# Judging the Eddy Curry trade - This season



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

To avoid other threads being hijacked, I started this thread. And, I really just wanted to focus the debate on this season.

To me, the reality is you can judge the trade on a year by year basis. In other words, in your opinion, would the Bulls have been a better team, gone deeper in the playoffs, etc, with Curry.

I don't know if we would've won more regular season games, but I do feel we would've gone deeper in the playoffs. This year is a down year for the EC. Hell, we are all clamoring we are a scoring big, with average D from being a championship contender. We may not have been the defensive juggernaut, but offensively, my goodness. Open looks galore if we had an inside presence like Curry offensively.

Defensively, We were an above average team, but all too often it was our defense that allowed comebacks. We couldn't get that one offensive bucket or foul called.

So, for me, imho, we did lose on the trade - for this season.

I believe Eddy Curry in the middle would've given us better burn in the playoffs than Benedict Wallace. It wasn't Wallace that won the Miami Series, though he did contribute. However, he went homesick lover for the Pistons in pistons series.

All year there was "wait till the playoffs, he'll step it up"....and he didn't.

Tyrus is a highlight machine, so was Corey Benjamin. Tyson Chandler looked all world for 10-15 minutes a night as well, blocking and dunking. A few spectacular dunks and we'd all get excited. Sorry, the TT substance wasn't there..........again, not for this season. I still have hope Tyrus can develop some semblance of an offensive game (especially since he thought he was SF capable- LOL).

In the end, for just this season, We lost on the Curry trade.

For the year before, I really feel it was a wash, though I expected it to be a loss.

My real disappointment is that we turned to Benedict Wallace to put us over the hump in a four year plan...and he's not going do it. He's older, back injured, no headband, and pining away for Detroit.


So, by not having Curry, we tried to replace curry and saddled ourselves with a near retirement, overmatched, undersized, overhyped Center, instead of a scoring machine, poor conditioning, poor defense & poor rebounding youngster.

Hmmmm.....let's hope next season, Tyrus and the new Pick will bring us a win on this.

OK, fire away.

Go Bulls.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Not only do I think no GM would make that trade, I don't see any taking the pick swap plus Thomas for Curry.
> 
> It is really dispositive of the value of the trade.


I forgot where you stand. Are you from the camp that believes that Pax didn't truthfully feel that Curry's heart condition was serious, and just used it as an excuse to trade him?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I forgot where you stand. Are you from the camp that believes that Pax didn't truthfully feel that Curry's heart condition was serious, and just used it as an excuse to trade him?


I do think Pax played it as badly as it could be played.

We gave up a real live beast of a pure center for p-p-p-p-otential that so far hasn't been realized to anywhere near Curry's abilities.

It ranks right up there with the Brand for Chandler deal, in terms of how smelly the smelly end of the deal is.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I do think Pax played it as badly as it could be played.
> 
> We gave up a real live beast of a pure center for p-p-p-p-otential that so far hasn't been realized to anywhere near Curry's abilities.
> 
> It ranks right up there with the Brand for Chandler deal, in terms of how smelly the smelly end of the deal is.



Right, but do you believe that Pax used the heart issue as an excuse to make the trade, or do you believe the heart issue was the actual cause?


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

Man that night sucked, we were 'supposed' to feel sympathetic for Pax because he was all mad, meanwhile he admitted he wasn't even sure what he was getting in return. Plus we gave up AD too, he was old, and I'll admit, I thought it was probably time for him to go, but I figured we'd do it if we could replace our weak *** frontline.


Honestly, it's on Eddy for me, though. You can't risk this guy dropping dead on the court, and just because it didn't happen yet (not that I'm hoping or anything), doesn't mean he's fine. I just wish he would've taken that damn test


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

FWIW,

Eddy Curry's first season:

16 minutes, 6.7 points, 3.8 rebounds, .7 blocks, .2 steals, .3 assists

TT's first season:

12 minutes, 5.1 points, 3.4 rebounds, .5 blocks, 1 steal, .6 assists


Not exactly light years apart.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Discussing the trade year-by-year is difficult because moves were made that probably would not have been made if Curry had been kept on board.

But let's assume the following scenario. Curry refuses the DNA test, and Paxson sits him for the entire season. He then becomes an unrestricted free agent with a major chip on his shoulder about Chicago. No way does Chicago get anything in a sign-and-trade for him. In the summer of 2006 he signs with whoever is the highest bidder on the free agent market -- say Atlanta.

So, Chicago keeps Antonio Davis (good), doesn't get Sweetney (....), and avoids having to deal with Thomas (very good). My guess is that they do reasonably better in the regular season (say, 47 wins) and advance to the second round against less formidable opposition than Miami. So, the Bulls would have been better off in 2005-2006 if they didn't make the trade.

In the summer of 2006 they revoke rights to Curry, purchase Wallace as a free agent. So far so good. But they have the 20th pick in the 1st round rather than the 2nd and 15th (and an extra #2 that they combine with #15 to get #13). So, no Tyrus Thomas, no Sefolosha, no Khryapa, and not much hope for the future. Summer of 2007 rolls around and the Bulls have no #9 pick from the swap and no second rounder coming in 2009.

My guess is that they would be lucky to do as well in 2006-7 in the absense of the Curry trade as they did. From there on out, the Bulls are better off having let Curry go in trade to NY.


BTW New York doesn't have much to point at, having finished twice in the basement of the eastern conference with the most expensive payroll in the NBA, and no significant draft picks to ease the pain.

So yeah, I think the Bulls won the trade. This year, next year, and the year after that, and the year after that...


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Been over this ground before...a lot. I'll be as concise as I can.

Not a Curry fan. Same player we had, just more minutes. One-trick pony more than a basketball player. Forget about "all the open looks," 'cause Curry doesn't find them (less than 1 apg). Turnover machine. Bad instincts/bad defense. Not a hard worker. Wouldn't trade Tyrus Thomas for him straight up. Paxson appeared ready to sign Curry to a long-term deal...for me, a negative on Paxson's scorecard.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Wow, McBulls, you think Paxson would've let him walk?

I strongly disagree. Paxson Signed Chandler, not because he wanted to, but because he didn't want to part with an asset for nothing. 

I really think he would've done the same with Curry. I don't think JR would've let him do that. the Chicago media and fan base certainly would've run him out of town.


As to moves that would or wouldn't have been made. I agree, that's all supposition. So I'll go no moves verses the mvoes that were made.

So, would you rather have Curry and Chandler (+ 16th pick last draft & #23 this year) this season or would you rather have Tyrus Thomas, Ben Wallace, Tim Thomas, PJ Brown, Mike Sweetney, Viktor Kryapa and the #9 pick this draft instead of 23. 

Me - For this past season, I'd rather have Curry/Chandler, Last years #16 and this years #23.

I'll go further and say that Gasol could've been attained for a package including Curry, Chandler, and this years pick.

I'm not saying int he future it can't swing the Bulls way. What I'm saying is that when I'm objective, this season was a loss from the trade standpoint.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

transplant said:


> Been over this ground before...a lot. I'll be as concise as I can.
> 
> Not a Curry fan. Same player we had, just more minutes. One-trick pony more than a basketball player. Forget about "all the open looks," 'cause Curry doesn't find them (less than 1 apg). Turnover machine. Bad instincts/bad defense. Not a hard worker. Wouldn't trade Tyrus Thomas for him straight up. Paxson appeared ready to sign Curry to a long-term deal...for me, a negative on Paxson's scorecard.


I give you that. But when you need a basket down low to stop a comeback or run, do you agree that Curry could've given us that?



What does Wallace give us at this point? I believe less than Curry. I might've have accepted positive things about Wallace prior to losing CHandler with hope, but as I review it, Wallace did nothing to improve the team when it needed it. I would argue that Deng, Gordon and Hinrich stepping it up made more of a difference.

As for Tyrus, he shows alot of potential, but so did Curry, Chandler, etc....I have faith in Tyrus, but this season, he didn't make a difference
(could be due to lack of playing time, coaches lack of confidence, fouls, turnovers, etc....... - That's what raw rooks like Thomas ...and imho Curry and Chandler, take a few years to learn). Eddy Curry frustrates me because I don't hink he ever gave the effort that he gave this past season in NY.

As for value - Right now, in my opinion you couldn't trade Tyrus Thomas for what you could trade Eddy Curry for.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> FWIW,
> 
> Eddy Curry's first season:
> 
> ...



JN,

I agree, but I'm stating that when comparing what Eddy could've brought to the Bulls this year vs. what we got instead of him, we lost ONLY THIS YEAR.

In the long run, I am hopeful that Tyrus will develop, though I get concerned that he'll be included in a trade at some point shortly.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

chifaninca said:


> JN,
> 
> I agree, but I'm stating that when comparing what Eddy could've brought to the Bulls this year vs. what we got instead of him, we lost ONLY THIS YEAR.
> 
> In the long run, I am hopeful that Tyrus will develop, though I get concerned that he'll be included in a trade at some point shortly.


Oh, I agree that what I posted wasn't addressing this year. Eddy was clearly more productive this year. However, who won the trade this year is only of very limited relevance. The trade is going to have much longer-lasting implications, and those are important to consider.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Here we ago again.

I can't really believe we're going over this for the bazillionth time.

Yet,I'm drawn into it enough that I just can't ignore it.

On the other hand, I am repulsed by this retread issue enough that I can't type my opinions over and over again (again).

So here are my comments ofromthe other thread, which pretty much sum it up for me and my observations about E-City this last season.

http://www.basketballforum.com/4773616-post90.html


DaBullz said:


> How'd teams do against the "donut" defense we had on the 47 win team? 2nd best defensive team in the league.





TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I probably shouldn't respond, since I've already asked and still hope to get the thread back on topic, but I have to ask -- did you watch the Knicks games post allstar break? Eddy was gassed every night by mid 3Q, and for as much praise as Clyde gave him for his first half scoring bouts, he slammed him game after game in the second half for the layup drills that ran past E-City once he huffed and puffed his way up court on defense.
> 
> Eddy continues to be frustrating in that his downside remains as extreme as his upside.



http://www.basketballforum.com/4774062-post99.html


DaBullz said:


> He played 35minutes/game for the knicks, about 29 for the bulls' 47 win team.
> 
> I simply think it's a fallacy that he provides something on the order of zero or even negative defense. The guy's big enough to take up a lot of the lane, and that Bulls team gave opponents a reason to take a more outside shots than they normally would - because of Curry (partially).
> 
> ...





TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Generally he is indeed greater than zero as a defender. I agree.
> 
> Except for his play in most of the second half of the Knicks games after allstar break, when he was heaving and gasping his way up and down the court, guards were flying by him for layups left and right and he couldn't even haul an arm up to try to stop them.
> 
> If he was in that same shape playing for us last year and he had to play a couple of rounds of playoff basketball, he'd have been leaving his lunch on the floor at best or be back in the hospital at worst.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

chifaninca said:


> I give you that. But when you need a basket down low to stop a comeback or run, do you agree that Curry could've given us that?


(I know this was addressed to Transplant, but I'm going to take a crack at it if that's ok.)


I only partially agree. Eddy has the tendency to get gassed and disappear late in games. So, his ability to be that guy who can get you the easy buckets in the 4th quarter is pretty inconsistent at this point.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Right, but do you believe that Pax used the heart issue as an excuse to make the trade, or do you believe the heart issue was the actual cause?


I think he played 36 minutes a game for New York and had no issues.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> (I know this was addressed to Transplant, but I'm going to take a crack at it if that's ok.)
> 
> 
> I only partially agree. Eddy has the tendency to get gassed and disappear late in games. So, his ability to be that guy who can get you the easy buckets in the 4th quarter is pretty inconsistent at this point.


But Eddy WILL give you those early,easy baskets, and on the nights he gets enough of those, it makes it less likely you'll need the late 4th quarter buckets.

So he has that going for him. Which is nice.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> Wow, McBulls, you think Paxson would've let him walk?


That's what Paxson said at the time. He was concerned about the legal and moral implications of letting a player play who could have potentially died on the court. His concern was only heightened by Curry's manager's reluctance to provide medical evidence to the contrary. I think there could have been ways to reach a compromise on the issue, but Curry's camp became quite emotional and paranoid about it and it was clear that no reasonable compromise would be reached.



> I strongly disagree. Paxson Signed Chandler, not because he wanted to, but because he didn't want to part with an asset for nothing.


 The issue of signing or not signing Chandler is separate from Curry IMO. Letting Chandler go probably reflected Paxson's frustration with Chandler's offseason work-ethic more than anything else. That, and saving JR and friends a lot of money down the road. 



> I really think he would've done the same with Curry. I don't think JR would've let him do that. the Chicago media and fan base certainly would've run him out of town


. JR was clearly on Paxson's side on this. He wanted no part of centers dropping dead on court because of overdoses of Phen-phen in the offseason before their contract year.



> So, would you rather have Curry and Chandler (+ 16th pick last draft & #23 this year) this season or would you rather have Tyrus Thomas, Ben Wallace, Tim Thomas, PJ Brown, Mike Sweetney, Viktor Kryapa and the #9 pick this draft instead of 23.


 I didn't like the Chander trade one bit. But other than that, the answer is yes.



> Me - For this past season, I'd rather have Curry/Chandler, Last years #16 and this years #23.


Detroit would still have had us for lunch, and probably Miami too. You undervalue Ben Wallace.



> I'll go further and say that Gasol could've been attained for a package including Curry, Chandler, and this years pick.


Maybe, Chandler alone would have been reasonable trade bait. The only problem with that scenario is that Memphis needs money and really wanted an expiring contract like Brown's in exchange.



> I'm not saying int he future it can't swing the Bulls way. What I'm saying is that when I'm objective, this season was a loss from the trade standpoint.


 Only if you assume that Wallace and Brown were not significant contributors to the team this year. i think they were. Frankly Curry sucks so badly on defense that the Bulls would have an entirely different flavor team. Either Skiles would have been fired or Curry would have been benched. If Paxson were the kind of GM that would prefer Curry in the first place, he would also not be the kind of GM that would keep Skiles around very long.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I think he played 36 minutes a game for New York and had no issues.


1.Admitting to having taken a bunch of heart damaging supplements, 2. laying off them and 3.having time to heal may have made a difference.

Apparently, he accomplished # 2 in the last season with the Bulls, but it was too late to avoid the symptoms that surfaced that spring.

He had time to do #3 in the offseason.

From what I can tell, he never fully did #1 until the Knicks docs got a hold of him, which is why I blame big Ed for most of Heartgate. I believe if he had been frank about what he had taken to lose weight the previous offseason, there would have been no need to start talking about DNA tests, etc. (this is my reading between the lines, but it makes sense to me that the Buls docs said early on that supplements are one of the ways this kind of thing happens but were unable to make an actual connection in Eddy's case. I think Ed was taking some stuff that might have been illegal or at least borderline and was afraid that it would draw additional wrath that he'd had a season ending injury that was somewhat self-induced).


In any event, I would hardly say his 36 per night in NY were "no problem." Eddy certainly looks to be a lot trimmer than he was here, yet his stamina seems even worse -- as I point out above.

Its certainly possible that the reason he gets so gassed is there is still something wrong with the strength of his tick tock. Idon't know that, but it occurs to me its a possibility.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

You're a great poster...much respect.



chifaninca said:


> I give you that. But when you need a basket down low to stop a comeback or run, do you agree that Curry could've given us that?


This positions Curry as a role player. Too pricey for that. For the money, you must play him big minutes...then you get all the bad stuff. 



chifaninca said:


> What does Wallace give us at this point? I believe less than Curry. I might've have accepted positive things about Wallace prior to losing CHandler with hope, but as I review it, Wallace did nothing to improve the team when it needed it. I would argue that Deng, Gordon and Hinrich stepping it up made more of a difference.


I thought Wallace was brilliant in the Heat series. Just my opinion, but he and Deng were the key reasons the Bulls got over the first round "hump" so easily.



chifaninca said:


> As for Tyrus, he shows alot of potential, but so did Curry, Chandler, etc....I have faith in Tyrus, but this season, he didn't make a difference (could be due to lack of playing time, coaches lack of confidence, fouls, turnovers, etc....... - That's what raw rooks like Thomas ...and imho Curry and Chandler, take a few years to learn).


Of course you're right. I'd still rather have Thomas than Curry...that's just me.



chifaninca said:


> Eddy Curry frustrates me because I don't hink he ever gave the effort that he gave this past season in NY.


On a per minute basis, Curry gave the Bulls very much the same sort of productivity (positive and negative) as he gave the Knicks this season. Effort? Who knows? One possibility is that he's the same player, with a more lenient coach.



chifaninca said:


> As for value - Right now, in my opinion you couldn't trade Tyrus Thomas for what you could trade Eddy Curry for.


I'm sure that you're right...as I said, I'm not a Curry fan.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I think he played 36 minutes a game for New York and had no issues.


Uh, HELLO!!! We're talking about before the trade was made.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think he played 36 minutes a game for New York and had no issues.


I truly don't understand why you won't give an honest answer to the question.

I know he played 36 minutes a game. I don't particularly think (in my expert medical opinion :biggrin that Eddy is at a high risk of dropping dead. None of this though is what I asked.

Do you believe that Pax used the heart issue as a pretextual reason to make the trade? Said a different way, do you think he was being genuine when he says that was why he had to trade Eddy, or do you think he was looking to ship him out all along, saw this as an opportunity, and decided to use it?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Despite his obvious flaws I've always been a Curry fan, he was probably my favorite Bull. But I didn't want him if he was going to sit out the the rest of his career with a $60mil contract. If you think it's foolish to me that I believed his career was in jeopardy because of this apparent problem then so be it.

I'm just sick of all these posters conveniently speculating that Pax was thinking:

"Y'know, Curry's OK I guess, but this Sweetney kid is going to be a beast"


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Despite his obvious flaws I've always been a Curry fan, he was probably my favorite Bull. But I didn't want him if he was going to sit out the the rest of his career with a $60mil contract. If you think it's foolish to me that I believed his career was in jeopardy because of this apparent problem then so be it.
> 
> I'm just sick of all these posters conveniently speculating that Pax was thinking:
> 
> "Y'know, Curry's OK I guess, but this Sweetney kid is going to be a beast"


It's more like...

"Curry hasn't been a full-time player (<30 MPG) and I've never signed a guy to a ginormous contract before... I have to go tinkle."


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It's more like...
> 
> "Curry hasn't been a full-time player (<30 MPG) and I've never signed a guy to a ginormous contract before... I have to go tinkle."


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It's more like...
> 
> "Curry hasn't been a full-time player (<30 MPG) and I've never signed a guy to a ginormous contract before... I have to go tinkle."


Simply brilliant response.:clap: 

Doesn't answer the difficult question, but still manages to denigrate the GM. Well played.

Since it appears that you're not going to get a straight answer from DaBullz, I'll give you mine.

Paxson would have re-signed Curry to a long-term deal if not for "Heart-gate." In doing so, he would have made his biggest mistake of his Bulls tenure. Pax GOT LUCKY with the heart thing. He unloaded a very flawed player for more than reasonable value. Few "must trade" scenarios work out this well.

As I said at the time, we shouldn't give Paxson much credit (or blame) for the Curry deal, since he clearly said that he didn't want to make it.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

You can't compare the trades in a year by year basis. Period. It's all about the long-term effects. I guarantee we'll be a better team in the next 2 years than we would have been with Curry. Tyrus alone will be much better than Curry. The #9 pick in this year's draft could very well turn out to be better than Curry. As you can see, I'm not too impressed with Curry at all. Never have been. If we get an offensive big in this year's draft (Hawes/Wright) we'll have a new and improved version of Chandler/Curry. We've already seen that Tyrus has more capability than Tyson ever did, and I think that Hawes and Wright will be a more complete, and better player than Curry ever was or will be.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

okay allright hang on a second here... I just got to this thread now, that appears to have been rampaging for a couple of hours now.

and I see that NO ONE has managed to make any sort of comment to Tom Boerwinkle's Caddyshack reference... what does it take!??!


man... I'm with you here on that Tom. appreciate it fully.

back to topic: Curry's shown to me that he just doesn't have *it* to get his head fully in the game and maximize the physical gifts he posseses.
He'll stick around the league for a long time and make a lot of money, but he'll likely be a journeyman player by the time his career ends.

think more Stanley Roberts than Shaq
more Kevin Duckworth than Wilt.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Simply brilliant response.:clap:
> 
> Doesn't answer the difficult question, but still manages to denigrate the GM. Well played.
> 
> ...


I didn't denegrate the GM. Being as conservative as he appears to be, and in the process of trying to rebuild the team, paying ANYONE a ginormous contract could sink the ship. He had his doubts, no matter what he said publicly. If he didn't he would have signed him.

It seems ridiculous to me that Thomas got the same advice and doctor's opinions and was willing to risk Curry's life if the prognosis was so dire.

New York was not only willing to pay the price, they clearly want to make (and have already done so) Curry their franchise type player.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I didn't denegrate the GM. Being as conservative as he appears to be, and in the process of trying to rebuild the team, paying ANYONE a ginormous contract could sink the ship. He had his doubts, no matter what he said publicly. If he didn't he would have signed him.





DaBullz said:


> It's more like..."Curry hasn't been a full-time player (<30 MPG) and I've never signed a guy to a ginormous contract before... I have to go tinkle."


Uh, suggesting that an otherwise respected NBA GM has bladder issues when making a tough decision IS denigrating him in my book. Then again, maybe it's only me.



DaBullz said:


> It seems ridiculous to me that Thomas got the same advice and doctor's opinions and was willing to risk Curry's life if the prognosis was so dire.
> 
> New York was not only willing to pay the price, they clearly want to make (and have already done so) Curry their franchise type player.


You're kidding, right? IT has raised making ridiculous decisions to an art form. Electing to make Curry your "franchise-type player" is the case-closer. That team's doomed, man! 

Actually, everything works out as it should. Curry may make an EC all star team as the token selection from an AWFUL big market team. In the meantime, Eddy can watch then Bulls each year in the playoffs.

Sorry, Curry's a one-trick pony. Not a good basketball player. If he's your franchise, you're screwed.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Granted we have talked about this time and time again, but here goes...

I think Paxson wanted to keep Curry but had to trade him for two reasons: 
1. Heart Condition
2. Skiles - not a big fan of Big Ed

I don't blame Pax for the trade. But I also do not think Pax has regretted this trade. He has gotten rid of every Krause player even if he did not have the initial intention to do so.

I don't see Pax regretting this trade. 1) Eddy might not give the Bulls organiztion a health scare and 2) If Tyrus' work ethic is anywhere near Deng-like, then he alone I think helps us win this trade.

Eddy provided great scoring for us. But he has his issues. I do think we would have done well with Eddy as our D was not bad with him here on that 47 win team. Why? The rest of the team was extremely solid on D. But, Eddy's biggest facet was his ability to finish at the rim. If Tyrus can get a 15 foot jumper down, I don't think we will miss Eddy Curry at all. Tyrus is as good of a finisher near the rim, gets to the FT line at a good rate, and if he adds the J, how do you cover him?

If #9, ie Hawes, turns out to be our pick, then I think we won this value wise. 

I was a huge Curry fan when he was in Chicago. But I've gone to the Dark Side. I don't see Curry's value as your FRANCHISE Center. He is a role player. He still can't keep his TOs down (offensive fouls, etc). His stats are better due to his minutes. He has gotten more and more out of shape since his contract year.

I have several friends who are Knicks fans. They are in the stage I was a few years ago. Still hoping he can turn that potential into production? How long do you have to wait? You see Big Men like Duncan who do more than score? They control the tempo. It is more than scoring points or what not. Its a matter of Impact. How do you affect the tempo of the game? How do you effect the way Defenses play you? With Eddy, you can double and triple team him which will lead to a bad pass or offensive foul.

If Hawes can provide Eddy-like offense with better passing, then I think this trade could be lop-sided. I think Eddy and Tyrus is going to be a wash in the upcoming year.

I wish we could go back change the past in having Eddy and Tyson of the 47 win team be rookies that year and grow up in a Jib like environment with the other guys after tasting success. 

But it's in the past and the future is Tyrus Freakin Thomas.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> New York was not only willing to pay the price, they clearly want to make (and have already done so) Curry their franchise type player.


How's that working out so far?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

jbulls said:


> How's that working out so far?


ZING!

Seriously, I'm just confused as to what DaBullz and k4e (two of the more vocal Paxson haters) would've done in his place. Sign Curry and Chandler to long-term deals. Where does the money for Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich come from? 

Do you value Curry over Deng? Chandler over Gordon? 

Curry and Chandler's combined salaries in 2008-2009 will be around 20 million. Wallace will be making around 14 million. That is an extra 6 million will can throw at Gordon or Deng to make them stay. In addition we got two lottery picks and with Paxson's drafting history, I'm confident both will be playing at a high level within two to three years. 

And I guess here is my own personal problem with all these arguments. While Curry and Chandler played for the Bulls, everybody on this board talked about how Curry never played defense and disappeared in the 4th quarter, couldn't rebound, couldn't block shots. Last year, Chandler basically played like a bust. Couldn't catch the ball. Showed no offensive ability at all. Rebounded here and there and certainly didn't play helpside defense, even in the manner Tyrus played this year.

But then they're gone and some posters feel the need to suddenly chime in with the how and why Paxson made a bad trade despite the fact that they bashed the hell out of both players while they were actually in a Bulls uniform. 

It's hypocrisy founded on 20/20 hindsight. Right now, it's easy to argue that Curry and Chandler combined are better than Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas (even though I don't think it's the case) but there is an argument to be made. But back when they actually played here, "Trade Curry for doughnuts", "Trade Chandler for a bag of chips" comments were prevalent. It's just the utter ignorance of people who said one thing two years ago and have completely changed their tune because they feel that Paxson made a mistake with two young guys. One of which has never played in a playoff game and another one who despite being 7'1'' couldn't get the start ahead of Malik Allen or Michael Sweetney (both shorter post men) against Shaq.

EDIT: And I guarantee you 100% that if the Luol Deng for Gasol trade had went through, people would be bashing Paxson as early as this year's playoffs when the Bulls don't beat the Heat in the 1st Round. Arguing that Paxson gave up on Deng too early and he would've been just what we needed against the Heat.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

....

the argument that "eddy curry isn't very good, look how bad the knicks are" to me is the worst argument on this board and it returns over and over again, thread after thread. it isdumb dumb dumb to evaluate a indivdual deal based on the teams overall performance, while ignoring the indivdual performance of the players in the deal. 

but this view is all over, even in other sports. people ran around and said the lee for pods deal was great and pointed to the sox winning it all. but that championship hid the fact the deal was terrible. they gave up a legit run producer for a light hitting, oft injured, weak defensive player who seemed like he was better than what he really was. it works vice versa here. dealing away a player to a team who struggled

don't say getting rid of curry is justified because the knicks suck, justify the deal by saying eddy curry sucks.

......


also people are running around saying you can't evaluate the deal year by year. i ask, why not? what you may be trying to say, is that the deal is lost this year, but all the other years will outweigh the loss here. 

put simply when the bulls were clanking away in that second half of game six, it would of been nice to dump the ball down to a dude that shoots it at a 55% clip mainly from the deep post. 

he has his problems for sure, but this year i believe we were very close to making the NBA Finals. maybe that will happen again. but the future is a funny funny thing. it would be nice to see the future as now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> How's that working out so far?


23 wins 2 seasons ago, 33 last season.

The right direction.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> ZING!
> 
> Seriously, I'm just confused as to what DaBullz and k4e (two of the more vocal Paxson haters) would've done in his place. Sign Curry and Chandler to long-term deals. Where does the money for Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich come from?
> 
> Do you value Curry over Deng? Chandler over Gordon?


Nice post, I guess.

Thing is, Pax DID sign Chandler to a big deal, and he talked like he wanted to sign Curry, too.

So what was he thinking? Where does the money for Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich come from?


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> ZING!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i think its unfair to characterize all the people on the board that hated the curry and chandler deals as hypocrites. i've been around for a while and some like me saw these players as having flaws, but also being young, raw, unique, and filled with potential. so yeah, people like me had problems with there indivdual performances sometimes, but some of those same guys would have the foresight to not deal them for peanuts. 

i can ***** and whine in a game thread about chandler's pension for biting for every pump fake or curry disappearing in a 4th quarter in the middle of decemeber; but ask me that same day what do you see in the future for these dudes...and i think you'd gotten a very positive expectation.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> 23 wins 2 seasons ago, 33 last season.
> 
> The right direction.


Per 48 minutes...

2006-2007: 26.6 PPG/9.5 RPG/1.0 APG/1.2 BPG/4.9 TOPG/57.6% FG%/61.5% FT%
2005-2006: 25.2 PPG/11.1 RPG/0.5 APG/1.5 BPG/4.6 TOPG/56.3% FG%/63.2% FT%
2004-2005: 26.9 PPG/8.9 RPG/0.9 APG/1.7 BPG/4.3 TOPG/53.8% FG%/72.0% FT%

He's actually declined per 48 minutes since he played with the Bulls. 

Scoring: slightly worse
Rebounding: better
Assists: same
Blocks: slightly worse
Turnovers: worse
Field Goal%: better
Free Throw%: a lot worse

Thrown in his god awful man-to-man and help defense, and I'm just not seeing the breakout Eddy Curry everyone else believes they are seeing. He can't play big minutes without wearing down in the 2nd half (see TB#1 posts) and though Isiah insisted on playing him 35 minutes a game, his averages are acutally slightly worse overall than his last season in Chicago.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Nice post, I guess.
> 
> Thing is, Pax DID sign Chandler to a big deal, and he talked like he wanted to sign Curry, too.
> 
> So what was he thinking? Where does the money for Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich come from?


Well he could have easily kept Chandler. But he didn't. Now I was ambivalent on the Chandler trade. And in retrospect, Chandler basically does what Ben Wallace does but he's younger and cheaper. However, I think people severely underestimate Ben's passing and offensive rebounding skills. The little things that a veteran player knows how to do. And god forbid Chandler drop 20 in one half like PJ did. 

Curry OTOH is fool's gold. Overweight, overpaid, does one thing well. If people hate Ben Gordon's one dimension, Curry should be equally slighted for having the exact same one dimension.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I forgot where you stand. Are you from the camp that believes that Pax didn't truthfully feel that Curry's heart condition was serious, and just used it as an excuse to trade him?


I'll ask this to DaBullz for the third time. Please answer it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I'll ask this to DaBullz for the third time. Please answer it.


I've answered your question.

He was faced with signing both Chandler and Curry and he picked one.

It sure seems like the heart condition bit was way overblown and poorly played by Paxson. The evidence is the big minutes Curry's played without problems.

It may have started out as a negotiating ploy, but it spiraled into a bad situation where Curry wouldn't want to play here anymore.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Per 48 minutes...
> 
> 2006-2007: 26.6 PPG/9.5 RPG/1.0 APG/1.2 BPG/4.9 TOPG/57.6% FG%/61.5% FT%
> 2005-2006: 25.2 PPG/11.1 RPG/0.5 APG/1.5 BPG/4.6 TOPG/56.3% FG%/63.2% FT%
> ...


Per 36 minutes, his actual minutes, 19 PPG/7RPG

What we got in return? 5.2 PPG / 3.7 RPG

Woot woot!

19/7 is pretty bad. But good enough for 2nd in both scoring and rebounding on the Bulls last season.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> FWIW,
> 
> Eddy Curry's first season:
> 
> ...


I believe you've stated TT playoff stats.

EC 
16 minutes 6.7 points, 3.8 rebounds, .7 blocks, .2 steals, .3 assists
TT
13.4 Minutes 5.2 points 3.7 rebounds 1.1 blocks .6 steals .6 assists

As a bit of an aside
Tyrus got to the line more than Eddy


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Knick fan perspective,and I will attempt to be objective.When the deal went down,I was actually torn as I thought Sweetney had the tools to at least as productive as Curry.I was annoyed at not protecting last years pick,but it wasnt a great draft and who knew Brown would literally tank the season.

Since Sweetney turned out to be an absolute BUM,my decision is simple..

Would you trade Ty Thomas and this years nuber 9 pick for Curry and the 23??Sorry guys,it is a no brainer.I dont believe there is a GM in the league who wouldnt grab Curry/#23 for TT and the #9.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

truth said:


> Knick fan perspective,and I will attempt to be objective.When the deal went down,I was actually torn as I thought Sweetney had the tools to at least as productive as Curry.I was annoyed at not protecting last years pick,but it wasnt a great draft and who knew Brown would literally tank the season.
> 
> Since Sweetney turned out to be an absolute BUM,my decision is simple..
> 
> Would you trade Ty Thomas and this years nuber 9 pick for Curry and the 23??Sorry guys,it is a no brainer.I dont believe there is a GM in the league who wouldnt grab Curry/#23 for TT and the #9.


Sweetney has been a disappointment. If Skiles had stuck the guy in the middle and designed the offense around him like the Knicks did with Curry I guess he would have put up reasonably impressive numbers. But our coach can't stand watching his center fail to provide timely help defense in the lane, so Sweetney sat.

The Knicks problem is that Curry is potentially a taller version of Sweetney, with less rebounding, passing and shot-blocking skills. Curry definitely has difficulty keeping weight off. If he comes in 20-40 lbs heavier in training camp next year the Knicks should trade him -- fast, 'cause he's not going to get skinnier with age.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Sweetney has been a disappointment. If Skiles had stuck the guy in the middle and designed the offense around him like the Knicks did with Curry I guess he would have put up reasonably impressive numbers. But our coach can't stand watching his center fail to provide timely help defense in the lane, so Sweetney sat.
> 
> *The Knicks problem is that Curry is potentially a taller version of Sweetney*, with less rebounding, passing and shot-blocking skills. Curry definitely has difficulty keeping weight off. If he comes in 20-40 lbs heavier in training camp next year the Knicks should trade him -- fast, 'cause he's not going to get skinnier with age.


It is very clear that Curry can be absolutely dominant when he puts his "mind" to it.What he must learn is to pass out of the double and triple,which he is faced night in and night out.With that said,it doesnt help that the Knicks have no one to stroke it from the perimeter with some cosistency.Its not JC,Marbury,Jeffries,Balkman or Lee,thats for dam sure...

Regardless,Ill take Curry over TT and swap picks any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Signing Ben Wallace to that ridiculous contract solidifies the trade from NY's perspective


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

It will likely come down to this:

Krause: Curry and Chandler
Paxson: Hawes (Could end up being Noah or Yi) and Tyrus

At this point, you compare Hawes and Curry. Curry is bigger. Both are not great at D, and Hawes isn't a great rebounder either for a center. Very slow -- Yao like. But he has a higher BBall IQ and is a good passer. With his passing and his ability to hit the long J -- Will he be better for us offensively? D and Rebounding will likely be a wash between Hawes and Eddy.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

truth said:


> It is very clear that Curry can be absolutely dominant when he puts his "mind" to it.What he must learn is to pass out of the double and triple,which he is faced night in and night out.With that said,it doesnt help that the Knicks have no one to stroke it from the perimeter with some cosistency.Its not JC,Marbury,Jeffries,Balkman or Lee,thats for dam sure...


JC is a pretty good outside shooter. So are Marbury, Richardson, Francis, and Frye. Surely one or more of those players are open when Eddie gets the ball and is double teamed.

The problem is that Eddie Curry can't pass very well and has poor court vision. This has been a problem since he came into the league many years ago. At this point you have to conclude that he isn't going to get better at it.

Making Curry the focus of the offense costs the Knicks the opportunity to exploit their real advantages over most other teams in the backcourt with an up-tempo game. Fat guys don't contribute much for very long to an up-tempo game.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The problem is that Eddie Curry can't pass very well and has poor court vision. This has been a problem since he came into the league many years ago. At this point you have to conclude that he isn't going to get better at it.



good point...

passing, particularly out of double teams is part of *learned fundamentals*; they don't teach that at the pro level. i'm guessing that mark aguirre and herb williams are trying to make chicken salad from chicken **** with curry's skillset.

what's even more laughable is that the pro-curry/chandler denizens would have you believe that their "upside" is still attainable, while hinrich, deng and gordon are (in 3 years as opposed to 5+
in C&C's case) already as good as their going to be, and aren't championship caliber.

these debates are becoming less and less senisible, imo.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> good point...
> 
> passing, particularly out of double teams is part of *learned fundamentals*; they don't teach that at the pro level. i'm guessing that mark aguirre and herb williams are trying to make chicken salad from chicken **** with curry's skillset.
> 
> ...


Looks to me like Chandler is a hell of alot closer to attaining his "upside" than when he was a Bull..If he progresses at the same rate after leaving Mr Skiles,he will be pretty dam good...Maybe you should look at the numbers Ben Wallace was putting up at a comparable age.

i have no beef with Ben,Kirk,and Loul,but without a stud upfront,all you have is an undersized backcourt with a very talented wing player


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> JC is a pretty good outside shooter. So are Marbury, Richardson, Francis, and Frye. Surely one or more of those players are open when Eddie gets the ball and is double teamed.


Not one of those players shoots over 36% from beyond the arc...Ben Gordon shoots close to 42%..thats a shooter...Not too mention Q Rich's back is screwed..


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 23 wins 2 seasons ago, 33 last season.
> 
> The right direction.


Big


Foam


Finger


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

truth said:


> Would you trade Ty Thomas and this years nuber 9 pick for Curry and the 23??Sorry guys,it is a no brainer.I dont believe there is a GM in the league who wouldnt grab Curry/#23 for TT and the #9.


I wouldn't call it a no-brainer. Far from it actually, I think it's a very equal trade. Most Bulls fans are happy with what we got (and to rid ourselves of Curry who never was a fan favorite), and the Knicks seem to like what they got.

As for what other GM's would do, it most certainly comes down to personal preference. Some GM's love the idea of a 285 lb center who can score regardless, whereas others want nothing to do with Curry's lack of intensity and poor basketball IQ. It was these latter qualities why he was so frustrating to have as a Bulls fan; I just always got the feeling that he wouldn't lead us anywhere in the playoffs so long as he's the focal point of the offense. Always seems to turn the ball over with a bad pass or offensive foul at the wrong time, just stuff like that.

To say that trade is a no-brainer, though, is flat out wrong. Either you haven't seen Tyrus Thomas' absurd knack for playing defense, or you simply don't appreciate it. He's a very different player than Curry. And what Tyrus can't do (mostly offensively), I'm sure we will take care of with our #9 draft pick (i.e. someone like Hawes to serve as a center who can score).


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I agree with McBulls.

What was the alternative to trading with the Knicks? It was signing Curry to the QO, then having him sit out the entire 05-06 season on the inactive list. He wasn't going to take the DNA test, and Pax wasn't going to play him otherwise. 

In a year he walks for NOTHING. Given the circumstances (created by Paxson himself, for which he deserves blame), give me Tyrus, the 9th pick, and a couple of 2nd rounders for the 23rd pick anyday. 

The deal was more than "fair." It wasn't Chandler for PJ bad. Or Baron Davis for Speedy Claxton & Dale Davis. Or Rasheed Wallace for next to nothing. Vince Carter for crap. I could go on with a list of players comparable/better to Curry who were acquired for a helluva lot less than two lottery picks.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> 23 wins 2 seasons ago, 33 last season.
> 
> The right direction.


Eh?

In 2004-2005 sans Curry, the Knicks won 33 games. Year one of Eddy Curry they won 23. Year two they won 33. This is the right direction?!? It's treading water at best. I actually was a fan of the 2004-2005 model Eddy Curry, but I think he's regressed since then, and looked like a beach whale pretty much all of last year. If he's the centerpiece of your franchise, I think you're in trouble.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Before Eddy missed the end of the season he was on a tear. He finally started to show some signs of achieving his potential. He had a 21 pt first Qtr vs Indy. He actually looked like a Baby Shaq that people deemed him. That was for a stretch before the sad news. Since then, he has not looked dominant. More Fat and Force-fed the ball than anything else.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Before Eddy missed the end of the season he was on a tear. He finally started to show some signs of achieving his potential. He had a 21 pt first Qtr vs Indy. He actually looked like a Baby Shaq that people deemed him. That was for a stretch before the sad news.


EXACTLY. Glad you brought that up. Especially the Indiana game. It's a point I bring up whenever someone says Skiles can't develop big men. The 2004-2005 season we had Skiles coaching the team... and both Curry and Chandler were having fantastic seasons. 

Chandler was also turning into a beast, especially late in games. He was like a 4th quarter all-star, leading the entire NBA in 4th quarter rebounds and blocked shots.


----------



## bigdbucks (Jun 7, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> Wow, McBulls, you think Paxson would've let him walk?
> 
> I strongly disagree. Paxson Signed Chandler, not because he wanted to, but because he didn't want to part with an asset for nothing.
> 
> ...


So you can also take out the fact that Gordon, Hinrich, and Deng progress also. When Curry gets the ball he either shoots it or turns it over. Curry doesn't pass that ball back out. As far as Chandler goes, I think we probably missed him. But with Chandler and Curry (BOTH C's) Our team would get hammered by the opposing PF nightly.

Really, this is all hearsay. I think Pax has done a phenomenal job meshing this team with winners. They are VERY young still and are still improving. He will continue to make the right moves.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

SALO said:


> I agree with McBulls.
> 
> What was the alternative to trading with the Knicks? It was signing Curry to the QO, then having him sit out the entire 05-06 season on the inactive list. He wasn't going to take the DNA test, and Pax wasn't going to play him otherwise.


This is what it always comes down to for me. Unless you think Pax is evil then the decision to trade Eddy was based on medical evaluations and not basketball considerations. I don't follow the NBA for the medical aspect and Pax is unlikely to be faced with many similar conundrums during his tenure so I just have a hard time caring.



theyoungsrm said:


> ....
> 
> the argument that "eddy curry isn't very good, look how bad the knicks are" to me is the worst argument on this board and it returns over and over again, thread after thread. it isdumb dumb dumb to evaluate a indivdual deal based on the teams overall performance, while ignoring the indivdual performance of the players in the deal.
> 
> ...


I generally agree with your line of thinking here. I don't think the Knicks' success is completely irrelevant though when used as underlying support for the affect of the "little things" Eddy struggles with. The Knicks have underachieved pretty severely for two consecutive seasons so while it's hard to come up with a great answer, it at least makes sense to question why. One answer is that they're one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA (6th to last in defensive efficiency last season) and Eddy has a reputation as a well below average defender. Correlation does not always equal causation but if Eddy struggles at the things that don't show up in the box score and his team isn't as good as it should be on paper, that might not be entirely coincidence.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> This is what it always comes down to for me. Unless you think Pax is evil then the decision to trade Eddy was based on medical evaluations and not basketball considerations. I don't follow the NBA for the medical aspect and Pax is unlikely to be faced with many similar conundrums during his tenure so I just have a hard time caring.
> 
> 
> 
> I generally agree with your line of thinking here. I don't think the Knicks' success is completely irrelevant though when used as underlying support for the affect of the "little things" Eddy struggles with. The Knicks have underachieved pretty severely for two consecutive seasons so while it's hard to come up with a great answer, it at least makes sense to question why. One answer is that they're one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA (6th to last in defensive efficiency last season) and Eddy has a reputation as a well below average defender. Correlation does not always equal causation but if Eddy struggles at the things that don't show up in the box score and his team isn't as good as it should be on paper, that might not be entirely coincidence.


If you are judging Eddy by last years modest improvement you need to account for JC,Q,Marbury and Lee being out/injured for a significant part of the year.

Any Knick fan would have despised the Curry deal had the Bulls have wound up with a top 2 pick.Since you wound up at number 9,the trade boils down to Curry and the #23 for T Thomas and the #9.If you are a Knick fan,you have to be ecstatic with that trade.It is a NO brainer frm NY's perspective,which btw does not mean it wasnt the right move for Pax to make...


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

truth said:


> If you are judging Eddy by last years modest improvement you need to account for JC,Q,Marbury and Lee being out/injured for a significant part of the year.
> 
> Any Knick fan would have despised the Curry deal had the Bulls have wound up with a top 2 pick.Since you wound up at number 9,the trade boils down to Curry and the #23 for T Thomas and the #9.If you are a Knick fan,you have to be ecstatic with that trade.It is a NO brainer frm NY's perspective,which btw does not mean it wasnt the right move for Pax to make...


Well, when Eddy came aboard, the Knicks were expected to be a .500 or better playoff contender. The Knicks may have had slightly more injury woes than your average team last season but I don't think that alone accounts for their struggles.

I'll agree with everyone who said you don't judge a trade season by season. Tyrus and the #9 generally weren't expected to help anyone win a ton of games this season. The trade might not continue to look like a no brainer for the Knicks if Tyrus becomes an All-Star or the Bulls draft a heralded rookie at #9.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The trade as of now seems to be in favor of the Knicks but just by a slight margin. If the Bulls turn that Knick pick into a trade for Zach Randolph of Kobe then obviously the Bulls win this one big time. The Knicks are happy with the trade its not like they would have gotten someone better then Curry in last years draft or even in this years draft at the 9 spot.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> The trade as of now seems to be in favor of the Knicks but just by a slight margin. If the Bulls turn that Knick pick into a trade for Zach Randolph of Kobe then obviously the Bulls win this one big time. The Knicks are happy with the trade its not like they would have gotten someone better then Curry in last years draft or even in this years draft at the 9 spot.


I think this is one of those situations where both teams come out ahead..From NY's perspective,the deal had to be done.And pax made the best out of a very difficult situation


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The situation was difficult because Paxson chose for it to be that way.

The Knicks had no problem signing the guy, and they are now set at center for years to come, while the Bulls scrap and claw playing perimeter oriented smallball.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The situation was difficult because Paxson chose for it to be that way.
> 
> The Knicks had no problem signing the guy, and they are now set at center for years to come, while the Bulls scrap and claw playing perimeter oriented smallball.


True, people on here like to say all they want about Curry's lack of hustle, defense and rebounding but we all saw how important a center with even the slightest bit of an offensive game can be for a team. Say whatever you want about Curry, his pressence in the Pistons series would have REALLY helped a lot. 

But its in the past, Knicks win this trade for now so all we can do is just move on.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

i think the Bulls got the best of the Eddy Curry deal for the fact that right now the Knicks are praying 4 a guy like JO 2 make up for Curry's bad defense and lack of rebounding. If they dont get a superstar which is kind of not likely unless free agency they will only be a 7 or 8 seeded team next year and for along time kind of like the Lakers and yet wont be in the lottery until they rebuild. They would have had a solid future think about it, they would have had a 2nd pick last season and the opportunity 2 tank and get a higher than 9th pick if they didnt trade with us this year.

We still have the opportunity 2 get a good post-player.

If the Knicks did not trade for Curry they would have had Balkman, Lee, Frye, 2006 2nd pick, Sweets would have probably been a better player, and more likely a higher than 9th pick this year because they could have tanked. Thats a nice younger future for a team.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

taurus515th said:


> i think the Bulls got the best of the Eddy Curry deal for the fact that right now the Knicks are praying 4 a guy like JO 2 make up for Curry's bad defense and lack of rebounding. If they dont get a superstar which is kind of not likely unless free agency they will only be a 7 or 8 seeded team next year and for along time kind of like the Lakers and yet wont be in the lottery until they rebuild. They would have had a solid future think about it, they would have had a 2nd pick last season and the opportunity 2 tank and get a higher than 9th pick if they didnt trade with us this year.
> 
> We still have the opportunity 2 get a good post-player.
> 
> If the Knicks did not trade for Curry they would have had Balkman, Lee, Frye, 2006 2nd pick, Sweets would have probably been a better player, and more likely a higher than 9th pick this year because they could have tanked. Thats a nice younger future for a team.


that is certainly a stretch...Are the Bulls not praying for a big who can make up for Big Bens many deficiencies,not too mention a career in major decline??

I think we have to wait for the draft and then see just how much TT has matured,and if Eddy Curry discover the letter D and figure out what to do with it


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

All I know is that damn these Bulls would have been much better with Ben Wallace and Eddy Curry up front.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> All I know is that damn these Bulls would have been much better with Ben Wallace and Eddy Curry up front.


But dang our free through shooting from the frountcourt would be terrible we have 2 take out both Wallace and Curry when teams do the the hack a Ben and the hack a Curry. lol


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I have a feeling the rookie we draft at #9, the free agent we acquire with the salary savings saved up, and Tyrus Thomas's performance will make these endless discussions of the wisdom of the Curry trade look quaint next season. 

New York will continue to wallow in the basement of the eastern conference, and the Bulls will be once again contending for a title.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

truth said:


> that is certainly a stretch...Are the Bulls not praying for a big who can make up for Big Bens many deficiencies



That's just how Chicago sports fans are for the most part. You're trained when you're young to "YAY" defense, and pooh-pooh the offense. That's why in many people's eyes, Wallace = BEAST while Curry = KITTY

I'm tired of that old "blue collar" Chicago stuff blah blah blah, it got really old. Did I want EC to remain a Bull? Of course. Along with Chandler, we had our bigs until Paxon decided to virtually give them away. I love TT and all, but come on...we don't even know what the #9 pick is, and Chandler was gift wrapped to the Hornets. We'll see what happens in the long run, but in my view all along, Chandler's D + Curry's O >>>>> Wallace + PJ caca. *We'd be in the NBA finals if we had those 2 this year, guaranteed.*


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

truth said:


> that is certainly a stretch...Are the Bulls not praying for a big who can make up for Big Bens many deficiencies,not too mention a career in major decline??
> 
> I think we have to wait for the draft and then see just how much TT has matured,and if Eddy Curry discover the letter D and figure out what to do with it


Sure but it's easier to find the missing piece to a 49 win team than a 33 win team. It's also easier to fill a hole with the #9 pick in a great draft than the #23 pick.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

taurus515th said:


> But dang our free through shooting from the frountcourt would be terrible we have 2 take out both Wallace and Curry when teams do the the hack a Ben and the hack a Curry. lol


True and our Guards werent lights out at the stripe either.. But 20ppg in the paint would have been nice.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The situation was difficult because Paxson chose for it to be that way.
> 
> The Knicks had no problem signing the guy, and they are now set at center for years to come, while the Bulls scrap and claw playing perimeter oriented smallball.



Well we know one thing for sure, that having JC at the point and Curry at C kept the Knicks out of the lottery for the last two years.

While the horri-Bulls had the #2 pick last year and now the #9 in Lottery. Poor Bulls just can't get out of the lottery


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Sure but it's easier to find the missing piece to a 49 win team than a 33 win team. It's also easier to fill a hole with the #9 pick in a great draft than the #23 pick.


Youu went from 47 wins to 49 wins with a declining Big Ben..With a little luck,the #9 pick should get you close to 50 wins....


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I still don't understand how it is that so many seem convinced that Eddy could have contributed _anything_ for us in the playoffs this year. I know I'm repeating myself, but didn't you guys see Curry's serious stamina issue in the second half of this year's regular season? By March, he was all but useless in the second half of many games and was a downright liability on the defensive end because he was too gassed to stop the layup drills going past him. Clyde Frazier wsa so upset watching E-City's second half performances he needed double doses of his Just for Men hair dye.

If Eddy was forced to play into May this year in the heightened intensity of playoff basketball, it would have been uuuuuuuuggggggllllyyy.

I mean, I agree that an ideal Eddy Curry in ideal circumstances can be a monster, and if we could have had THAT Eddy on both ends of the floor for big minutes per game, playing that way in both halves, every game in the playoffs, he could have and would have been a difference maker.

But huffing and puffing Eddy -- he wouldn't have helped much, and frankly, very well could have hindered the progress we did make without him.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

truth said:


> Youu went from 47 wins to 49 wins with a declining Big Ben..With a little luck,the #9 pick should get you close to 50 wins....


I can't really tell how serious you are but for the record 1) the Bulls improved from 41 wins last season to 49 wins this season 2) I expect them to improve by more than one win next season 3) I'm not really sure what your post has to do with my comparison of the Bulls' vs. the Knicks' "missing pieces."


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Its certainly possible that the reason he gets so gassed is there is still something wrong with the strength of his tick tock. Idon't know that, but it occurs to me its a possibility.


:sour: 

You're better than this, TB. Aren't you?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> :sour:
> 
> You're better than this, TB. Aren't you?












All he said is that its a possibility that occurred to him. Not that its the fact, or even likely for that matter.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> All he said is that its a possibility that occurred to him. Not that its the fact, or even likely for that matter.


Thank you, counselor.

It occurred to *me* that TB#1 might have been sensationalizing and fear-mongering and glossing over some very important previously established truths. 

But as you say, it's purely notional. So hopefully TB can settle this for me, unless you are responding on his behalf.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Thank you, counselor.
> 
> It occurred to *me* that TB#1 might have been sensationalizing and fear-mongering and glossing over some very important previously established truths.
> 
> But as you say, it's purely notional. So hopefully TB can settle this for me, unless you are responding on his behalf.


I'm responding because I don't know that he's around to do it for himself and didn't think your insinuation should be left floating in the air like that. 

If I'm wrong, he can surely clarify things for both of us.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ugh, Jesus, would everyone please lay off imputing negative intent on each other? I am so sick of this garbage. Let's talk about basketball.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I responded in the other thread.

And as Transplant chimed in, if Ed isn't fat (for him) and it isn't his heart and he is getting gassed at the end of games...

why is that?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Also, here is the full post. I may be right or wrong, but I stated the facts as I understood them.



> 1.Admitting to having taken a bunch of heart damaging supplements, 2. laying off them and 3.having time to heal may have made a difference.
> 
> Apparently, he accomplished # 2 in the last season with the Bulls, but it was too late to avoid the symptoms that surfaced that spring.
> 
> ...


Looking back on it, the only thing I think was an unfair stretch in my post is the "illegal" part. It is just as likely that he didn't want to admit to taking supplements at all, legal or not.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I responded in the other thread.
> 
> And as Transplant chimed in, if Ed isn't fat (for him) and it isn't his heart and he is getting gassed at the end of games...
> 
> why is that?


IMO, he's pretty fat. He looks substantially heavier now than he did during his last season as a Bull...

[edit : look at him here. is it any wonder he's gassed after 35 or 40 minutes?]

<img src = "http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20061209/curry_79984.jpg">


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I sure hope Paxson can land a big man that can get us 20 and 7 a game.

If this big man can do this next year, not 3 years from now, all the better.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I sure hope Paxson can land a big man that can get us 20 and 7 a game.
> 
> If this big man can do this next year, not 3 years from now, all the better.



We would have had a good shot in the draft if Eddy didn't do the last second tip in vs the Bobcats.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Cager said:


> We would have had a good shot in the draft if Eddy didn't do the last second tip in vs the Bobcats.


Luck runs out eventually. We were really lucky last year. 

Last second tip!?!?!?! Suprised he wasn't too busy huffing, puffing or eating to help win NBA basketball games.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Luck runs out eventually. We were really lucky last year.
> 
> Last second tip!?!?!?! Suprised he wasn't too busy huffing, puffing or eating to help win NBA basketball games.


Am I making the "huffing and puffing" stuff up? Did you watch the games? I know what I saw. I heard the commentary that confirmed what I saw.

The dude was huffing and puffing -- in a lot (not every) game. I've made that clear in most of my posts on the subject. When he was able to keep his wind, he played fairly well, meaning his typical low post presence and servicable, for him, defense. When he got gassed, it was almost painful to watch, especially on the defensive end. As the season wore on, the 2nd halfs where he completely ran out of steam seemed to become more and more frequent.

You know, its not a "sack of meat" argument as you put it. Its just an observation of a fault.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You know, its not a "sack of meat" argument as you put it. Its just an observation of a fault.


He's not a perfect player. If he was in stellar shape and a zesty passer he'd likely be gunning for the hall of fame. Instead, he's just a 20 and 7 NBA center, which is a rare commodity.

If I could find player stat splits by quarter it would go a long way to backing up your claim. I can't find any.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> He's not a perfect player. If he was in stellar shape and a zesty passer he'd likely be gunning for the hall of fame.  Instead, he's just a 20 and 7 NBA center, which is a rare commodity.
> 
> *If I could find player stat splits by quarter it would go a long way to backing up your claim. I can't find any. *


Yeah, I immediately tried to find this sort of stat. I have to believe it's out there, but I also failed to find it. If found, I don't expect it to show much slacking off in terms of scoring. It's his one trick and I suspect he can do it in his sleep. And there's no stat that's kept for playing "matador" defense, so you'd need to look at rebounding, steals and blocks I suppose. Since he's not that great on these to begin with, it may be tough to "prove" TB's observations.

In the long run, it may be best to ignore TBs observations (no offense TB) and stick to the facts. He's a very good scorer, a mediocre (at best) rebounder (for his size/position), a historically-prolific turnover machine and a completely ineffective passer out of the post. 

This way, we avoid the heart stuff and questioning Curry's work ethic, both of which are clearly controversial.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> In the long run, it may be best to ignore TBs observations (no offense TB) and stick to the facts.


If the observer comprehends what they are witnessing, described observation is tantamount to a fact. And I observed precisely the same time of defensive lapses that TB did in the 50 or so Knicks games I watched last year (actually, if we are talking about 4th quarters the number is probably more like 65). As did the the countless Knicks fans who last season complained about it consistently and with much outrage on message boards just like this one. 

Observations, in my experience, are very often far more reliable than statistics. Especially when it comes to basketball. Particularly individual defense in basketball. There is no statistic for "Eddy Curry stood there gawking while Jarett Jack banked home 2 layups in the last 3 possessions." It won't show up positively or negatively in any metric specifically tailored to Eddy Curry.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If the observer comprehends what they are witnessing, described observation is tantamount to a fact.


Assuming the observer is unbiased.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Assuming the observer is unbiased.


Yes, that is correct.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Assuming the observer is unbiased.












:bananallama:


----------

