into account both Eddy's heart/insurance problem and his basketball makeup when withholding a multi year deal from him. If Tim Duncan was a Bull and had this heart issue, I think Paxson would have still offered a three year deal, probably more. But Paxson had reservations about Eddy before his heart condition, and this has made it that much harder to commit to him. I would have expected Eddy to receive a six year deal in the mid 50's had he had no health/insurance complications.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Right, but look at the post i was replying to. I didn't see a mention of a difference between the two.... that was my point... that there is a difference. Its not just "find an offer and i'll match it."
> 
> 
> Clearly there is a huge difference to how Paxson values these two players.
> ...


Pax certainly might value Tyson more as a player, health withstanding, but that's not primarily why Tyson got the big payday. While Eddy has been cleared to resume basketball activity, it still remains to be seen how well he will respond to playing full contact NBA basketball again. Plus, there is still some sense of doubt surrounding his condition according to one of the most prominent Cardiologists in the country (i.e. a DNA test). Accordingly, no insurance company has been willing to insure Eddy's contract. As much as you'd like for them to be treated similarly, their situations just aren't comparable right now. If Tyson had some uninsurable, possibly life-threatening, chronic back disorder, Paxson would be taking the same precautions. But that is not the case. You'd certainly have a point if Eddy never had this episode and he had been given the shaft while Tyson got his payday. But again, that's not the case. For you to reduce Eddy's situation and condition to just "noise", is just naive.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Transmark doesn't seem to share your viewpoint that Eddy once sick and now healthy. That's pretty important here.


No, Trustmark does not think its profitable to research Eddy's condition and cover him based on their risk preferences. Big, big, big difference. The doctors have cleared him. They are the ones that care about Eddy's wellbeing. The insurance company cares about nearly guaranteed profit, and that's all.



> K4E, I wish Eddy was coming back long term. Honestly, I think Paxson is taking into account both Eddy's heart/insurance problem and his basketball makeup when withholding a multi year deal from him. If Tim Duncan was a Bull and had this heart issue, I think Paxson would have still offered a three year deal, probably more. But Paxson had reservations about Eddy before his heart condition, and this has made it that much harder to commit to him. I would have expected Eddy to receive a six year deal in the mid 50's had he had no health/insurance complications.


I agree that Paxson had reservations about signing Curry before the injury. Why didn't he do anything before the injury, given that he seemingly didn't want to resign him? Bad move. Very CONactive.

We can talk about Eddy's value in the league all we want. If the metric we're using is that he didn't get any offers in a UFA situation with few teams able to make a legitimate offer and with Paxson's "we'll match" tactic, than Eddy and Tyson have the same value in the league sans Bulls.

Another lotto pick whittled away. Another starter-quality player on the way to being lost for nothing.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> For you to reduce Eddy's situation and condition to just "noise", is just naive.


LOL. Read the posts. Not what I said at all.

1.) The "noise" comment was talking about yodurk's evaluation of Curry and how the injury recovery plays into it. I certainly think Eddy’s injury recovery is something to be considered.
2.) I do have reservations about Curry's injury recovery. I wrote a couple of paragraphs about it. That's why I think 3 years, 8 million per would be fair given the situation. Still much less than Chandler's deal

We're actually pretending we're a contending team when we're willing to lose one of the most productive players on the team for nothing. Laughable.

What's naive is buying into doe-eyed statements like "we want what is best for eddy" and "go get an offer and we'll match. that's fair."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Pax certainly might value Tyson more as a player, health withstanding, but that's not primarily why Tyson got the big payday. While Eddy has been cleared to resume basketball activity, it still remains to be seen how well he will respond to playing full contact NBA basketball again. Plus, there is still some sense of doubt surrounding his condition according to one of the most prominent Cardiologists in the country (i.e. a DNA test). Accordingly, no insurance company has been willing to insure Eddy's contract. As much as you'd like for them to be treated similarly, their situations just aren't comparable right now.


Yes, but all doctors have cleared him to play. Even the one you mentioned, and his DNA test recommendation is the minority opinion from a group of prominent Cardiologists.

As for the insurance companies... there are very few insurance companies left in the world that even provide individual coverage. Even Lloyds supposedly does not as much anymore since going public. Most are smaller outfits in Bermuda, according to someone I know who works in the insurance business. Feel free to refute that last statement... for I don't work in that industry. Insurance companies care about getting nearly riskless profit and the law of large numbers. They certainly don't care about the well-being of an individual or winning basketball games. 

So, while the insurability of Eddy's contract certainly plays a role in these contract negotiations, it really does not play a role in my evaluation of his health. The doctors know better IMO on this front. All the doctors cleared him. 

I feel 3 years, 8 mil starting would be fair. Much less than Chandler’s contract. More than the Paxson "low-ball."


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

> Another lotto pick whittled away. Another starter-quality player on the way to being lost for nothing.





> We're actually pretending we're a contending team when we're willing to lose one of the most productive players on the team for nothing. Laughable.


Again, this is assuming that Eddy will be at least as good as he was before his episode. You still think this is a given, while, in reality, it's not at all for certain. If Eddy can never again play at a high level, let alone play at the same level he did last season or even stay healthy, then we certainly can't blame management for "Another starter-quality player on the way to being lost for nothing." Your arguement only holds true if Eddy can resume playing at a high level. Again, retaining Eddy is rather moot if he's only going to be a shell of his former (shell) self.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Whether it was Curry or his camp who said "trade me or lose me" makes no difference, Curry controls his own camp when it comes to extreme comments like this being put out. The other trade demand crap I could live with but this is ridiculuous, assinine, and completly stupid. There are 5 big free agent players next year and we are one of them, so his camp is saying next year we are going to go to a losing organization (because besides the Bulls all the teams with money suck bad) just to spite the Bulls even if next year the Bulls offer more money than anyone else? Are you serious, alright Camp Curry you just lost 20% of your leverage in that case. Not all 4 teams will be interested so how exactly does his camp think they are going to get some tremendous deal. 

My fear is that Curry knows that his heart is indeed a problem and is doing anything in thier power to make some money before he goes bust. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and this seems like a very desperate ploy.



futuristxen said:


> Eddy wouldn't be making trade demands if Paxson took care of him like he should. Paxson is trying to squeeze pinch every penny here, and it looks like it will cost him one of his franchise cornerstones. Possibly for nothing.
> 
> I've said it all summer, if I'm Eddy I take the QO and say **** You Paxson. Because what Paxson is offering is most likely the minimum of what Eddy will get next year good year or not. I mean, look at Jerome James. The NBA has always paid it's centers, no matter the quality.
> 
> We're having a pretty awful offseason so far.


If by pennies you mean tens of millions of dollars you are right.

An awful off season? If you say so, with no cap or pick what did you expect. If Pax indeed offered basically the QO that is certainly a joke, as for Jerome James look at who gave him the contract.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Again, this is assuming that Eddy will be at least as good as he was before his episode. You still think this is a given, while, in reality, it's not at all for certain. If Eddy can never again play at a high level, let alone play at the same level he did last season or even stay healthy, then we certainly can't blame management for "Another starter-quality player on the way to being lost for nothing." Your arguement only holds true if Eddy can resume playing at a high level. Again, retaining Eddy is rather moot if he's only going to be a shell of his former (shell) self.


Why do you think that Eddy won't be able to play at a high level? 

The team of leading Cardiologists has cleared him. Everything else is apparently working as it was before. 

What are you basing all of your fears on? The insurance company? 

And again, I am taking the added risk into account with the 3 year, 8 million starting proposal. Far less than a insured, no incident last season would have likely received.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

I take exception to your perceived notion that all the doctors have cleared him to play. If you've listened to Paxson's recent interview on the score, it's quite evident that if Eddy was currently under contract with the Bulls, that he still would not have received clearance to play. Evidently, it's not only Dr. Maron that has raised some doubt about his condition. There are a few other doctors that have raised some cause for concern. Paxson did mention in the interview that Eddy and Leon were indeed able to find a couple prominent doctors that cleared him to play. Now I'm certainly not going to discredit their diagnosis, but it indeed pales in comparison to your statement that "ALL the doctors have cleared him to play" and that only a minute minority of doctors would like further testing to be done before giving him clearance. There still remains a great deal of concern about Eddy's health, and the foremost expert in the field of Cardiomyopathy still thinks further testing is necessary. So, I can't agree with your analysis of the medical aspect of this situation and your notion that Eddy has received a perfectly clean bill of health.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Someone said on here we played like crap when Eddy was benched last season. 

We were 11-5 to finish the season. 13-9 counting the playoffs. To me awful is 22 wins total. I dont consider 13-9 awful. And Deng was out as well. Duhon had a bad back.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Since the MLE is supposedly $6 million dollars per yearnext season (much closer to his actual value), you can be sure he will at least get that offer from several teams if he is anywhere close to what he was last season. Heck, Jerome James got it for being that good for 6 games in the playoffs. That to me is the floor for his value on the open market. Teams like Minnesota, Dallas, Miami, San Antonio, Denver, Indiana, etc. would be happy to take a chance on him if heis able to play next season which more than likely he will be. Also, at Curry's age, he can play 3 years at the MLE and still garner a near MAX contract with his new team or at the least market value which will be $10+ million by that time.

This thing could still go any way right now. Nothing has been said or done to prevent a reconcilliation.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Someone said on here we played like crap when Eddy was benched last season.
> 
> We were 11-5 to finish the season. 13-9 counting the playoffs. To me awful is 22 wins total. I dont consider 13-9 awful. And Deng was out as well. Duhon had a bad back.


Without Curry, we were 1-8 against playoff teams in the regular season. With him we were 16-19.

If we want to soft talk everything and say they were OK but not "awful" or "crap" or whatever, that's fine, but the whole point is to build a championship team. 

Even without Curry we should expect internal improvement for our other players, but I can't stress enough how much I think folks are missing the point if they think we're somehow on a cakewalk to the title no matter what.

Hell, I'm not even saying Curry is part of a championship team, but I know without him we've lost our second best big and our only true center. And I know with him signed to the QO we've got one less asset we can combine in a trade if that's what we feel we need to do. No matter how you want to do it, it's gonna be harder to get to a championship if he can't or won't play for us.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> I take exception to your perceived notion that all the doctors have cleared him to play. If you've listened to Paxson's recent interview on the score, it's quite evident that if Eddy was currently under contract with the Bulls, that he still would not have received clearance to play.


What specifically gives that impression?



> Evidently, it's not only Dr. Maron that has raised some doubt about his condition. There are a few other doctors that have raised some cause for concern.


If this is true, it seems likely it would have appeared in some of the many articles on the subject since this all happened.

I think you're making an assumption and stating it as a fact.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Hustle said:


> Whether it was Curry or his camp who said "trade me or lose me" makes no difference, Curry controls his own camp when it comes to extreme comments like this being put out. The other trade demand crap I could live with but this is ridiculuous, assinine, and completly stupid. There are 5 big free agent players next year and we are one of them, so his camp is saying next year we are going to go to a losing organization (because besides the Bulls all the teams with money suck bad) just to spite the Bulls even if next year the Bulls offer more money than anyone else? Are you serious, alright Camp Curry you just lost 20% of your leverage in that case. Not all 4 teams will be interested so how exactly does his camp think they are going to get some tremendous deal.
> 
> My fear is that Curry knows that his heart is indeed a problem and is doing anything in thier power to make some money before he goes bust. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and this seems like a very desperate ploy.
> 
> ...


There are plenty of winning teams that could offer Curry more than what the Bulls have offered next year .Any playoff team could offer him their full Mle and that would be more than what the Bulls are offering.

He could sign for the Full mle with a title contender have a option year in 3 years and be eligible for the max with that team after playing for a title or two and still be what ? 26 or 27 

I agree the that for the Bulls the smart thing is to cover their arses but basically by only guaranteeing the first year they are saying we know what we said in the press but the truth is we dont buy what you or your doctors are saying .

If the Bulls didnt believe the doctors who cleared him they shouldnt have never endorsed their diagnosis .To me its like the Bulls are playing both sides of the fence in regards to Curry.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Article: Bulls pass on Williams*



yodurk said:


> Our team looked lousy without him because we didn't replace him with anybody


You have a definite talent for getting to the heart of things that are often overlooked. :banana:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> There is an inconsistency to how Paxson dealt/is dealing with Curry and Chandler.


An inconsistency that is logical given the respective situations of those two players. (To which I'm sure you'll reference Chandler's one time back injury that happened *2 years ago* and didn't appear last season at all.)

Moreover, you rave about how wicked Paxson is by referring to his shoddy (which is laughable) treatment of Curry and then further attempt to "bolster" that argument by juxtaposing it with the Chandler situation. Which, in case you didn't notice, worked very much to Chandler's benefit and satisfaction. 

That you don't see the irongy and self-defeating nature of that argument does not surprise me, but it does amuse me.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> An inconsistency that is logical given the respective situations of those two players. (To which I'm sure you'll reference Chandler's one time back injury that happened *2 years ago* and didn't appear last season at all.)


I agree the situations are different, which is why I think a fair offer for Curry is far less than a fair offer for Chandler. Whatever man.... all i was saying is that there is more to Paxson's off-season than "find a offer and we'll match it"...if you look at the post i was replying to. Also, that there is risk in any long term deal. There is risk in Chandler's deal and in Curry's deal. More so in Curry's than Chandler’s, which explains the difference in "fair" contracts IMO. 

I don't think anyone is saying Paxson is evil and wicked.... lol... his techniques have been quite effective regarding Curry. No offers. I'm not sure if the "dire warnings" that Paxson was reported by The Sporting News to be sending around the league regarding Curry are true or not... but the fact is he does not have an offer. Paxson did his job very well. But, if we lose Curry for nothing... then that's a failure IMO. You seem pretty indifferent to keeping him and think we may have a better chance with getting the restricted FA NeNe away from Denver or by replacing him with tweener 3/4 Harrington. Maybe, maybe not. I think there is a considerable risk that we don't get either of those players and there is even more uncertainty about them being good fits on the Bulls in general (harrington) much less replacements for Curry. But, then again, I watch the games.



> Moreover, you rave about how wicked Paxson is by referring to his shoddy (which is laughable) treatment of Curry and then further attempt to "bolster" that argument by juxtaposing it with the Chandler situation. Which, in case you didn't notice, worked very much to Chandler's benefit and satisfaction.
> 
> That you don't see the irongy and self-defeating nature of that argument does not surprise me, but it does amuse me.


LOL 

rave.
wicked.
irogny.

Now i'm amused too. irognic.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> I take exception to your perceived notion that all the doctors have cleared him to play. If you've listened to Paxson's recent interview on the score, it's quite evident that if Eddy was currently under contract with the Bulls, that he still would not have received clearance to play. Evidently, it's not only Dr. Maron that has raised some doubt about his condition. There are a few other doctors that have raised some cause for concern. Paxson did mention in the interview that Eddy and Leon were indeed able to find a couple prominent doctors that cleared him to play. Now I'm certainly not going to discredit their diagnosis, but it indeed pales in comparison to your statement that "ALL the doctors have cleared him to play" and that only a minute minority of doctors would like further testing to be done before giving him clearance. There still remains a great deal of concern about Eddy's health, and the foremost expert in the field of Cardiomyopathy still thinks further testing is necessary. So, I can't agree with your analysis of the medical aspect of this situation and your notion that Eddy has received a perfectly clean bill of health.


A. Maron's definitely one of the top cardiologists in the field of sports medicine, but labeling him the "foremost expert" is a little over the top. At the very least, Estes and Cannom could make similar claims.

B. Please provide a link that names a doctor other than Maron who has not provisionally cleared Curry.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

giusd said:


> I just dont think you can compare chandler's situation and curry's. EC could be declared unable to play at anytime next year due to his HCM. If he has another issue and some cardiologists says he cant play the bulls are on the dime for his salary for the entire contact.
> 
> If EC wants a contact all he has to due is sign a waver that if his heart condtion pervents him from playing the bulls are off the dime and can cut him. Of course they do not want to due this.
> 
> ...


Your continued smearing of Eddy by intentionally misrepresenting his medical condition is an embarrassment, imo, considering your profession.

(I'll happily retract that statement if you can provide one link that states any doctor has even provisionally diagnosed Eddy with HCM. I don't anticipate I'll have to retract my statement.)

And since it seems like a lot of folks are getting weirdly skittish about the money issue again, a reminder.

1. If Eddy has to retire because of a medical condition, the Bulls can petition the league for (and will likely receive) immediate salary cap relief. So Cap Space 2006 would still be in full effect in the very unlikely event that Eddy can't play due to a heart problem.

2. The Bulls made more than $250 million in pure profit while putting forth the worst seven-year-record in the 58-year history of the National Basketball Association. The 20 or 30 million that Eddy wants guaranteed is a drop in the bucket, and a small price to play to keep one of our most important players in the fold long-term (or even to have him available as a tradeable asset).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL
> 
> rave.
> wicked.
> ...


Spotting a typo. Solid response. 

"Mispelling" the typo when the mis-typed word is irony. How ironic. Now I am amused with your amusement with my amusement with your self-defeeting arguments.

(There, I left you another typo so you could muster a response.)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> An inconsistency that is logical given the respective situations of those two players. (To which I'm sure you'll reference Chandler's one time back injury that happened *2 years ago* and didn't appear last season at all.)


FWIW, Chandler actually did miss several practices and was reduced to limited minutes in two separate three-game stretches in early Feb and mid March of this past season due to back spasms and strains.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Spotting a typo. Solid response.
> 
> "Mispelling" the typo when the mis-typed word is irony. How ironic. Now I am amused with your amusement with my amusement with your self-defeeting arguments.
> 
> (There, I left you another typo so you could muster a response.)



LOL, that is irony. haha. If the typo was from anyone other than a master wordsmith like yourself, I would not mention it. I was stunned to see it. Like MJ shooting an air-ball.

Anyway, care to talk about basketball? Or just looking to argue?

Chandler's back is a concern. Not quite at pressing as Curry's current situation, I agree.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> What specifically gives that impression?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ScottMay said:


> A. Maron's definitely one of the top cardiologists in the field of sports medicine, but labeling him the "foremost expert" is a little over the top. At the very least, Estes and Cannom could make similar claims.
> 
> B. Please provide a link that names a doctor other than Maron who has not provisionally cleared Curry.


I'd like to point you both to Paxson's interview on the score:
http://www.670thescore.com/includes/news_items/1/429/john_paxson1.mp3

I'll probably post a transcript of the part I was referring to later tonight.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> lso as far as edward acting like a baby to the point it affects his game and the lockerroom atmosphere... well you know what will happen if he does that. skiles will sit his *** down right quick. it's up to curry now to PROVE everyone wrong and *i hope he is healthy enough both physically and MENTALLY to do that.* like yodurk pointed out, it's up to eddy now. eddy has never really been mentally all that tough.


If Eddy's healthy, Skiles'll play him 30 minutes a night or more, just like he did last year even as the other side of his mouth was telling Pax to get rid of the guy.

Eddy's never been mentally tough, that's true. It also bears mentioning here that he's spent most of his career under the tutelage of coaching greats like Tim Floyd and Bill Cartwright, being fed the ball by outstanding distributors like Khalid El-Amin, Bryce Drew, Kevin Ollie, Rick Brunson, et. al., and that the Bulls have never been willing to shell out the 200/300 grand it would take to land a dedicated big man coach like Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Jack Sikma, Artis Gilmore, etc.

Yup, if I could re-cut Eddy's jib, I most certainly would, and I don't want to excuse the shortcomings of his mental make-up. But let's not pretend like the guy hasn't been living in a wildly dysfunctional basketball family for much of the past four years. I actually give Tyson and Eddy a world of credit for coming out of all that relatively unscathed.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL, that is irony. haha. If the typo was from anyone other than a master wordsmith like yourself, I would not mention it. I was stunned to see it. Like MJ shooting an air-ball.
> 
> Anyway, care to talk about basketball? Or just looking to argue?
> 
> Chandler's back is a concern. Not quite at pressing as Curry's current situation, I agree.


That really was pretty funny. As for my typo, chalk it up to one two (not a typo) many whiskeys at dinner. :biggrin: 

The fundamental difference between my opinion and the opinion of others that permeates everthing "Eddy" is that I don't value him to the same degree as others. Some agree with me, some don't. This significantly impacts my opinions on anything Paxson does with regard to his contract. For example, if I valued Eddy like I do Deng or Hinrich, I might very well put the fire to Paxson's feet as you have.

I agree that the deal reported today (yesterday, I guess) would be, more or less, pointless for Eddy to sign. My only concern is that the result of that deal leads to a distraction which could conceivably affect the collective play of the team members that I do believe are critical. Curry isn't one of those players, but he is the focus of the media. His expressed disappointment could have a disproportionate impact on the team's focus. 

I don't know that this will be the result, but it is a concern of mine that the article flamed.

I believed, and expressed on this board, that the Chandler deal was critical. Paxson delivered. He also appears to have resigned all of his non-Curry free agents, plus picked up Allen (yawn), Songaila (yeah!) and Basden (?). Curry is what is left, but given my subjective valuation of what he brings to the table, I can't argue with Paxson's approach one bit. 

P.S. I'm always looking to talk basketball. And to argue. :cheers:


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

Straight from the horse's mouth:
(After being posed a question about his murky clearance to resume basketball activity and the possibility of Eddy dropping dead on the court)
Well, you know, I’d be a fool to say that I’ve never thought about that. I mean, that’s a concern. And you know the big thing is… early on a lot was made when this genetic testing thing came out, that we were wrong in even looking into it. But here’s the thing…is that, it’s been recommended by this doctor that is the foremost expert in the field of cardiomyopathy and you know, we trust what this guy says. And, it’s not like, you know, anybody again who thinks we’re going to do something with the genetic testing that’s inappropriate, I mean, again, it’s just absurd. It’s a tool now that can help any person this question arises in. It’s a tool they can use to help find out. Now the ultimate thing is always going to be doctors. *I mean, we’re going to have to clear him to play. And, you know, we obviously have some concerns based on what a few doctors have said. But you know, Eddy’s gone out and his representatives…they found a couple doctors that would clear him. But that doesn’t dismiss the fact that there are still some concerns, and it doesn’t dismiss the fact that there is, again, this most respected doctor in this field who is recommending that this test be taken. * Now, the test, it’s a clear cut if Eddy would have this gene. From my understanding, there are eight or nine genetic markers that, you know, if Eddy had one, then he would be predisposed to having cardiomyopathy, and if he had an arrhythmia, it could be fatal. And that, you know, raises a whole bunch of other questions. You can’t rule it out 100%, but given everything, it could definitely provide another step that says we’ve done everything we possibly can, everything that the medical community says that is available to us that we’ve used to determine whether it’s safe to put him back on the floor. 
-John Paxson


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> I'd like to point you both to Paxson's interview on the score:
> http://www.670thescore.com/includes/news_items/1/429/john_paxson1.mp3
> 
> I'll probably post a transcript of the part I was referring to later tonight.


Well, I hadn't listened to this before (btw, does Paxson need a speech pathologist to get rid of his "you know" tic? Christ, he drops about 50 of them in five minutes), and not only did it do nothing to convince me of your assertion that there are multiple doctors who haven't cleared Curry, it made me more convinced than ever that the Bulls are intentionally misleading their fans about Eddy's condition.

Maron is the only dissenting doctor mentioned by name. Cannom is the only green-light doctor mentioned by name (interestingly, Paxson first says "Eddy's found himself a couple of doctors who've cleared him," then later on hastens to add that "Cannom was on our list."). Paxson goes on to fretfully mention "doctors who want us to look at some things," but doesn't get anymore specific than that.

If Pax is that concerned about Eddy's health, he's going about things in exactly the wrong way. His first move should be to convene the doctors, along with the NBA-appointed doctor who would rule on Eddy's medical retirement if it came down to that. The contract should be completely secondary to that, and by conflating the two, Paxson is acting disingenuously at best. Despite his doe-eyed and numerous claims of being shocked and saddened and angered by people accusing him of that.

Pax's invoking the Reggie Lewis bugaboo was the kicker. DNA testing wouldn't saved Reggie Lewis's life; following his doctor's orders and not abusing cocaine would have. Pax's equating the two is an attempt to distract, scare, and misinform Bulls fans. I can't see it any other way, and I don't believe Pax doesn't know better, not after his consultation with Mark Estes, the first doctor to clear Curry (and the first cardiologist on the Bulls' list, as we learn in this interview). 

In happier news, I was heartened to hear that the Bulls intend to use training camp to actually prepare the players to play NBA games, not a prolonged, agonizing audition for 15th man.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> If Pax is that concerned about Eddy's health, he's going about things in exactly the wrong way. *His first move should be to convene the doctors, along with the NBA-appointed doctor who would rule on Eddy's medical retirement if it came down to that.* The contract should be completely secondary to that, and by conflating the two, Paxson is acting disingenuously at best. Despite his doe-eyed and numerous claims of being shocked and saddened and angered by people accusing him of that.


Of course, as I've pointed out, and as you've conceded, Paxson isn't the one with the authority to do this perfectly reasonable thing. Curry is. So, again, lets not put the ball in the wrong court, shall we?

But if I can throw you a bone, I do think that Paxson came off as more defensive than sincere in that interview. Certainly not his finest effort.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Of course, as I've pointed out, and as you've conceded, Paxson isn't the one with the authority to do this perfectly reasonable thing. Curry is. So, again, lets not put the ball in the wrong court, shall we?
> 
> But if I can throw you a bone, I do think that Paxson came off as more defensive than sincere in that interview. Certainly not his finest effort.


And as you've conceded, it would not be unheard-of for a team working in concert with and in support of a player to suggest this option to him or his representation.

And I would actually be pretty surprised if it was the responsibility of an individual player to petition the league for medical retirement, or a ruling on whether a player is fit to take the court. That's more than likely something a team would do, and if Paxson's concerns about Eddy's fitness are as grave as this interview would lead one to believe, getting that ruling would be a far more logical step for him to take than to get Eddy's contract signed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

After listening to the interview and reading the transcript I'm ever more frustrated.

Paxson didn't really answer Bernsey's question about the medical clearance. He immediately starting talking about the DNA test and that Paxson’s doctor*s* have "concerns" but never talked about clearance. concerns != clearance, that's for sure.
Didn't answer one way or another.

He didn't answer many of the questions to my satisfaction actually.

Bernsey asked about a "multi-year" deal... which Paxson claimed was on the table... but there was no mention about the number of guaranteed years or a team option. Bernsey didn't follow up.

Seemed like a lot of deflection. Then again, its certainly his right to withhold info.

Question about Maron. I was under the impression that he has cleared Eddy to play, but would ideally like to see the results of the DNA test. Is this correct? Or is Eddy only cleared to play by Maron if the DNA test comes back favorably?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> And as you've conceded, it would not be unheard-of for a team working in concert with and in support of a player to suggest this option to him or his representation.


Then, in the interests of intellectually honest discussion, please include the requisite involvement and approval of Curry in the future. You repeatedly lay this at Paxson's feet. Yet he does not control this. Period. So lets treat as it is, instead of how you'd like to be to further a point.

Don't get me wrong, its a great idea. I absolutely think Curry and Rose should organize it. Especially if they aren't worried about the result of such a meeting. Because then they could either relieve the concerns of the Bulls, or, if no such organizational concern actually exists and the Bulls are merely nefariously seeking to destroy Curry's market value, the Curry Camp would have a wonderful rebuttal.

Frankly, it appears that Eddy and his reps would have no good reason not to bring this about. Assuming, of course, that they have as much faith in Eddy's health as you do. But, maybe they don't.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Question about Maron. I was under the impression that he has cleared Eddy to play, but would ideally like to see the results of the DNA test. Is this correct?


For what its worth, that is my impression as well. I'm not aware of any doctor refusing to clear Curry.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> For what its worth, that is my impression as well. I'm not aware of any doctor refusing to clear Curry.


If that's true, then Paxson's interview bothers me even more.

When asked a direct question about clearence, he starts talking about the DNA test, which does not seem to have much if anything to do with clearence. Then he talks about "concerns" that his doctors have, but once again, nothing really about clearence.

Someone that has not been following this situation closely (like, for instance, my barber or my aunt) I think turns off their radio thinking that this DNA test is some kind of major issue regarding Curry being able to play basketball. It seems like its an important issue to help Paxson and Curry better mitigate financial/personal risk, but that's about it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Then, in the interests of intellectually honest discussion, please include the requisite involvement and approval of Curry in the future. You repeatedly lay this at Paxson's feet. Yet he does not control this. Period. So lets treat as it is, instead of how you'd like to be to further a point.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, its a great idea. I absolutely think Curry and Rose should organize it. Especially if they aren't worried about the result of such a meeting. Because then they could either relieve the concerns of the Bulls, or, if no such organizational concern actually exists and the Bulls are merely nefariously seeking to destroy Curry's market value, the Curry Camp would have a wonderful rebuttal.
> 
> Frankly, it appears that Eddy and his reps would have no good reason not to bring this about. Assuming, of course, that they have as much faith in Eddy's health as you do. But, maybe they don't.


Paxson's job is to make the Bulls the very best team in the NBA, correct?

I want what's best for the Bulls, not what's best for Eddy Curry. It would seem, though, that in this case there are many intersections of mutual interest.

While we can hem and haw and hide behind Curry's medical confidentiality and personal responsibility (except for when we need to talk about the DNA test and Reggie Lewis), it is Paxson's job to extricate the Bulls from this mess and to achieve a positive outcome that moves the team forward. If in the short term that rewards Eddy with guaranteed money even though his representation has been shoddy or his medical picture is hazy, so be it.

Eddy had to get clearance. Eddy had to get insurance. Eddy has to arrange for a face-to-face meeting of the doctors and get the league or NBAPA involved to mediate. We can assume by his prior delegation of these duties that Paxson has not proposed a group meeting of the doctors to Eddy or his reps. It's time for him to take that step -- to insist on it, in fact, as a prerequisite to any further discussion of a contract.

If at this meeting Eddy's prognosis is poor and he can no longer play NBA basketball, the Bulls take a big hit to the gut, dust themselves off, and know that they did the right thing by themselves and by Eddy. They can take some solace that they'll have some cap space next summer to find a player or players who can approximate what Eddy brought to the table.

If at this meeting Eddy's prognosis is positive, the Bulls can quit doing things like equating him with Reggie Lewis in radio interviews, sign him to a long-term deal that minimizes their risk yet rewards Eddy with a secure financial future no matter what. 

It's time for Paxson to do his job.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

You guys could look to the Stromile Swift-Memphis situation that brewed for about two full seasons, if you want a little guidance on the subject. Swift was an underachieving slack-artist for his entire career, and he wanted a $60 million contract. We offered him 3yrs/$24 million, and he scoffed at it. We did not sign-and-trade him, and the following season, we lost him for nothing. And for the MLE, at that.

Now, Stromile wasn't nearly as valuable to us as Curry, and frankly, he's not as good (or valuable, period) as Curry. But it's a matter of either overpaying for a guy you think can produce for you or not paying a guy who your team will lose one year later. Personally, heart condition or not, I take a guy that young with that kind of scoring talent around the basket. His loss would definitely affect the Bulls' success in the longterm.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Rawse said:


> You guys could look to the Stromile Swift-Memphis situation that brewed for about two full seasons, if you want a little guidance on the subject. Swift was an underachieving slack-artist for his entire career, and he wanted a $60 million contract. We offered him 3yrs/$24 million, and he scoffed at it. We did not sign-and-trade him, and the following season, we lost him for nothing. And for the MLE, at that.
> 
> Now, Stromile wasn't nearly as valuable to us as Curry, and frankly, he's not as good (or valuable, period) as Curry. But it's a matter of either overpaying for a guy you think can produce for you or not paying a guy who your team will lose one year later. Personally, heart condition or not, I take a guy that young with that kind of scoring talent around the basket. His loss would definitely affect the Bulls' success in the longterm.


Ahhh, shut your yap. They should exile him to Memphis pronto. :clown:


----------



## emplay (Jun 9, 2003)

Humor me - if the Bulls had a choice between Mihm or Olowokandi for Curry - forgetting for the moment the 1yr tender - say they had to choose between the two (obviously they don't) - who would be Paxson's choice?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> For what its worth, that is my impression as well. I'm not aware of any doctor refusing to clear Curry.


That's also my impression.



Ron Cey said:


> That really was pretty funny. As for my typo, chalk it up to one two (not a typo) many whiskeys at dinner. :biggrin:
> 
> The fundamental difference between my opinion and the opinion of others that permeates everthing "Eddy" is that I don't value him to the same degree as others. Some agree with me, some don't. This significantly impacts my opinions on anything Paxson does with regard to his contract. For example, if I valued Eddy like I do Deng or Hinrich, I might very well put the fire to Paxson's feet as you have.
> 
> ...


Your subjective evaluation of Eddy seems entirely beside the point though. I mean, suppose Paxson actually shared your views, exactly on Eddy's worth. That still wouldn't be cause for not dealing squarely with him, and as time goes on its harder to see how he's doing that.

Hell, from what we understand even the Dr. who recommended the DNA test says it's ok to play. Yet, Pax is using his recommendation of a test to question whether the Bulls would even let Curry to play.

And most obviously you've got the on-again, off-again nature of the Bulls assessment of the health risk of Curry's play. Apparently if he accepts a contract sufficiently favorable to the Bulls, then he's healthy enough to play. If he doesn't, then there are serious health concerns that make it unclear whether the Bulls should even let him play.

Whether they can live without him or not, that's not square dealing, and square dealing is deserved whether he stays or goes.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Pax's invoking the Reggie Lewis bugaboo was the kicker. DNA testing wouldn't saved Reggie Lewis's life; following his doctor's orders and not abusing cocaine would have. Pax's equating the two is an attempt to distract, scare, and misinform Bulls fans.


Is there any proof at all that, besides the claim by the doctor who diagnosed him with a mere fainting disorder, that Reggie Lewis abused cocaine? Moreover, you mention that "following his doctor's orders" would've saved his life. Well, he was following his doctor's orders. According to one group of doctors, he had a benign fainting condition and he could return to basketball "without limitation." While the comparison between Eddy and Reggie Lewis isn't ideal, I think it's effective and appropriate in conveying the notion that every recommended measure and precaution should be taken to ensure Eddy's well-being.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Is there any proof at all that, besides the claim by the doctor who diagnosed him with a mere fainting disorder, that Reggie Lewis abused cocaine? Moreover, you mention that "following his doctor's orders" would've saved his life. Well, he was following his doctor's orders. According to one group of doctors, he had a benign fainting condition and he could return to basketball "without limitation." While the comparison between Eddy and Reggie Lewis isn't ideal, I think it's effective and appropriate in conveying the notion that every recommended measure and precaution should be taken to ensure Eddy's well-being.


This article, which I've linked to at least three times in the discussions of DNA testing and Eddy's diagnosis, originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal and is the best place for one-stop shopping on the Lewis case. 

http://www.ronsuskind.com/newsite/articles/archives/000038.html


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Your subjective evaluation of Eddy seems entirely beside the point though. I mean, suppose Paxson actually shared your views, exactly on Eddy's worth. That still wouldn't be cause for not dealing squarely with him, and as time goes on its harder to see how he's doing that.
> 
> Hell, from what we understand even the Dr. who recommended the DNA test says it's ok to play. Yet, Pax is using his recommendation of a test to question whether the Bulls would even let Curry to play.
> 
> ...


I understand your point, but I don't share the inferences you have drawn from what has transpired. I see nothing but square dealing in an effort to minimize the Bulls' risk. I think the health concern is perfectly reasonable and I think its legitimate, not a tool. The one year guaranteed deal at only $6 million validates that in my opinion. 

If the Bulls were trying to use Curry's health question merely to gain leverage, the deal would be moderate. But its not. Its rock bottom as to the one guaranteed year. To me that signals something far beyond a negotiating ploy. It signals real concern. Now, you can legitimately debate the medical validity of that concern and call it incompetence through over-caution, but I don't see how it can be interpreted as bad faith in contract negotiations. I can't interepret the shockingly minimalist nature of the rumored Bulls' offer any other way.

Also, for what its worth, today's Tribune article states that *Maron DID NOT clear Eddy to play and that his recommendation REQUIRES the DNA test.* 



> He stands by a leading heart specialist *who declined to give Curry clearance months ago and instead asked Curry to undergo DNA testing* to determine if he is predisposed to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which can be fatal.


I think this is inconsistent with what has been reported up to date but it has been reported nonetheless. Add that to a long list of contradictions regarding Curry's health, contract offers, and trade demands as reported by the Chicago media. The more that is reported, the more uncertain everything is becoming. 

Its getting hard to know what to rely on.


----------

