# Bulls Latest to Reap Benefit of Dealing with Isiah



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/dalessandro/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1148794501154110.xml&coll=1



> For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Isiah Thomas has already won one title as an NBA executive. Of course, that title is in San Antonio, which would not have won the hardware last season without the addition of Nazr Mohammed. .
> 
> He's also built a title contender with a four- or five-year shelf life in Phoenix, which used the Stephon Marbury deal to create cap space and sign Steve Nash.
> 
> ...





> "Our needs are athleticism and length, and they'll be some guys at the top of the draft," Paxson said. "But we can also explore options in moving that pick. We like our young guys. But we have to ask ourselves if we're too young. Is there a way to get better to help us continue to be not only a playoff team, but a very good playoff team? Those are the questions we're going to be debating now."
> 
> Speaking of debates, what have the Knicks gained, exactly?
> 
> ...


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/dalessandro/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1148794501154110.xml&coll=1


that comment about Eddy..."are the Bulls going to find anybody better than Eddy in this draft? No. He is moving toward bust. He doesn't play defense and is either uncoachable or doesn't care."

Hold on a second. If you have a player (say Tyrus Thomas) who is supercoachable and cares more than anyone else and plays superior defense isn't that better than Curry by a long shot? Makes no sense. Curry is decent at 1/2 of the game (offense). He is far from a sure thing on offense and his defense is brutal. Not sure how a player like Aldridge, Thomas, Bargnani aren't better than Curry. Heck, O'Bryant or Shelden Williams could be better than he is right now. I mean look at Channing Frye. He is better than Curry and nobody thought much of him. THe Knicks play Curry to justify the contract and the trade.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

LOL I found that comment funny too

Eddy Curry's an OK player...but I have no DOUBT in my mind that we'll draft a better player


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

LMFAO if NY sucks next year.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Maybe we ought to chip in for a security fund for Isiah. I don't want anything happening to him till after next season...........LOL.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I dont think its a slam dunk that this pick is better then Curry. Lets remember Curry is the youngest player in NBA history to lead the league in FG% and was a mid double digit scorer in rather limited minutes while also one of the handful of players in the league who demanded a double team. He also fit in perfectly with the guys Pax and Skiles have brought in. Can we honestly say Aldridge, Thomas and or Bargnani would fit in as well? I just cant. Tyrus Thomas and LaMarcus Aldridges are both, while super prospects, not sure things. Bargnani same thing. Ultimately, IMO, the gem is the ability to swap next years pick. Thats what I think the gem in the deal is. This helps out alot, but I dont think this alone is going to make up for what we lost. Again, Aldridge, Thomas, Bargnani might all be better players then Eddy Curry, but the trick is, are they good enough to get us over 47 wins next year? Thats the measuring stick. Maybe not in a year, but if they cant do it in 2 years, then we still have taken a step back on the deal. But if the Knicks turn out to be terrible next year, and frankly I think it would be wise to optimistic on their chances next year so we could be pleasantly surprised if they come in as bad as last year, then that will seal any deal. But losing Tim Thomas and the way we handled it, etc, could have ramifications beyond anything. Should be interesting. But I think if the Bulls can luck into the top 6 next year, that would be tremendous.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Hahahjahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Love the Knicks!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> I think if the Bulls can luck into the top 6 next year, that would be tremendous.


Agreed. A top 6 pick next year is every bit as good as the 2nd pick this year. Next years draft is loaded with talent. It will be one of the best ever in terms of high quality depth, and Greg Oden will be at the head making it a top heavy draft on top of having great depth.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

This seems like a contradiction, and basically saying that this year's draft sucks big time. He first says that the Bulls won't find anyone better than Curry, then goes on to proclaim that Curry is most likely going to be a bust. #2 pick in the draft, and we won't get anyone that isn't a bust? Wow, that's either a very harsh criticism of this draft class, or a guy who can't make up his mind.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> But losing Tim Thomas and the way we handled it, etc, could have ramifications beyond anything. Should be interesting. But I think if the Bulls can luck into the top 6 next year, that would be tremendous.



Rlucas,

While I wouldn't have handled it that way and I know Thomas could've contributed to a few wins, I think Paxson in the end salvaged a nuetral on this area.

He did the "player friendly" thing and released him to go and play in the playoffs for a championship contending team. It may have been ugly and seemingly unfair for too long, but he did give Thomas a chance to earn a huge payday next season when he didn't have to.

I also think he showed that the team means it when they say - You will bust butt our way or you will not play. Honestly, with the young kids we have on our squad, I think it had to be handled that way or Gordon and Chandler would be giving the Tim Thomas attitude tot he Bulls. Now, they barely squeek since they know Paxson and Skiles won't screw around.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Agreed. A top 6 pick next year is every bit as good as the 2nd pick this year. Next years draft is loaded with talent. It will be one of the best ever in terms of high quality depth, and Greg Oden will be at the head making it a top heavy draft on top of having great depth.



You are 100% right. I think the top 3 in this draft would probably go 7-10 in next years crop. There are 4 or 5 guys in next years crop who would be potential #1 picks in any other crop. I really think next year is the jewel. There is going to be alot of pressure on whoever the pick is this year to be as good as Eddy Curry. Its not a slamdunk. And I am sure there will be 100s of threads titled, TT/LA/AB vs Eddy Curry. But it wont mean a damn thing. All that matters is 47. Can whoever we draft this year get us 6 more wins within 2 years? I dont know. I am not sure. Hopeful, but realistic. Curry, when healthy, really did an excellent job, particularly for Gordon, in keeping defenses honest. Id also be very interested in what kind of Eddy Curry shows up next year. He was a bit of a laughing stock around here, but we all seem to forget that he didnt work out due to the heart condition, got thrown to NY on a last second trade and had the contract situation to deal with. Wouldnt surprise me at all if NY gets the Eddy Curry of 2 years ago, a high 50s scorer, who can give them 17-20 a night. But he will never be a rebounder or defender I would agree with that. But anyone who thought he was going to be either of those was wishful thinking. He couldnt average 10bds in his senior year of HIGH SCHOOL. Why would anyone think he would do it in the pros? I guess my expectations of Curry as a Bull were met, so I am not as critical as others. But I dont see any of the bigs as a sure fire better player then Curry. And if they are a better player, are they a BETTER FIT, then Curry? Tough questions. But next years pick, if NY falls flat on their face (and I am going to assume NY will be much improved), could be just huge. Thats the gem. That could be the cornerstone, even if its not Oden.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> Rlucas,
> 
> While I wouldn't have handled it that way and I know Thomas could've contributed to a few wins, I think Paxson in the end salvaged a nuetral on this area.
> 
> ...



Perhaps Chifan. But thats not the story Tim Thomas tells. And right now, with his output, there will be some people who might want to console him before making any decisions on the Bulls. The Bulls have egg on their face league wide in regards to Thomas. But ultimately, in the end, I believe money talks. But they might have to overpay to get people to commit to the system. But the system, IMO, is still a bit flawed.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Perhaps Chifan. But thats not the story Tim Thomas tells. And right now, with his output, there will be some people who might want to console him before making any decisions on the Bulls. The Bulls have egg on their face league wide in regards to Thomas. But ultimately, in the end, I believe money talks. But they might have to overpay to get people to commit to the system. But the system, IMO, is still a bit flawed.


We're still the only team who's made the playoffs twice in a row, has loads of young players (appearing to be on the way up), and who has loads of caproom. That should hopefully make us a desirable destination. Plus, Przybilla I believe has commented he would consider coming here, or at least it has been extrapolated because his wife lives/wants to live in Milwaukee or something to that degree (help please to any who remembers). Al Harrington definitely has said he has the Bulls on the radar. Gooden has Hinrich to help woo him here. Nazr has connections to Chicago. I doubt Ben Wallace would care -- he's the hardest working dude out there, and Skaxon would love him.

In view of all this, I don't think Thomas is going to keep us from getting who we want, especially if it's one or a comination of these five guys.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> We're still the only team who's made the playoffs twice in a row, has loads of young players (appearing to be on the way up), and who has loads of caproom. That should hopefully make us a desirable destination. Plus, Przybilla I believe has commented he would consider coming here, or at least it has been extrapolated because his wife lives/wants to live in Milwaukee or something to that degree (help please to any who remembers). Al Harrington definitely has said he has the Bulls on the radar. Gooden has Hinrich to help woo him here. Nazr has connections to Chicago. I doubt Ben Wallace would care -- he's the hardest working dude out there, and Skaxon would love him.
> 
> In view of all this, I don't think Thomas is going to keep us from getting who we want, especially if it's one or a comination of these five guys.



Almost all of those players are simply using Chicago as a bargaining chip. I actually think the only guy who really wants to come to Chicago is Peja. Harrington said nice things about NY and just about everywhere else. Thats what you do as a FA. But what were these guys saying when they werent FAs? Thats why I like Peja with the Bulls. Peja has expressed interest in Chicago long before the end of his contract, and that shows sincerity. All of those other guys are just posturing.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Does anyone here really want Peja? I know I wouldn't be real impressed with getting him. As far as I'm concerned we already have good players at his position, and I would rather get a good C or at least a physical PF, or a shotblocker.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> You are 100% right. I think the top 3 in this draft would probably go 7-10 in next years crop. There are 4 or 5 guys in next years crop who would be potential #1 picks in any other crop. I really think next year is the jewel.


Yeah, and the perfect example of that is Joakim Noah. He would have probably gone 2nd in this years draft (mainly because I think by draft time, this Bargnani kid will be a no-brainer). He was actually projected to be first pick before he said he was going to stay in school. 

When Noah decided to stay in school, he was immediatley put down to #6 on NBADraft.net's mock draft for 2007, and I doubt he'll stay that high. He'll need another great year with a dominant tournament performance to be in the top 6. He is going to get pushed up to near 10th. 



rlucas4257 said:


> There is going to be alot of pressure on whoever the pick is this year to be as good as Eddy Curry.


Curry was wanting a lot of money. Atleast 10 million a year. So with that, I would say that the pick, plus next years pick, plus whoever we get in free agency this offseason is going to end up being the exchange. That's a pretty great trade on our side. 

I do agree that from here on out, this team needs to be pushing 50 wins. Not because we have a replacement for Eddy, but because our guys have improved a great deal. Hinrich, Gordon and Nocioni have all taken the next step. Luol Deng needs to be next. The team that won 47 games had inferior versions of Hinrich, Gordon and Nocioni, but a better version of Chandler, and Curry. Luol Deng was about the same in both years. Ditto for Duhon.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Yeah, we really reaped the benefit.

47 wins and home court advantage down to 41 wins and the seven seed, and a fundamentally flawed roster (no above average big men).

Maybe Paxson can pick up the pieces using Cap Space and this lotto pick.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

If I tell a young player (say Tyrus Thomas) to be as good as Curry he will probably go LMAO. Not kidding.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yeah, we really reaped the benefit.
> 
> 47 wins and home court advantage down to 41 wins and the seven seed, and a fundamentally flawed roster (no above average big men).
> 
> Maybe Paxson can pick up the pieces using Cap Space and this lotto pick.


You can't use the 1st year, before we get either of their picks as the basis of whether the deal was good or bad. Gotta look at it 3 years down the road, after we get this pick, FAs we're able to sign due to more cap space, and next year's pick if the Knicks suck again and get a high lottery pick. Gotta look at the big picture, not just 1 year.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> You can't use the 1st year, before we get either of their picks as the basis of whether the deal was good or bad. Gotta look at it 3 years down the road, after we get this pick, FAs we're able to sign due to more cap space, and next year's pick if the Knicks suck again and get a high lottery pick. Gotta look at the big picture, not just 1 year.


Don't waste your time.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yeah, we really reaped the benefit.
> 
> 47 wins and home court advantage down to 41 wins and the seven seed, and a fundamentally flawed roster (no above average big men).
> 
> Maybe Paxson can pick up the pieces using Cap Space and this lotto pick.


Last year's off-season gripe: We're going to be "Grizzlies East", mired in mediocrity. We've got to do something!

This year's off-season gripe: We should've stood pat. Give us back Grizzlies East!


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> but the trick is, are they good enough to get us over 47 wins next year? Thats the measuring stick. Maybe not in a year, but if they cant do it in 2 years, then we still have taken a step back on the deal.


Right because the ONLY reason the Bulls didn't win 47 this year was Eddy Curry. You are talking about 6 wins. 
-We lost at least 6 games because of random luck. We could have won 47 this year if a few more breaks went our way. 
-Meanwhile, the East is much stronger with the likes of Cleveland and Milwaukee etc. getting better which means less wins for us.
-And teams were not suprised by us this year like they were the year before. 

You are the only one I see saying the Curry deal may potentailly be a step backwards right now. Look at the guy's numbers. He is 23 years old with 5 years in the league. His numbers got worse last year on a team with nothing to play for. You would figure he would put up huge numbers with so little riding on his shoulders. 13.6 ppg and 6 boards from your starting center. Are you kidding me? That is what was keeping us from dominating in the Eastern conference this season? So all of a sudden he is going to do something magical and become dominant at age 23 after 5 years of experience? 

We don't need more points to be a better team. We need rebounding and defense. We score enough points as it is. And I'm sure our free agent signings and draft picks will help us get more efficient offense. Curry provides points when force-fed the ball. Yah, he draws double-teams because people assume he is more dominant than he is. They however have caught on. He gets 10 touches, 2 turnovers, 1 charge, 1 pass out, 3 baskets, 3 missed baskets. That's only 3 of 10 baskets. He is highly inefficient post player. And not to mention he has not face game or anything driving to the hoop.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Almost all of those players are simply using Chicago as a bargaining chip. I actually think the only guy who really wants to come to Chicago is Peja. Harrington said nice things about NY and just about everywhere else. Thats what you do as a FA. But what were these guys saying when they werent FAs? Thats why I like Peja with the Bulls. Peja has expressed interest in Chicago long before the end of his contract, and that shows sincerity. All of those other guys are just posturing.


I'm not saying all those players want to come to Chicago more than other teams. I do believe at least four of them will consider the Bulls -- I'm not sure about Ben Wallace.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yeah, we really reaped the benefit.
> 
> 47 wins and home court advantage down to 41 wins and the seven seed, and a fundamentally flawed roster (no above average big men).
> 
> Maybe Paxson can pick up the pieces using Cap Space and this lotto pick.


Don't forget the potential pick swap. One step backwards, two steps forwards?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

I just don't understand how Peja fits in here. It's nice that he and Skiles are totally BFF and he likes Chicago, but we've already got two good 3's...


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> There is going to be alot of pressure on whoever the pick is this year to be as good as Eddy Curry.


That's pretty low expectations for a top pick. 13.6 ppg and 6.0 with no defensive presence? Oh how are the Bulls going to find that? I'd rather have Zaza Pachulia, David West, Udonis Haslem, Juwon Howard at much lower prices than Curry. Even Nocioni at his low price and undrafted status had 13ppg and 6.1 rpg. If that is the only pressure the new draft pick has, then he should just pack in right now.

I would put pressure on him to be a complete well rounded NBA player who doesn't rely on potential to skate by in the NBA. To a piece on a winning team and not someone who needs to be force fed and helped by everyone on the team because of his shortcomings. 

Let's just put it this way.

#2 in 2006 draft >> Eddy Curry
$10M in cap space >> Eddy Curry
Swap Picks in 2007 draft >> Eddy Curry
Second Round Picks = Eddy Curry


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> That's pretty low expectations for a top pick. 13.6 ppg and 6.0 with no defensive presence? Oh how are the Bulls going to find that? I'd rather have Zaza Pachulia, David West, Udonis Haslem, Juwon Howard at much lower prices than Curry. Even Nocioni at high low price and undrafted status had 13ppg and 6.1 rpg. If that is the only pressure the new draft pick has, then he should just pack in right now.
> 
> I would put pressure on him to be a complete well rounded NBA player who doesn't rely on potential to skate by in the NBA. To a piece on a winning team and not someone who needs to be force fed and helped by everyone on the team because of his shortcomings.
> 
> ...


I think you're seriously undervaluing Curry. He obviously didn't have a great year, but 13 and 6 isn't horrendous and that being thrust into the situation in New York after the off-season heart stuff didn't help matters.

I think it's totally within the realm of possibility that the guy we get with the second pick ends up being as good as Curry, but I don't think it's a sure thing by any means. He'll certainly be cheaper and enable us to make more a splash in free agency this off-season. Or a ripple, depending on what you think of this year's FA class...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> That's pretty low expectations for a top pick. 13.6 ppg and 6.0 with no defensive presence? Oh how are the Bulls going to find that? I'd rather have Zaza Pachulia, David West, Udonis Haslem, Juwon Howard at much lower prices than Curry. Even Nocioni at high low price and undrafted status had 13ppg and 6.1 rpg. If that is the only pressure the new draft pick has, then he should just pack in right now.
> 
> I would put pressure on him to be a complete well rounded NBA player who doesn't rely on potential to skate by in the NBA. To a piece on a winning team and not someone who needs to be force fed and helped by everyone on the team because of his shortcomings.
> 
> ...


Your last equation is a bit much. You expect 13.6/6 and a high fg % from a second round pick
? I don't.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> That's pretty low expectations for a top pick. 13.6 ppg and 6.0 with no defensive presence? Oh how are the Bulls going to find that? I'd rather have Zaza Pachulia, David West, Udonis Haslem, Juwon Howard at much lower prices than Curry. Even Nocioni at his low price and undrafted status had 13ppg and 6.1 rpg. If that is the only pressure the new draft pick has, then he should just pack in right now.
> 
> I would put pressure on him to be a complete well rounded NBA player who doesn't rely on potential to skate by in the NBA. To a piece on a winning team and not someone who needs to be force fed and helped by everyone on the team because of his shortcomings.
> 
> ...


You dont know that. You simply dont. And your basing this on last years production. You have to go back two years to find Currys value. Stats dont mean a thing because Currys inside presence helped the Bulls in a big way 2 years ago. Now, is it a sure thing that the second pick in the draft is going to average 16.1 ppg on 54% shooting and 5.3 bds per game in only 28 minutes a night for a 47 win team? I dont think its a sure thing. Heck, Currys biggest critics even dont acknowledge its a sure thing. The second pick could be Benoit Benjamin for all we know. As Patch has said rather intelligently and what I agreed with is the gem is next years pick. But to assume its a slam dunk that the #2 pick in the draft is going to be better then Eddy Curry with a summer of working hard, and oh by the way working hard is not exclusive to Chicago, is a bit of a stretch right now. Maybe be in the third season, but right away, very unlikely.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Right because the ONLY reason the Bulls didn't win 47 this year was Eddy Curry. You are talking about 6 wins.
> -We lost at least 6 games because of random luck. We could have won 47 this year if a few more breaks went our way.
> -Meanwhile, the East is much stronger with the likes of Cleveland and Milwaukee etc. getting better which means less wins for us.
> -And teams were not suprised by us this year like they were the year before.
> ...


The Bulls only got to 41 because of a late season surge. If I recall, Scott Skiles first comment out of his mouth was that those games are meaningless. So the Bulls probably lucked into 41 last year. But what really changed? Curry left, Noc got better. Gordon and Deng improved mildly and no Antonio Davis. Looks like Curry had an impact now doesnt it? The only thing that matters is the W/L column and to a lesser degree the style of play. If the Bulls dont better 47 wins, then that means they are not getting better, and that means the trade is a step back or atbest, not keeping up with the rest of the league in terms of getting better. Thats just the simple fact. Currys game meshed well with both Kirk and Gordon, got them more looks and made the offense alot more efficient. He gave them an offensive presence around the basket and took pressure off of Chandler. Thats impact. So he isnt a great rebounder or defender, I never said he was. But he was a positive part of the Bulls two years ago. Only real losers wouldnt atleast acknowledge that. And whoever the second pick of the NBA draft is is going to have not only have a presence and impact but also mesh well with the current crop. Its not a slam dunk thats the case. And everyone on this thread seems to agree with that.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> The Bulls only got to 41 because of a late season surge. If I recall, Scott Skiles first comment out of his mouth was that those games are meaningless. So the Bulls probably lucked into 41 last year. But what really changed? Curry left, Noc got better. Gordon and Deng improved mildly and no Antonio Davis. Looks like Curry had an impact now doesnt it? The only thing that matters is the W/L column and to a lesser degree the style of play. If the Bulls dont better 47 wins, then that means they are not getting better, and that means the trade is a step back or atbest, not keeping up with the rest of the league in terms of getting better. Thats just the simple fact. Currys game meshed well with both Kirk and Gordon, got them more looks and made the offense alot more efficient. He gave them an offensive presence around the basket and took pressure off of Chandler. Thats impact. So he isnt a great rebounder or defender, I never said he was. But he was a positive part of the Bulls two years ago. Only real losers wouldnt atleast acknowledge that. And whoever the second pick of the NBA draft is is going to have not only have a presence and impact but also mesh well with the current crop. Its not a slam dunk thats the case. And everyone on this thread seems to agree with that.


The contention that the Bulls "lucked into 41 wins" just isn't fair. They won 41 games. Period. They also only got to 47 the previous year because of a strong finish. I'm fine with comparing 47 to 41. But trying to further discredit the 41 by suggesting it was somehow lucky or not legit is stretching it, IMO...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

jbulls said:


> The contention that the Bulls "lucked into 41 wins" just isn't fair. They won 41 games. Period. They also only got to 47 the previous year because of a strong finish. I'm fine with comparing 47 to 41. But trying to further discredit the 41 by suggesting it was somehow lucky or not legit is stretching it, IMO...


No, the Bulls won 30 games the year before Pax and Skiles. They finished 6-4 to get there. Literally Skiles first comment was that those last 10 games dont matter. He said the end of the season was meaningless. So the Bulls went 7-3 or whatever (truthfully I cant recall) the last 10 to get to 41. So I guess Skiles would agree with me that 41 was a bit lucky this year. Regardless, I measure progress on 47. As a stock trader, thats the high on this bull market. So we need to break that number to continue the progress. I think it could happen this year but my guess is that FA will play a bigger part then the #2 pick.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> No, the Bulls won 30 games the year before Pax and Skiles. They finished 6-4 to get there. Literally Skiles first comment was that those last 10 games dont matter. He said the end of the season was meaningless. So the Bulls went 7-3 or whatever (truthfully I cant recall) the last 10 to get to 41. So I guess Skiles would agree with me that 41 was a bit lucky this year. Regardless, I measure progress on 47. As a stock trader, thats the high on this bull market. So we need to break that number to continue the progress. I think it could happen this year but my guess is that FA will play a bigger part then the #2 pick.


I think that Skiles was saying that the end of a season doesn't mean anything IF the team isn't in contention to make the playoffs.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> No, the Bulls won 30 games the year before Pax and Skiles. They finished 6-4 to get there. Literally Skiles first comment was that those last 10 games dont matter. He said the end of the season was meaningless. So the Bulls went 7-3 or whatever (truthfully I cant recall) the last 10 to get to 41. So I guess Skiles would agree with me that 41 was a bit lucky this year. Regardless, I measure progress on 47. As a stock trader, thats the high on this bull market. So we need to break that number to continue the progress. I think it could happen this year but my guess is that FA will play a bigger part then the #2 pick.


Apples and oranges. The end of the season doesn't matter when you're not battling for the playoffs. It matters a ton when you are. And let it not be forgotten that the Bulls finished strong to get to 47 wins.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point - that for the Curry deal to be considered a success we need to be a 50 win team in two years time. But I don't think last year's 41 was lucky.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> I dont think its a slam dunk that this pick is better then Curry. Lets remember Curry is the youngest player in NBA history to lead the league in FG% and was a mid double digit scorer in rather limited minutes while also one of the handful of players in the league who demanded a double team. He also fit in perfectly with the guys Pax and Skiles have brought in. Can we honestly say Aldridge, Thomas and or Bargnani would fit in as well? I just cant. Tyrus Thomas and LaMarcus Aldridges are both, while super prospects, not sure things. Bargnani same thing. Ultimately, IMO, the gem is the ability to swap next years pick. Thats what I think the gem in the deal is. This helps out alot, but I dont think this alone is going to make up for what we lost. Again, Aldridge, Thomas, Bargnani might all be better players then Eddy Curry, but the trick is, are they good enough to get us over 47 wins next year?


No defense, No rebounding, No B-Ball IQ, No heart

Curry's good for one thing and one thing only. If he was half as good as this post makes him out to be, NY wouldn't be the #2 worst team in the NBA.

I'm GLAD we got rid of him, his mama, his agents and his ego.

I'll put MONEY on it, that whomever we draft at #2 will be BETTER than Eddy Curry. He's one of the most dissapointing top 5 picks EVER.

Throw that POTENTIAL tag out of the door. He can score, and that's it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I think that Skiles was saying that the end of a season doesn't mean anything IF the team isn't in contention to make the playoffs.



Thats not what Skiles said but if he was ever presented with the question I am sure he would spin it that way. But thats not what he said. Meaningless was the word I remember. And if I recall, that Bulls team 3 years ago beat alot of teams looking to get into the playoffs over the last 10


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you need to look at this year's draft, next year's draft, and the offseason FA moves before deciding if it's a good or bad move. Every single one of those are greatly impacted by the trade, and will have a big impact on on the success of this team in the coming years. Big picture people, not just last year, and the next year or 2. If we get a superstar in either one of the next 2 drafts with the NY picks, we might not realize it for up to 5 years (the full potential). I'm sorry, but I'm 27, and I would rather have us build a team that will be competitive and hopefully turn into a dynasty (like the one we had when I was in grade school and high school) rather than just look at the next year or 2 to pass judgement on. I most likely have a good 50 years worth of Bulls basketball yet to watch, so the next 2 years isn't much overall. We already knew Curry was a really good player, but not a superstar. You all remember the 72 win team? Going for 50 isn't much. Maybe, just Maybe, we'll be able to get some guys that can get us back to the 60s at least (72 isn't real realistic lol)


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you need to look at this year's draft, next year's draft, and the offseason FA moves before deciding if it's a good or bad move. Every single one of those are greatly impacted by the trade, and will have a big impact on on the success of this team in the coming years. Big picture people, not just last year, and the next year or 2. If we get a superstar in either one of the next 2 drafts with the NY picks, we might not realize it for up to 5 years (the full potential). I'm sorry, but I'm 27, and I would rather have us build a team that will be competitive and hopefully turn into a dynasty (like the one we had when I was in grade school and high school) rather than just look at the next year or 2 to pass judgement on. I most likely have a good 50 years worth of Bulls basketball yet to watch, so the next 2 years isn't much overall. We already knew Curry was a really good player, but not a superstar. You all remember the 72 win team? Going for 50 isn't much. Maybe, just Maybe, we'll be able to get some guys that can get us back to the 60s at least (72 isn't real realistic lol)


Understood. But 50 is a good goal. Very few teams go from 41 to 60 but then again very few teams go from 24 to 47. It can be done. Ultimately I still think the Bulls lack the true superstar that the best teams all seem to have. And all of this talk about Detroit not having a true superstar is hooey. Rasheed Wallace on most days looks like one to me


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yeah, we really reaped the benefit.
> 
> 47 wins and home court advantage down to 41 wins and the seven seed, and a fundamentally flawed roster (no above average big men).
> 
> Maybe Paxson can pick up the pieces using Cap Space and this lotto pick.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> And now, they have the No. 2 pick. Even though the draft may be short of stars, Paxson expects to find a big body who can develop with the rest of the Baby Bulls. At the top of his list are Tyrus Thomas and LaMarcus Aldridge. Or he can move the pick for an experienced big, such as Samuel Dalembert or Jamaal Magloire.


LMAO worst part about the article

but to realize that NY helped Toronto, Spurs, Bulls & the suns is hilarious


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I did a google news search for "Eddy Curry" trade, just to make sure the first article wasn't unfairly skewed. I found virtually no support of Zeke, and almost exclusively positive interpretation in favor of the Bulls. Nobody's calling it a home run -- how can they until we know what 2007 brings? But the general consensus seems to be that people calling the Bulls' trade of Eddy Curry a mistake few and far between. There is no LeBron type player in this draft. But we didn't give up a LeBron type player. And there may be LeBron type players available with the Knicks pick in 2007.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/421511p-355860c.html



> You can put whatever spin you want to on the Eddy Curry deal, and God knows, Isiah has tried.
> 
> But if Curry truly is one of the great talents to come along in 20 years, as Thomas says, how come the Bulls gave up on him?
> 
> ...


http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/opinions/columnists/knapp/2_2_AU25_KNAPP_S1.htm



> The NBA draft lottery has come and gone, so now what do the Bulls do?
> 
> The Eddy Curry trade to the New York Knicks seems to be the gift that's going to keep on giving. Curry went to the Knicks and pretty much gave them the same thing he did here — close to nothing.
> 
> As for the Bulls? Well, Tim Thomas' albatross contract comes off the books to the tune of $14 million, and Tuesday in beautiful Secaucus, N.J., the Bulls took New York's lottery pick off its hands and now hold the second pick behind Toronto in the June 28 draft — as well as their own pick at No. 16.


http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/9457162



> That will leave Thomas to Chicago, who is desperately craving a rebounder and shot blocker. The Bulls really covet Aldridge and would love for him to fall into their lap, but some feel the fast-rising LSU product might actually be the better prospect.
> 
> Me? I'm an Aldridge man, although there's no question Thomas would be a great addition for Chicago, giving them some defensive backbone. In essence, Chicago will add a quality big man worthy of the top selection in exchange for Eddy Curry, so given the drama that surrounded Curry's heart condition and his subsequent trade to New York, the Bulls have to be encouraged by this development.




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/sports/basketball/24draft.html



> The reward for the worst Knicks season in 20 years was officially claimed Tuesday by the Chicago Bulls — in the form of the second overall pick in the June draft.
> 
> The Knicks, who endured a painful 23-victory season, will continue to place their faith in Curry and pray that he justifies the deal. But if the June 28 draft is viewed as a referendum on the Curry trade, Paxson will not engage the debate.
> 
> "It's not important," Paxson said. "Anyone who wants to get caught up in who's going to ultimately win this deal, for me it's not about that."





> Curry had a shaky first season with the Knicks. Slowed by injuries and poor conditioning, he averaged 13.6 points and 6 rebounds in 25.9 minutes a game. In the final weeks, Coach Larry Brown often benched Curry in the fourth quarter in favor of the undrafted Jackie Butler. A solid scorer, Curry has been criticized for his lack of hustle and his defense.





> The Knicks have been criticized for not placing conditions on, or "protecting," the first-round pick in case it ended up high in the draft. Teams rarely trade first-round picks without some sort of lottery protection.
> 
> But Paxson confirmed what the Knicks had been quietly saying — that the Bulls would not accept any conditions. "It would have been a deal breaker," Paxson said.
> 
> ...


http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060528/SPORTS19/105280033/1155/SPORTS



> The Eddy Curry trade could end up being the luckiest day in Chicago Bulls history. Yes, that even includes Portland passing on Michael Jordan to take Sam Bowie. After all, the Bulls still could have taken Charles Barkley (No. 5 that year) or John Stockton (No. 16).
> 
> 
> Here’s why the Bulls are lucky:
> ...


http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5637210



> In hindsight, maybe it wasn't such a terrible day for the Bulls. The draft is June 28, and Chicago landed the No. 2 pick in Tuesday's lottery thanks to that deal, although Paxson didn't take any bows.
> 
> "The New York papers were all over asking if I felt vindicated," he said Wednesday. "It's not anything about that. Last year was a very hard summer. We had tried to work something out (with Curry). It was a difficult time. It got to a point where I kind of felt like nothing was going to get resolved. There was one team out there that was willing to do a deal and I basically said this is how it's going to be done."
> 
> ...


http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=182004&src=0



> Bulls GM John Paxson took the high road during Tuesday's lottery show when quizzed by ESPN's Dan Patrick on the fleecing of the Knicks on the Eddy Curry trade.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/66480.htm



> For one night, Knick president Isiah Thomas wished he was hanging out in Secaucus.
> Bull president John Paxson stole Thomas' spot on the dais at the NBA Lottery last night - the proud owner of the Knicks' lottery pick. Although Paxson did not win last night's lottery (Toronto did), the Bulls' chief sure sounded that way.
> 
> Paxson, whose Bulls made the playoffs, crashed the nationally televised lottery draw by virtue of the Eddy Curry trade with the Knicks. Seeded second, the Bulls stayed put, earning the second pick of June 28's draft, getting a crack at Larry Brown favorite, forward Tyrus Thomas, center LaMarcus Aldridge or Adam Morrison.
> ...


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/bulls/2006-05-23-bulls-lottery_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA




> The Chicago Bulls were the biggest winners in the NBA draft lottery Tuesday night, coming away with the second pick, thanks to the New York Knicks.
> The Bulls made the Eastern Conference playoffs at 41-41 but were in the lottery because of a sign-and-trade deal that sent center Eddy Curry to New York.
> 
> "It's a nice position to be in," Bulls general manager John Paxson said. "But there's pressure with it, because you have to use it in the right way."
> ...


http://www.nwherald.com/SportsSection/292885925026365.php



> John Paxson's lottery ticket provided a valuable prize.
> 
> 
> The Bulls (41-41) struck a bonanza, getting rid of an unhappy player – Eddy Curry – making the playoffs in the process and getting the No. 2 pick overall at the NBA Draft lottery. The Toronto Raptors won the No. 1 pick.
> ...



http://www.sgvtribune.com/sports/ci_3857804



> he Chicago Bulls added to the Knicks' season of misery by getting the second pick for the June 28 draft in New York.
> 
> The Knicks traded their first-round pick to the Bulls in a preseason trade for center Eddy Curry. Chicago (41-41) obviously got the best of the deal, getting rid of an unhappy player, making the playoffs in the process and getting the No. 2 pick, which New York had earned with a 23-59 record in Larry Brown's first season.


http://www.nwherald.com/SportsSection/hut/292885921661047.php



> Pax can't go wrong in draft
> 
> Second place is never as good as first, except perhaps in this case.
> 
> ...





Nope. Support for the "The Bulls won a couple fewer regular season games so they shouldn't have traded Eddy Curry" argument is pretty scarce in the ol' google news search these days...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

jbulls said:


> My argument is that a top 10 NBA player is a superstar, and that a guy who's never gotten 20 or 10 in a season can't be top 10. Superstars put up huge numbers on winning teams. Very good players put up very good numbers on winning teams or huge numbers on okay teams. Rasheed Wallace puts up very good numbers on winning teams.
> 
> Wallace has made 3 All-Star appearances over an 11 year NBA career. Superstars make the All Star team year in and year out. Wallace makes it every 3 seasons.


Our definition of superstar differs then. I think he probably got blackballed due to all the techs etc. And he plays both ends of the court. I mean, I dont believe Magic Johnson averaged 20ppg for his career, or Jason Kidd, so I think stats are overrated. Wallace has a huge impact on the game, and considering he has been the best player for several good teams qualifies him in my mind. There are not 6-8 players I would rather have taking that last shot as well. His stats would have been enormous had he had a chance to stand alone. But that doesnt seem to matter to him


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

rlucas4257 said:


> Again mate, look at the teams he has played on. Always on a winner and always the best player, arguably, on those teams is outstanding. That Portland team was stacked. This Detroit team was stacked. What would he be doing if he was still on Atlanta? His numbers would be huge. But i am not a numbers man myself. He is one of the best defensive players in the league, his teams always win, he is always the best player on those teams and he can get you tough points and is a matchup nightmate. IMO he is a superstar. 20-10 isnt the definition of superstar if you ask me. Purvis Short wasnt a superstar to me but he would get huge numbers during his time. Just my opinion


I have to admit I'm a bit biased for Rasheed, been a fan of his since his college days at North Carolina, but as far as I'm concerned he's always had a heck of an all around game. He might not have had the huge stats, but if I remember right, he was what got Detroit their first championship...that extra edge. He's had huge shots, and at near 7' that can shoot 3s, is a great defender, and can block shots, that's pretty nice to have on your team. He is what I was hoping Chandler would become, but he doesn't have the shooting ability Rasheed does. Tyson is more of a shot blocker and rebounder though. Bargnani is supposed to be a good shot blocker, so maybe he could be a cross between Rasheed and Dirk as far as general abilities.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> The second pick could be Benoit Benjamin for all we know.


Benjamin was better than Eddy. He put up 13 points, 8 boards, 3.4 blocks, and 2.6 assists as a 23 year old. Eddy might be able to surpass him at some point, especially when you consider the big dropoff Benjamin had at age 28. But he has a long way to go to be as good as Benjamin was from ages 23-27. He has to improve as a rebounder, become a functional passer, become a very strong shot blocker, and manage to stay on the floor for legit starter's minutes. 

I think that you and other people overstae Eddy's impact. Yes, the team won 6 fewer games, but when you consider how bad the team was at the 4 and 5 positions, that was almost miraculous. Basically Eddy, AD, and 04-05 Tyson were lost and not replaced. Hell, even Othella seemed to have used up what little juice he had left in 04-05, so he was lost as well. There probably wasn't a team in the league worse at the big man spots than the Bulls were. Is Eddy better than Malik Allen, Michael Sweetney, Luke Shensherr, Darius Songaila, and the 05-06 Tyson Chandler? You bet. I just don't see how that says a great deal about how good Eddy is. I'd say 95% of the starting bigs and most of the first bigs off the bench league wide are are better.

I think the fact that the team managed to be .500, and compete well with the majority of the league's playoff teams is indicative moreso of how good the perimeter players are, and of how good a job Skiles has done.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Benjamin was better than Eddy. He put up 13 points, 8 boards, 3.4 blocks, and 2.6 assists as a 23 year old. Eddy might be able to surpass him at some point, especially when you consider the big dropoff Benjamin had at age 28. But he has a long way to go to be as good as Benjamin was from ages 23-27. He has to improve as a rebounder, become a functional passer, become a very strong shot blocker, and manage to stay on the floor for legit starter's minutes.
> 
> I think that you and other people overstae Eddy's impact. Yes, the team won 6 fewer games, but when you consider how bad the team was at the 4 and 5 positions, that was almost miraculous. Basically Eddy, AD, and 04-05 Tyson were lost and not replaced. Hell, even Othella seemed to have used up what little juice he had left in 04-05, so he was lost as well. There probably wasn't a team in the league worse at the big man spots than the Bulls were. Is Eddy better than Malik Allen, Michael Sweetney, Luke Shensherr, Darius Songaila, and the 05-06 Tyson Chandler? You bet. I just don't see how that says a great deal about how good Eddy is. I'd say 95% of the starting bigs and most of the first bigs off the bench league wide are are better.
> 
> I think the fact that the team managed to be .500, and compete well with the majority of the league's playoff teams is indicative moreso of how good the perimeter players are, and of how good a job Skiles has done.



Benjamin didnt do it for a team that won 47 games. Again, stats dont tell the whole story. But the Bulls missed his inside offense in a big way. The Bulls probably were dead last in the league in dunks and high % shots. Thats Curry. He wast a good rebounder or defender, but he wasnt as bad as most people say he was either. Basically Curry made Tysons life easier. So there is an impact. Take off Curry and AD, add in some of the improvement in Hinrich, Noc, Deng, Gordon and the addition of Songailia and it was a minus 6. Curry was worth that much to the Bulls, maybe more. I think the pick could have great stats but all that matters is the Bulls progress. If the Bulls dont crack 47 wins within 2 years then i dont think this trade helped the club at all.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

rlucas4257 said:


> Benjamin didnt do it for a team that won 47 games. Again, stats dont tell the whole story. But the Bulls missed his inside offense in a big way. The Bulls probably were dead last in the league in dunks and high % shots. Thats Curry. He wast a good rebounder or defender, but he wasnt as bad as most people say he was either. Basically Curry made Tysons life easier. So there is an impact. Take off Curry and AD, add in some of the improvement in Hinrich, Noc, Deng, Gordon and the addition of Songailia and it was a minus 6. Curry was worth that much to the Bulls, maybe more. I think the pick could have great stats but all that matters is the Bulls progress. If the Bulls dont crack 47 wins within 2 years then i dont think this trade helped the club at all.


It takes 3 years for players to reach their potential generally. So you expect a rookie, and a 2nd year player, which is what we'll the guys we get from the Eddy trade will be by then, to make the difference in 2 years? Neither one will have reached their potential by then. Just my opinion, but I think most people would agree that 2 years is too soon to judge the trade, it'll have much longer effects that can't be seen or judged in 2 years.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

We didn't only lose Eddy, but lost Antonio Davis. That was our best post defender. He was a bull (npi) underneath the hoop and in the paint. I reckon we would have "lost" him anyways though, to old age. 

Eddy Curry was a good player, but I think he would be the 4th or 5th most important player on the team today, behind Hinrich, Gordon and Nocioni for sure. Right on par with Luol Deng at this point. 

So if you took the 4th most important player on a 47 win team and told me I could trade him for the 2nd pick in one draft, a another probable top 10 pick (or better) in a stacked draft, plus the cap space to make big moves in free agency in 2006, I would do it every single time.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> It takes 3 years for players to reach their potential generally. So you expect a rookie, and a 2nd year player, which is what we'll the guys we get from the Eddy trade will be by then, to make the difference in 2 years? Neither one will have reached their potential by then. Just my opinion, but I think most people would agree that 2 years is too soon to judge the trade, it'll have much longer effects that can't be seen or judged in 2 years.


Ok, so 4 years. But I would hope we would get something more immediate than that because those players will then be looking at contracts by that point.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> We didn't only lose Eddy, but lost Antonio Davis. That was our best post defender. He was a bull (npi) underneath the hoop and in the paint. I reckon we would have "lost" him anyways though, to old age.
> 
> Eddy Curry was a good player, but I think he would be the 4th or 5th most important player on the team today, behind Hinrich, Gordon and Nocioni for sure. Right on par with Luol Deng at this point.
> 
> So if you took the 4th most important player on a 47 win team and told me I could trade him for the 2nd pick in one draft, a another probable top 10 pick (or better) in a stacked draft, plus the cap space to make big moves in free agency in 2006, I would do it every single time.



Your right, assuming we draft the right guys. Like I said, it looks like we have 3 guys we are targeting at 2. I think of those 3 guys, one could be a star, one could be marginal and one will be a bust. If we screw that up, we have the gem of swapping the pick next year. But I am going to assume that NY is going to be alot better next year so I am not just assuming its Greg Oden, like alot of people are. But damn, if it were, that would be great. He really looks like David Robinson to me. But to just assume he is ours, is crazy. I dont think there is a FA in this class that is as good as Eddy Curry personally. I like Nenes potential but outside of him, I dont see where we are going to get a player as good as Curry in FA. But a couple of pieces could be had.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

smARTmouf said:


> LMFAO if NY sucks next year.


lol Oden to Bulls!


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

FWIW, I think sheed is a stud. Carry on.



> The Knicks included second-round picks in 2007 and 2009, and forwards Tim Thomas, Michael Sweetney and Jermaine Jackson. Chicago also got the right to flip-flop first-rounders next year if it finishes with a better record than New York.


Wait....we get their second round pick next year too?

:laugh:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> Your right, assuming we draft the right guys. Like I said, it looks like we have 3 guys we are targeting at 2. I think of those 3 guys, one could be a star, one could be marginal and one will be a bust. If we screw that up, we have the gem of swapping the pick next year. But I am going to assume that NY is going to be alot better next year so I am not just assuming its Greg Oden, like alot of people are. But damn, if it were, that would be great. He really looks like David Robinson to me. But to just assume he is ours, is crazy. I dont think there is a FA in this class that is as good as Eddy Curry personally. I like Nenes potential but outside of him, I dont see where we are going to get a player as good as Curry in FA. But a couple of pieces could be had.


We're going to either have to assume, or wait to see how it pans out, because as of right now, none of the picks or the cap space have materialized. That will happen this summer. 

So to assume, let's say the 2nd pick is LeMarcus Aldridge. Let's say in free agency we land Joel Pryzbilla and Vladimir Radmanovic. Let's say we land Brandan Wright in next years draft (projected 5th right now). 

That makes the bottom line this: 
Eddy Curry 

for 

LeMarcus Aldridge
Brandan Wright
Joel Pryzbilla
Vladimir Radmanovic

I'd do that every day of the week, and I don't think I'm being unrealistic with the picks and the free agents. I do agree that it will be all about results though. Hell, if it was up to me, I'd probably package some of our assets (both picks, Duhon, Deng, etc) to get Kevin Garnett. 

Since assuming is going to get us nowhere considering the wide range of possibilities, we're probably just going to have to wait for our end of the Eddy Curry trade to materialize. As it is, we lost Eddy Curry from our team, and only won 6 less games. I say that because most everything New York traded us in return for Curry hasn't materialized yet. Picks and cap space. 

So we're counting on 20 million in cap space, a 2nd pick in a fairly weak draft, a probably top 10 pick in a stacked draft to put us over the 50 win hump. I don't think that's too unreasonable to expect. 

We'll just have to wait to see how these great assets materialize. It could end up with a bust in this years draft, a mid-first round pick in next years draft and a bunch of marginal impact players in free agency. Or it could turn out to be a superstar in Andrea Bargnani, a future hall of famer (imo) in Greg Oden, and a couple good pieces in free agency. We just don't know yet. Like I said, there is such a wide range of possibilities. We're only touching the surface of our end of the deal, so it's hard to say anything for sure.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> We're going to either have to assume, or wait to see how it pans out, because as of right now, none of the picks or the cap space have materialized. That will happen this summer.
> 
> So to assume, let's say the 2nd pick is LeMarcus Aldridge. Let's say in free agency we land Joel Pryzbilla and Vladimir Radmanovic. Let's say we land Brandan Wright in next years draft (projected 5th right now).
> 
> ...



I'd do that every day of the week too.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> We're going to either have to assume, or wait to see how it pans out, because as of right now, none of the picks or the cap space have materialized. That will happen this summer.
> 
> So to assume, let's say the 2nd pick is LeMarcus Aldridge. Let's say in free agency we land Joel Pryzbilla and Vladimir Radmanovic. Let's say we land Brandan Wright in next years draft (projected 5th right now).
> 
> ...



I actually think Joel P will make us yearn for the Curry days. He is overrated. But let me pose this, if it were Brandon Wright for Curry straight up, I would definetely consider it. Next years class is the gem of the trade. But I warn everyone to expect NY to be much better next year and be pleasantly surprised if the continue to be bad. I think alot of it might hedge on next years draft. I am not convinced any of the 3 guys at #2 are going to be better. But if I were betting, I would say bargnani has the best chance. But how that guys fits into the makeup of the team is just as important. And Curry did fit in pretty well.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I gotta say it's funny that a thread about dealing with Isiah has turned into the Rasheed is or isn't a superstar thread. My thoughts, rating players from 1-100, Jordan being 100, Rasheed is a 90-94. Superstars are 95+. Rasheed is on the verge, and if he didn't get Ts and stuff, he'd be rated higher. In Portland he was the man, and he was awesome. He is what got Detroit over the top to start winning championships. Someone was complaining about him not being a post player...that's what makes him special. If he's on the 3 point line, so is the 6'10" -7' guy guarding him. How many 7' guys can guard him on the 3 point line??? Not very many. He's definitely one of Detroit's best players, and is underrated in my opinion. 

Back to Curry, I see some posters have started saying what I've said, that you gotta wait a few years till we get all of our picks from NY in it (including the 2nd rounder next year that I forgot and the one in '09). I think the main thing is if we can get a rounded player, instead of just a post presence that can score like Curry....one with blocking and rebounding as well. Bargnani this year and Oden next year, along with any key FA pickups would be a dream situation of course.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Your last equation is a bit much. You expect 13.6/6 and a high fg % from a second round pick
> ? I don't.


True. You got me there.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Last year's off-season gripe: We're going to be "Grizzlies East", mired in mediocrity. We've got to do something!


Last season's off-season gripe was a trade liquidating our leading scorer from our only winning team since MJ into draft picks and also-rans, using a minority medical opinion as the reasoning, which dropped us down to the 7th best team in the East from the 3 rd.






> This year's off-season gripe: We should've stood pat. Give us back Grizzlies East!


I have no gripe with this off season.

I just think its funny that a clear regression is considered unquestionably beneficial. We’re reaping the benefits from a trade that made us a poorer basketball team. Perhaps we can get back up to #3 in the East. I hope we can. 

I hope Paxson can turn this pick (and perhaps the pick swap, although we have to wait yet another year) into a player better than Curry. 

Early indications seem to be that this was the wrong off-season to choose to have Cap Space and the wrong draft to have a high pick in. I hope that neither are true.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> We're going to either have to assume, or wait to see how it pans out, because as of right now, none of the picks or the cap space have materialized. That will happen this summer.
> 
> So to assume, let's say the 2nd pick is LeMarcus Aldridge. Let's say in free agency we land Joel Pryzbilla and Vladimir Radmanovic. Let's say we land Brandan Wright in next years draft (projected 5th right now).
> 
> ...


This is a very fair assessment. The rush to judgment shown by D'Allesandro and many posters is simply hilarious.

As for Dave's article, I'm really perplexed by his claim that Skiles couldn't stand Curry. If that were the case, why did Skiles play Curry as many minutes as the fat man's stamina and foul situation permitted?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Right because the ONLY reason the Bulls didn't win 47 this year was Eddy Curry. You are talking about 6 wins.
> -We lost at least 6 games because of random luck. We could have won 47 this year if a few more breaks went our way.
> -Meanwhile, the East is much stronger with the likes of Cleveland and Milwaukee etc. getting better which means less wins for us.
> -And teams were not suprised by us this year like they were the year before.
> ...


We might have won considerably more than 47 games with a healthy curry and deng down the stretch. 

It was a real stretch to get to 41 wins with a healthy Deng.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> But how that guys fits into the makeup of the team is just as important. And Curry did fit in pretty well.


NO D
NO Boards
NO B-BALL IQ
FOUL PRONE
Couldn't stay in the game in the 4th when it matter
NO HEART
Couldn't stay in shape

I'm not understanding HOW he fit in well?! Kid is a bust in every sense of the word.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We might have won considerably more than 47 games with a healthy curry and deng down the stretch.


I don't know about that. We finished the season 9-4 after Curry went down with his heart problem. That's still a good winning percentage. IMO, we missed those two guys more in the series against the Wizards than we did towards the end of the regular season.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Paxson screwed the pooch in this deal 

Jermaine Jackson is going to blow up next season 

Like Larry Hughes did when he could have been ours ( but hey we got a few years of Jamal love in )

Like Bruce Bowen did 

Like John Star...forget it


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The ROY said:


> NO D
> NO Boards
> NO B-BALL IQ
> FOUL PRONE
> ...


An on topic comment! 

I agree that the Curry trade is at this point a slam dunk for the Bulls. The focus of some on this board on the 13 points per game he scored is laughable, particularly in light of the 2 turnovers per game it cost. If Curry were such an offensive weapon, why was he usually absent in the 4th quarter when the Knicks were usually trying to come back? 

Anyway, I think a center has more important things to do than score, and, as you note, Currying is simply not doing them.

So why didn't the Bulls win at least 47 games? That's easy, the Bulls essentially only got Sweetney in return for both of the Bulls centers, AD and Curry. Sweetney was probably good enough to make up for the loss of Curry, but not good enough to replace AD, who was the core of the Bulls defense, a dependably rebounder and a decent offensive player in 2004-5.

Sweetney has been rightly criticised on this board, but next year I wouldn't be surprised if he had a better year than Curry overall. He's already a better defender, rebounder and passer. If he manages to avoid foul trouble and stay in games for 25 min or so, he'll match Curry in scoring as well. And he will cost a lot less, with little long-term salary risk. Curry has bad contract written all over him. If LB is the coach of the Knicks next year, Curry will be lucky to have more minutes than Butler. If a new coach is introduced who plays a Phoenix-like game style, poor passing and rebounding will also reduce Curry's playing time. In short, IMO Curry is more likely to be labeled a bust at the end of next year than Sweetney.

So IT has indeed given the Bulls a great gift with this trade, a gift that will keep on giving for several more years... Throw in a high pick this year, a chance at a high pick next year, and a couple of good second round draft picks and we have a slam dunk. Those who require wins to justifiy the trade will find themselves having little to complain about next year.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

When diagnosing the Bulls downward slide this season, one also has to look at the disappearance of our 60 million dollar man Tyson Chandler as well.

He was one of our best 3 players during our winning season... last season he was next to awful most of the time, even with the nice rebound rate.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> When diagnosing the Bulls downward slide this season, one also has to look at the disappearance of our 60 million dollar man Tyson Chandler as well.
> 
> He was one of our best 3 players during our winning season... last season he was next to awful most of the time, even with the nice rebound rate.


I think that is clearly true, and for all the talk about regression, that has to be considered one of the key reasons. Accordingly, even if Eddy was brought back, if Tyson still had half a season of severe suckatude, we would have still experienced regression this past season.

Would it have been 6 games of slippage? Or 3? Or 12?

We'll never know. But I think it is clear to all that Tyson's regression is tied to the Bulls' regression, and we need Ty to follow through with his offseason promises -- big time.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So we're counting on 20 million in cap space, a 2nd pick in a fairly weak draft, a probably top 10 pick in a stacked draft to put us over the 50 win hump. I don't think that's too unreasonable to expect.


One point to remember is that we already had most of that cap space - the Curry deal only netted an additional $5M or so. Thus, it'd be unfair to add (for example) both Przybilla and Radmanovic to the trade leger.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

McBulls said:


> An on topic comment!
> 
> I agree that the Curry trade is at this point a slam dunk for the Bulls. The focus of some on this board on the 13 points per game he scored is laughable, particularly in light of the 2 turnovers per game it cost. If Curry were such an offensive weapon, why was he usually absent in the 4th quarter when the Knicks were usually trying to come back?
> 
> ...


Were you watching the same Michael (Pillsbury Doughboy) Sweetney that I was watching? I saw an overweight guy who played below the rim who had difficulty getting from one end of the court to the other. Sweetney has some modest big man skills but on the whole I did not see anything that encouraged me for next season. In a nutshell- too short, too slow, too fat.

Although Curry has his shortcomings I think he actually improved last year notwithstanding the Knicks' implosion. He was in good physical shape and rebounded quite well compared to previous years. He also is learning how to pass out of the double team. If the Bulls get lucky with this and next year's picks I would say that perhaps the trade worked out. However, based on this one year alone the Bulls got hosed.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

charlietyra said:


> Were you watching the same Michael (Pillsbury Doughboy) Sweetney that I was watching? I saw an overweight guy who played below the rim who had difficulty getting from one end of the court to the other. Sweetney has some modest big man skills but on the whole I did not see anything that encouraged me for next season. In a nutshell- too short, too slow, too fat.
> 
> Although Curry has his shortcomings I think he actually improved last year notwithstanding the Knicks' implosion. He was in good physical shape and rebounded quite well compared to previous years. He also is learning how to pass out of the double team. If the Bulls get lucky with this and next year's picks I would say that perhaps the trade worked out. However, based on this one year alone the Bulls got hosed.


That's just it, this year doesn't mean crap in regards to if the trade was good or not. This #2 draft pick, and next year's (if we get a higher one from NY) will determine if this was a good trade. BIG PICTURE PEOPLE. I think it's safe to say that the players we already got in the trade are wastes of space more or less. What we do with the picks is what will be the determining factor.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

charlietyra said:


> However, based on this one year alone the Bulls got hosed.


lmao..sure


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

fwiw - i split all the 'sheed superstar posts into a new thread.

way to pollute an already contentious discussion guys!

yeah!


:greatjob:


as far as the comments about skiles hating eddy, that seems like a bit of hyperbole to me. his public comments never seemed hateful. just frustrated.

eddy isn't exactly the self-starter in the motivation department that guys like ben, kirk and nocioni are (to name three current bulls). does that mean he's not talented? of course not.

but he is a lazy slob and i am glad he is no longer a bull.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> When diagnosing the Bulls downward slide this season, one also has to look at the disappearance of our 60 million dollar man Tyson Chandler as well.
> 
> He was one of our best 3 players during our winning season... last season he was next to awful most of the time, even with the nice rebound rate.


Yes indeed!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> When diagnosing the Bulls downward slide this season


*What downward slide?*

Surely you guys are not measuring the success of a season on wins alone. Thats just one factor, and not the most important considering where this team is at in it's re-tooling.



> *The NBA Salivates Over Bulls’ Hard-working Talent*
> 
> So the secret is out: The Bulls possess some of the best basketball talent this side of the Mississippi. From point guard Kirk Hinrich to pesky Ben Gordon to tough-as-nails Nocioni to versatile Deng, the cat is now out of the bag.
> 
> Furthermore, the job GM John Paxon and coach Skiles have done to assemble, shape and prepare this team has become the talk of the league. Whether Chicago succeeds in battling its way into the second round or is eliminated by Miami, this season has to be considered a *roaring success* after the Bulls’ strong regular season finish and the challenge they have given Miami.


http://www.insidehoops.com/bulls-playoffs-050206.shtml

Guess it depends on whether you live life thinking the glass is half-empty or half-full. 

I would have loved to have gotten 50+ wins, but 50, 55 or 42, we'd be in the same spot that we're at now --> watching the playoffs from the sidelines.

LeBron and his guys learned a lot, and most of it was in the playoffs. We learned a lot, and most of it was the race to make the playoffs, and the same kind of hard-knocks the cavs got.

We'll be better next season for it...especially with the coming talent we have. I almost tend to think that we can't go wrong in this draft...whatever unique talent Pax gets, Skiles will find a way to use it to furthur the teams goals. Ditto for free-agency.

I'm pumped. The missing 4,5,6,7 wins off of the past season are water under the bridge now.

*This is my 6th edit. 

Another article I found:



> Even though the Bulls took a step back this season, a late run into the playoffs showed that the future is still bright for this franchise.
> --
> The Future: Is there any team in the league with more young talent than the Bulls? The way this team is learning how to play together is very exciting. Because of the tremendous Eddy Curry trade with the Knicks, its about to get even better. The Bulls own the Knick's next two first-round draft picks. The pick this year will likely be in the top three. Imagine if this team added LaMarcus Aldridge to their frontline?
> 
> ...


http://nbadraft.net/2006stateofthecapchicago001.asp


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I wouldn't take back Eddy Curry were he offered in exchange for nothing. 

I mean that very sincerely.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron -- do you think the long term answer at center is found in Aldridge, Bargnani or Thomas?

I like all of them for somewhat different reasons and would be ok with us having any of the 3, but I'm not sure any of them are the long term solution.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> *What downward slide?*


If the current downward trend continues, the Bulls will be 35-47, the 11th best team in the East and out of the playoffs.

Going from a winning team with homecourt advantage in the 1st round to a .500 team with no home court facing the team that is going to the NBA Finals in the first round is a step back.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If the current downward trend continues, the Bulls will be 35-47, the 11th best team in the East and out of the playoffs.
> 
> Going from a winning team with homecourt advantage in the 1st round to a .500 team with no home court facing the team that is going to the NBA Finals in the first round is a step back.


As long as Tyson comes to camp ready to play, why in the world would the so-called downward trend continue?

Pax will finally replace the large lump of meat that wasn't there in the middle this past year and we'll be just fine.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> do you think the long term answer at center is found in Aldridge, Bargnani or Thomas?


It really depends on what the question is. We need rebounding. We need post defense. We need someone to trigger the break (I'd love to see Ben improve his handles enough to be the same kind of terror on the break that Nash often is).

But we've got so much talent elsewhere and good coaching to boot, that the question becomes more of who can provide scoring punch out of the post enough to diversify the offense so it's not strictly a jump-shooting offense?

Answer: Aldridge.

The other needs can be filled with mini-trades and free agent signings of "specialists". Eddy's offense alone was a really good answer to this question btw. You just couldn't play him enough / he was too big a liability in other important areas to make his future secure with the core we have developed. Again, the answer seems to be Aldridge.

But Skiles and Pax may have other answers for the offense, and I'm intrigued (and trusting enough) to wait the whole thing out.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> that comment about Eddy..."are the Bulls going to find anybody better than Eddy in this draft? No. He is moving toward bust. He doesn't play defense and is either uncoachable or doesn't care."
> 
> Hold on a second. If you have a player (say Tyrus Thomas) who is supercoachable and cares more than anyone else and plays superior defense isn't that better than Curry by a long shot? Makes no sense. Curry is decent at 1/2 of the game (offense). He is far from a sure thing on offense and his defense is brutal. Not sure how a player like Aldridge, Thomas, Bargnani aren't better than Curry. Heck, O'Bryant or Shelden Williams could be better than he is right now. I mean look at Channing Frye. He is better than Curry and nobody thought much of him. THe Knicks play Curry to justify the contract and the trade.


A player can be a better player at the four and yet still have less effect on the game than the slightly worse player who is also a 7' 285 lb. true center. Eddy Curry could have 75% of the desire, heart, fundamentals and everything else combined than a guy who is 6'9" 218 and he's actually better. This effect becomes magnified by ten when you consider that the four is loaded with good players in this league and the five is starving for them. If you have a good five, you're 3 steps ahead right off the bat... EVEN IF that five has glaring weaknesses in his game. Being an "all-around complete player" is a lot more necessary at small forward than it is at point guard or center. Wilt wasn't even 1/10 of the complete basketball player that Russell was, and as a basketball player Russell's game had tons more quality fundamentally, in terms of heart and everything else. Yet Wilt is still consider by most to be the marginally better player. Why? Because Russell couldn't be 7'2" 290 or whatever. Wilt did as many of the little things and fundamental things when compared to Russell as Curry does when compared to Channing Frye. But Channing Frye can't wake up and be 285 lbs. with a top 3 back to the basket game at the true center position. 

IMO comparing Thomas or Frye to Curry is like comparing a 300 lb. defensive tackle who is undersized and needs to win on technique and on recognizing the pass and run to a 330 lb. talent who just bowls people over and doesn't really have to have a complete game at all. 

I'll always take 60 cents at center over a dollar at power forward. And no, I'm not talking about power forwards who could play center if they wanted to but just play power forward cause of organizational philosophy. Tim Duncan qualifies as a guy who CAN play both to me. 

Don't believe that 60 cents at center can be better than a dollar at power forward? When the Mavericks play the Heat in the finals why don't you call Cuban and ask him how much he's thanking god that he has Sagana Diop and Erick Dampier. Sagana Diop and Erick Dampier!! Basketballwise, they both SUCK. At the very best Diop has had one season and Dampier has had a few where they were GOOD players, but their games are about as incomplete as games can get.

Why don't you call Flip Saunders and ask him if he'd rather have Channing Frye or Eddy Curry right now. 

You go way too far. Everyone's better than Eddy Curry right? And yet Curry was first alternate for the 2005 All Star team. I guess you know more than NBA coaches. Hell Tyson Chandler is sitting at fourth right now out of Brown, Curry, Diop and himself and he's currently better than half the guys you named. They haven't done anything yet. Tyson Chandler would take a dump on Shelden Williams. Yes, the same Tyson Chandler whose game is so "incomplete" that he had almost 40 games this season with as many fouls as POINTS. 

I know you resent the idea of Eddy Curry. The idea is that he was born so talented naturally, that he can basically do NONE of the things that you were told that you needed to do to make the JV team as a senior in high school and still have a very positive effect for the right team in the NBA. If Eddy Curry plays 14 seasons on a team like last years team, we're probably talking about a guy who eventually makes more than a couple all star teams. Without the heart condition and we could be talking 5 or more.

Why don't you just say "I don't like Eddy Curry and I blame him for my personal problems in life" and move on.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> As long as Tyson comes to camp ready to play, why in the world would the so-called downward trend continue?


I don't think it will.... just answering the "what downward trend?" question. My expectations are in line with yours.. 2nd round or bust. With all the assets Paxson has at his disposal, he should be able to make some big improvements to the squad. This off-season is 3 years in the making after all.

The Bulls performed poorer last season than the season before. W-L record. Playoff seeding. Position in conference. 

There is a decent chance that the lotto pick is a bust (it happens!)... then we're left without adding a real impact player unless Paxson swings a deal. 

What do we expect out of the two young bigs in the draft anyway in their rookie year? Usually it takes a couple seasons for these guys to get their legs under them anyway.



> Pax will finally replace the large lump of meat that wasn't there in the middle this past year and we'll be just fine.


We already tried that with Sweetney and Napolean Dynamite. I remember hearing a whole lot of "we don't need eddy" when Sweetney was acquired. Now we realize that we still need a center.

Those lumps of meat are hard to acquire, as Paxson is currently aware of.

I hope Paxson can replace him with someone competent.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ron -- do you think the long term answer at center is found in Aldridge, Bargnani or Thomas?
> 
> I like all of them for somewhat different reasons and would be ok with us having any of the 3, but I'm not sure any of them are the long term solution.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


I really don't believe in "centers". I believe in bigs. I find the 4/5 distinction is meaningless as the positions can switch from offense to defense. 

I do think we need some interior scoring, from the 4 or the 5, and that is why my preference is Aldridge as far as the draft is concerned. Defensively, I'm still satisfied with Chandler as a 5 - Shaq abusing him is not a good measuring stick of his defensive effectiveness as a 5. 

Aldridge, however, can also defend the 5 and was Big 12 defensive player of the year. Another reason Aldridge is my first choice.

Throw Pyrz/Chandler next to him with him playing the 4 or 5 and call it an offseason. 

Then wait until next summer when we have the pick swap which I'm convinced will fall in the top 10. Another "big" can be had there as well.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Eddy is a specialist, and a very good one. Once coaches get the notion of making him complete out of their heads and let him be, he'll be a very good player in his own right, much the same as Ben Wallace was/is.

He's a season removed from the Bulls. It's time to move on from the should he be here or not argument. We _still_ have a good future to look ahead to...and the Knicks with the right coach...might too.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I agree with you that Paxson needs to find a competent center.

I don't recall too many people thinking Sweetney was anything more than a stopgap last year -- undersized, underconditioned and underdeveloped, skill-wise. Really just a smaller lump of meat.

I still think Mike can be an OK backup if he keeps working on his game.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If the current downward trend continues, the Bulls will be 35-47, the 11th best team in the East and out of the playoffs.
> 
> Going from a winning team with homecourt advantage in the 1st round to a .500 team with no home court facing the team that is going to the NBA Finals in the first round is a step back.


I'd missed this post. 

I think we see things the same way, there are just a few semantical differences. I think a step back and a downward slide are different beasts. I think enough good came out of the seasons end (playoffs included) to void the finish in the standings as far as considering the season successful or unsuccessful.

What do you think?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

GB said:


> Eddy is a specialist, and a very good one. Once coaches get the notion of making him complete out of their heads and let him be, he'll be a very good player in his own right, much the same as Ben Wallace was/is.
> 
> He's a season removed from the Bulls. It's time to move on from the should he be here or not argument. We _still_ have a good future to look ahead to...and the Knicks with the right coach...might too.


DING! DING! DING!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> I'd missed this post.
> 
> I think we see things the same way, there are just a few semantical differences. I think a step back and a downward slide are different beasts. I think enough good came out of the seasons end (playoffs included) to void the finish in the standings.
> 
> What do you think?


No.. I thought after we almost advanced to the second round without our starting 3 and 5 while being the number 3 team in the east and set at every position except 2 guard that the 2nd round was expected this season... before the Curry/AD trade of course.

We might land an impact player with these lotto picks... no doubt... but lotto picks can be busts or average players as well... and I was not in the mood to needlessly wait around for another 2-3 years to get back to where we were in 2004-2005.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Why don't you just say "I don't like Eddy Curry and I blame him for my personal problems in life" and move on.


Why don't you stop with these types of comments? 

Or answer this question: What purpose does this type of comment serve, in your opinion?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Why don't you stop with these types of comments?
> 
> Or answer this question: What purpose does this type of comment serve, in your opinion?


Ron are you a moderator? Cause I don't recall breaking a rule or responding to a post in a completely off topic manner. 

Why don't you just say "you understand the center position and what it has meant historically in the game a lot more than I do, and it hits on deep insecurities within me."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ron are you a moderator? Cause I don't recall breaking a rule or responding to a post in a completely off topic manner.
> 
> Why don't you just say "you understand the center position and what it has meant historically in the game a lot more than I do, and it hits on deep insecurities within me."


You have no answer to a perfectly straightforward question other than to respond with a similarly insulting comment.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> No.. I thought after we almost advanced to the second round without our starting 3 and 5 while being the number 3 team in the east and set at every position except 2 guard that the 2nd round was expected this season... before the Curry/AD trade of course.


Do you think that team had a brighter future than the current one has?

I guess I _love_ what we have now, and think it better than any previous team post-MJ.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ron are you a moderator?


No, but he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> You think that team had a brighter future than the current one has?


Of course.

There is a chance that in 4 months its a different story though. 

Lotto picks are alluring... endless hope... but as we've seen in the past... they can also turn into marcus fizer or jay will (both ncaa pedigree players who have played in the big games and know how to win).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Of course.


Why?

(for what its worth, I'm not enamoured of lottery picks either...I'm speaking of the mix of players and coach)


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

This thread should be locked. There is alot of baiting, name calling, and not so much intelligence being generated on it. And before anyone thinks I am pointing at any one person, I am just as guilty as anyone else.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> This thread should be locked. There is alot of baiting, name calling, and not so much intelligence being generated on it. And before anyone thinks I am pointing at any one person, I am just as guilty as anyone else.


Oh stop it. Theres only been one really bad post in the last two pages and one borderline one in response to it.

We're talking bball here.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I do think we need some interior scoring, from the 4 or the 5, and that is why my preference is Aldridge as far as the draft is concerned. *Defensively, I'm still satisfied with Chandler as a 5 - Shaq abusing him is not a good measuring stick of his defensive effectiveness as a 5*.
> 
> Aldridge, however, can also defend the 5 and was Big 12 defensive player of the year. Another reason Aldridge is my first choice.


May be slightly OT, but took a look at the bolded statement more closely. Season splits located at nba.com have Shaq:

*Season Average*
30.6mpg .600fg% 9.2rpg 20.0ppg

*Against the Bull (2-1 record)*
26.3mpg .512fg% 6.0rpg 19.0ppg 

*Against the Piston (1-3 record)*
38.0mpg .583fg% 7.8rpg 28.0ppg 

Also, the three victories the Heat posted were by an average of 2 points, so this rules out resting due to a blow-out. Seems the Bull was very effective defensively against Shaq, even with our weak front court.

Play-offs would take longer to figure out, unless someone knows where to find them easily, but a quick glance seems to show the same story. That story? That maybe the vaunted frontline of "Big D" isn't that much better than what we already have in place.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> Why don't you just say "I don't like Eddy Curry and I blame him for my personal problems in life" and move on.





> Why don't you just say "you understand the center position and what it has meant historically in the game a lot more than I do, and it hits on deep insecurities within me."



pip, i am a moderator and i say _please stop it_ with this kind of crap. it brings the whole place down and you are walking a thin line as it is. 

just keep your personal opinions about other posters to yourself and talk basketball. 

thank you.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pip, I have gone out of my way -- many would say too far out of the way -- to give you every chance in the world to become a civil poster.

From the messages I'm getting, I'm losing posters due to your inability to avoid personal insults.

I don't like losing posters. The great experiment is over.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Wynn said:


> May be slightly OT, but took a look at the bolded statement more closely. Season splits located at nba.com have Shaq:
> 
> *Season Average*
> 30.6mpg .600fg% 9.2rpg 20.0ppg
> ...



Nice stats. Makes me rethink my "trade Tyson" mantra...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

GB said:


> Nice stats. Makes me rethink my "trade Tyson" mantra...


LOL, I agree. BUT, it should be noted that our guards play a much more defensive game than the Piston's guards do, so it's hard to give Chandler all the credit for those stats. He is of course a large part of it, but far from the only one. (for the record I never wanted Tyson traded, he's one I consider untradeable...along with most of our young "stars")


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Tyson is no longer a stiff... he's now a SHAQ STOPPER.

Keep Ben Wallace off this team.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Tyson is no longer a stiff... he's now a SHAQ STOPPER.
> 
> Keep Ben Wallace off this team.


We better give Tyson a raise too, while we're at it!

I still think Tyson will be a valuable piece of our revamped frontcourt rotation, FWIW, but I've closed the book on him as far as development goes. I just hope he can do what he did so well last season once we add a couple more live bodies to the interior.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> FWIW, but I've closed the book on him as far as development goes.


Whatever happened to that jumpshot he was working on?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

GB said:


> Whatever happened to that jumpshot he was working on?


I think he had to take it back to formula.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Keep Ben Wallace off this team.


This comment from you really surprised me. I would think you would be on board for Big Ben. I know he is more D than O, but he is a commanding presence in the middle.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> This comment from you really surprised me. I would think you would be on board for Big Ben. I know he is more D than O, but he is a commanding presence in the middle.


I was just fooling around... in the same vain as calling Tyson a SHAQ STOPPER.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was just fooling around... in the same vain as calling Tyson a SHAQ STOPPER.


Ah. I'm with you then. Big Ben to the Bulls! Make it so!


----------

