# Should Bulls acquire KG?



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Twolves are in trouble now. KG wants out. Should Bulls acquire KG? KG would be a better player if he goes to the east.

example:
Chicago trades: PF Antonio Davis (6.0 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 23.9 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (15.6 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 0.7 apg in 29.1 minutes) 
SF Andres Nocioni (7.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 1.2 apg in 21.4 minutes) 
SG Ben Gordon (13.8 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.8 minutes) 
PF Othella Harrington (6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.7 apg in 15.8 minutes) 
Chicago receives: PF Kevin Garnett (22.4 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 5.9 apg in 39.1 minutes) 
SF Wally Szczerbiak (15.9 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 2.2 apg in 33.3 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -11.1 ppg, -2.8 rpg, and +2.6 apg. 

Minnesota trades: PF Kevin Garnett (22.4 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 5.9 apg in 39.1 minutes) 
SF Wally Szczerbiak (15.9 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 2.2 apg in 33.3 minutes) 
Minnesota receives: PF Antonio Davis (6.0 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 1.1 apg in 23.9 minutes) 
C Eddy Curry (15.6 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 0.7 apg in 29.1 minutes) 
SF Andres Nocioni (7.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 1.2 apg in 21.4 minutes) 
SG Ben Gordon (13.8 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.8 minutes) 
PF Othella Harrington (6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.7 apg in 15.8 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +11.1 ppg, +2.8 rpg, and -2.6 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Where did you read that KG wants out? 

And yes, who wouldnt trade for KG?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Actually it is KG for 4 young players.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I may sound crazy here, but I'm not so sure that KG isn't the Wolves' problem.

Let's face it, there are no great centers in the league outside of Shaq. Dominant centers are what win in the NBA, our dynasty not-withstanding.

KG is the best PF and/or SF on the planet, but dominant PF and SF don't win big in the NBA. 

Maybe KG should add a few pounds and become a dominant C? What the Wolves are doing now sure isn't working, maybe the problem is that it's a waste to have a 7'2" uber-athlete spending most of his time on the perimeter?

Go ahead, rip away.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

We get KG and get to keep Hinrich, Deng and Chandler. Oh yea! Sign me up!


----------



## SirHinn (Feb 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> Twolves are in trouble now. KG wants out. Should Bulls acquire KG? KG would be a better player if he goes to the east.
> 
> example:
> ...


Trade not accepted, Twolves never do this trade end of story.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Twolves frontcourt is pretty good, at least younger
Griffin/Nocioni
Curry/Kandi

Backcourt is younger too.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> We get KG and get to keep Hinrich, Deng and Chandler. Oh yea! Sign me up!


Do you live in Oakland?

Chandler
KG
Deng
Piotkoski
Hinrich

That would be at least in the 2nd round.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Again....where did you read KG is unhappy?


----------



## ogbullzfan (Mar 9, 2004)

We would have no depth with that trade. I'd still love to have KG.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I keep Deng and Curry, they can take whatever else, except Duhon, we need a somewhat capable point guard.

Kirk Hinrich
Ben Gordon
Andres Nocioni
Tyson Chandler
Antonio Davis


PG-Chris Duhon
SG-Eric Piatowski
SF-Luol Deng
PF-Kevin Garnett
C- Eddy Curry

we would have the best frontcourt in the league.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the worst backcourt....


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Nice try Ballscientist, but ain't even worth posting.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> And the worst backcourt....


Yeah, but Duhon just needs to get the ball up the court and pass it to one of Deng, KG, or Curry


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

We would need to give up at least 3 players (likely 2 frontcourt guys) from our "core" to even start up a conversation. By our core I mean:

Kirk
Ben
Deng
Curry
Chandler

If Curry, Chandler-OR-Deng, and Ben-OR-Kirk get it done, then I would do the trade in a second (with cap filler of course).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Why trade for the real KG when you already have the "Next" KG?


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i think curry is the no.1 must in any trades with KG. so i m going to give up curry+ben+andres might get it done if we take wally off their hands too. i dont think the bulls wants to give up 3 core guys. 
we need kirk/deng and one of the bigs left to support KG. new line up
kirk
wally
deng
kg
chandler

not too bad i would say.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you live in Oakland?
> ...


CHANDLER IS NOT A CENTER. Plus you did this trade where Piatkowski ends up as the starting SG. Nice work. Why not give Minnesota what they want....a trade where they get good youth for Garnett AND get rid of ZerbyWhack's long contract....gaining financial flexibility in the process. End of season

Minnesota trades: 
PF Kevin Garnett 18
SG Trenton Hassell 3
SG Wally Szczerbiak 10
31 million

Chicago trades:
PF Tyson Chandler (re-signed 10 mill per)
PF Antonio Davis 12 (expiring after next season)
SF Luol Deng 3
SG Eric Piatkowski 2.5
2007 First round pick
2009 First round pick

Bulls
C -- Curry, Reiner
PF -- Garnett, Harrington
SF -- Nocioni, Szczerbiak
SG -- Hinrich, Hassell
PG -- Duhon, Gordon

That makes Minnesota's second highest paid player Tyson at 10 m, Sprewell would be gone, and the 1st and 3rd-4th highest paid players next season (Davis, Cassell, Olowokandi) would all expire at the end of next season taking 24 million off the books. Then you have Deng and the two picks. Piatkowski also expires. Minnesota would be in a very good position to rebuild very solidly on the cheap. In fact the only player's they'd be committed to beyond 2005-06 would be Chandler, Deng, Ndudi Ebi, and whoever they sign/draft between now and then who is not already on their team. *If they were looking to trade Garnett* this would be a scenario they'd have to look at.

For the Bulls they could re-up Curry, sign a defensive backup at center with the MLE and be ready to contend next season.

That's a trade both sides would have to look at. Doubt you ever see Garnett in a Bulls uni via trade though....at least not anytime soon.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

there's no way the twolves do the trade without getting curry back and either kirk or Ben gordon. those 2 are the key pieces to any KG trades.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> there's no way the twolves do the trade without getting curry back and either kirk or Ben gordon. those 2 are the key pieces to any KG trades.


Well say their GM responded as you just did. Then the answer is....."fine, keep KG. Let him rot around overpaid chumps. Keep losing. Keep raising payroll. Maybe one day you can be just like the New York Knicks. After all, don't they have KG's old running mate 'Steph?'"

We're not trading Curry, Hinrich and other goodies for anyone. Nobody in this entire league is worth those two plus all the trimmings. If Curry makes 10 million next year, he and Hinrich will combine to make 13 million next year. KG alone will make 5 million more than that. How bad can Minnesota get. Remember it's not only how good a guy is....it's how much he costs.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> We're not trading Curry, Hinrich and other goodies for anyone. Nobody in this entire league is worth those two plus all the trimmings.


I dont have anything against you, Gipper, but any GM would trade Curry and Hinrich (and other goodies) for Garnett. Duncan isnt worth those two? Or Dirk? Or....


----------



## bryzzz01 (Feb 21, 2003)

I love KG... and I'd prolly do a trade for him... but I think there is a better solution for us.

Let's find some way to pry Sto Swift from Memphis... that guy is a beast... He'd be perfect in our 4 big-man rotation once davis leaves (EC, TC, Othella, Sto in no particular order). and he'd be hella cheaper

though this is a KG thread... I'd love to have KG...


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bryzzz01</b>!
> He'd be perfect in our 4 big-man rotation once davis leaves (EC, TC, Othella, Sto in no particular order). and he'd be hella cheaper


Cheaper? Than who? Im sure Stro will get a contract between 8 and 10 millon.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

You need a leader to bring this team together.


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

KG is effectively two top level contracts. Do we get two top level players worth of result from him? I don't think so. KG is one of the top 3 players in the league but is he worth giving up that much for? I would prefer we try to get the two top level players instead.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

As I read through this thread I tried to imagine a three player package of Bulls players that I wouldn't offer for KG and I came up blank.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Why trade for the real KG when you already have the "Next" KG?


That would be funny, but coming from you DaBullz it sounds like more of a slap.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

I'd offer Curry, Gordon, Davis and two future #1's for Garnett and Hassell.

At some point Taylor knows he's got to retool. Getting out of Hassell's contract should be an added plus as well since he's really a luxury for a team in the hunt.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

KG's a loser. Now Tim Duncan, there is a guy who knows how to win.

But why is Curry a must in any Minnesota deal, I thought Hinrich would be the must in any deal for a big name player, because last I heard he was our best player.


----------



## SirHinn (Feb 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> KG's a loser. Now Tim Duncan, there is a guy who knows how to win.
> 
> But why is Curry a must in any Minnesota deal, I thought Hinrich would be the must in any deal for a big name player, because last I heard he was our best player.


Talk about a stupid post. Yes, KG is a loser because he has a GM who can't put the pieces together to help him win a championship . First it was KG couldn't carry his team and take over a game. Now its KG's fault because his "pieces" are falling apart. Somehow you guys always blame KG regardless of the situation. It's KG's fault that he was drafted by a losing franchise who had yet to be anywhere near successful. 

Yes, Duncan is a real winner. He happens to get drafted by a team who happens to have an off year because their best player is hurt. He also just happens to get to play with one of the top 50 players in the game his first several seasons in the league. Yes your right, TD being a winner has nothing to do with the people around him or the situation that he was put in .

Why must you give up Eddy Curry to get KG? Because KG is one of the top 3 players in the game, sounds like a very simple reason. 
Take Michael Jordan away from Chicago and then you see what taking KG away from Minnesota is all about. KG is everything for the franchise. He is the guy people come to see every game. You take away KG and your losing a lot more then just the heart of the team. You lose the fans as well.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SirHinn</b>!
> 
> 
> Talk about a stupid post. Yes, KG is a loser because he has a GM who can't put the pieces together to help him win a championship . First it was KG couldn't carry his team and take over a game. Now its KG's fault because his "pieces" are falling apart. Somehow you guys always blame KG regardless of the situation. It's KG's fault that he was drafted by a losing franchise who had yet to be anywhere near successful.
> ...


I dunno, I mean, I like KG but he has apretty good supporting castL Cassell, Sprewell, Szcerbiak, with some young up & comers like Ebi & Griffin. I mean, how many pieces do you need?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Since we're all pretending that KG is attainable let's suppose we do send AD, Eddy, Nocioni and Ben. Who would we put at center? We become awfully thin upfront. How worthless is Kandi-man at this point?


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> Since we're all pretending that KG is attainable let's suppose we do send AD, Eddy, Nocioni and Ben. Who would we put at center? We become awfully thin upfront. How worthless is Kandi-man at this point?


Giving up Curry, Hinrich and say Noce and a #1 (would that qualify as goodies?) would be stupid for anyone who doesn't play center. Yeah with Duncan it's a no brainer:

Duncan, Reiner
Chandler, Davis
Deng
Gordon, Hassell
Duhon

Because you can expect Duncan to have no problem making a stark majority of the season at the 5.

Now if its for Garnett you end up with

Chandler
Garnet
Deng
Gordon
Duhon

Which pretty much means you better hope you fire a nuke with your MLE cause pretty soon it will be:

MLE or Davis
Garnett
Deng
Gordon
Duhon


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> But why is Curry a must in any Minnesota deal, I thought Hinrich would be the must in any deal for a big name player, because last I heard he was our best player.


You're confusing best player with most value. Right now, Curry has the most trade value IMO. 

If you are suggesting Eddy Curry is our best player right now, we're getting different game feeds.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> You're confusing best player with most value. Right now, Curry has the most trade value IMO.
> ...


What do you define as best? As creating the biggest threat down low that allows guys who normally would be face guarded to get free for open shots? Or as not being able to feed the post, shooting what 38%, missing key free throws when you're a 6'3" guard, rotating terribly on defense and not being able to fight through picks? 

Obviously that is not all I see in Hinrich.....he's a definite favorite of mine (but I have this thing called an ability to criticique a favorite of mine).....but if you think it's a given that Curry is NOT our best player, then maybe you are coming into the game with a certain worldview, and making predeterminations before the lineups are introduced.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> What do you define as best? As creating the biggest threat down low that allows guys who normally would be face guarded to get free for open shots?


But given this metric, Corliss Williamson probably was the best player on the Pistons last season. Curry fills a role that the Bulls need, and he does a good but not great job filling that role. You seem to follow conventional wisdom in placing a very heavy weight on that role. I think that role is important, but overrated and thus the scorers that can fill that role, IMHO, often are overrated.

That said, I still think the Curry has more value with the Bulls than he would for almost any other team, because of the fact that the Bulls lack shot creators. But in my book that only makes him valuable, not the most valuable. Hinrich and Deng are more complete players that fill lots of roles and for that reason I think they are more valuable than Curry (or Gordon). Chandler is limited like Curry (and Gordon), but he is so damn good at his role that I think he also is more valuable than Curry (and Gordon). Chandler just takes over games just as often as Curry (and Gordon) and contributes more when he is not taking over a game.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> But given this metric, Corliss Williamson probably was the best player on the Pistons last season. Curry fills a role that the Bulls need, and he does a good but not great job filling that role. You seem to follow conventional wisdom in placing a very heavy weight on that role. I think that role is important, but overrated and thus the scorers that can fill that role, IMHO, often are overrated.
> 
> That said, I still think the Curry has more value with the Bulls than he would for almost any other team, because of the fact that the Bulls lack shot creators. But in my book that only makes him valuable, not the most valuable. Hinrich and Deng are more complete players that fill lots of roles and for that reason I think they are more valuable than Curry (or Gordon). Chandler is limited like Curry (and Gordon), but he is so damn good at his role that I think he also is more valuable than Curry (and Gordon). Chandler just takes over games just as often as Curry (and Gordon) and contributes more when he is not taking over a game.


:greatjob:


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> But given this metric, Corliss Williamson probably was the best player on the Pistons last season. Curry fills a role that the Bulls need, and he does a good but not great job filling that role. You seem to follow conventional wisdom in placing a very heavy weight on that role. I think that role is important, but overrated and thus the scorers that can fill that role, IMHO, often are overrated.
> 
> That said, I still think the Curry has more value with the Bulls than he would for almost any other team, because of the fact that the Bulls lack shot creators. But in my book that only makes him valuable, not the most valuable. Hinrich and Deng are more complete players that fill lots of roles and for that reason I think they are more valuable than Curry (or Gordon). Chandler is limited like Curry (and Gordon), but he is so damn good at his role that I think he also is more valuable than Curry (and Gordon). Chandler just takes over games just as often as Curry (and Gordon) and contributes more when he is not taking over a game.


Dan you state your case well. But take into consideration that players like Hinrich and Deng are more likely to be peaked (though Deng much less than Hinrich)....because they've mastered the things that can be taught. Hinrich is a coaches son who was shooting at a plastic hoop in his living room at 2 years old.

Eddy Curry on the other hand was a gymnast who outgrew gymnastics at age 14 or so and started playing organized basketball for the first time at age 15. He's very low on the things that can be taught and off the charts at the things that can't be taught. 

A player like this can go two ways....two guys who used to play high school basketball in New York City. Both were raw at age 14 but one was willing to learn (though both had started playing basketball at a much younger age than Curry) and the other was content to be talented and that was all he wanted out of life. 

One became the famous "Captain Nappy" of Rucker Park, and is probably broke and smoking pot right now (as he so proudly claimed in a documentary). The other became Alonzo Mourning. 

Eddy seems willing to learn. Go back to last year and remember Skiles demanding he work with Eddy an hour before and an hour after practice every day and even two hours when the rest of the team had an off day. Curry eagerly accepted. He's shown a willingness to learn. It may be 25 before he begins to show the mastery of the things you can teach that Hinrich showed at Kansas....but even if he just gets to that point.....he'll be the most dangerous player on this team. Right now he is making a lot of guys better. His ceiling is much higher than Deng or Hinrich. So when I speak of him as a most valuable player....who gets that title this year is really not significant to me.....i'll care more about who gets it over the next 5 years as a whole.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> :greatjob:


Noce barely played v. Dallas. We won.

Noce played more v. Houston. We lost.

-_-


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> But given this metric, Corliss Williamson probably was the best player on the Pistons last season. Curry fills a role that the Bulls need, and he does a good but not great job filling that role. You seem to follow conventional wisdom in placing a very heavy weight on that role. I think that role is important, but overrated and thus the scorers that can fill that role, IMHO, often are overrated.
> 
> That said, I still think the Curry has more value with the Bulls than he would for almost any other team, because of the fact that the Bulls lack shot creators. But in my book that only makes him valuable, not the most valuable. Hinrich and Deng are more complete players that fill lots of roles and for that reason I think they are more valuable than Curry (or Gordon). Chandler is limited like Curry (and Gordon), but he is so damn good at his role that I think he also is more valuable than Curry (and Gordon). Chandler just takes over games just as often as Curry (and Gordon) and contributes more when he is not taking over a game.


There's value and there's value. In the end, market value is all that counts. The market can be stupid or smart (or, naturally, somewhere in between). In an open market, the stats don't matter much. A stock with a bad P/E ratio may be considered to be overpriced, but if enough people choose to ignore the P/E, its value continues to rise.

In the end, Curry's worth what someone will pay for him. To the Bulls, he's worth what they believe they will have to pay to replace his "utility" to the team.

The Bulls have no reasonable replacement strategy for what Curry brings to the Bulls' table. Whether he's a "role player" or something more is somewhat irrelevant if they don't have a realistic way of replacing what he gives the team.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i will definitely do curry+ben gordon+AD for KG and fillers. it's a good deal for both teams. the wolves get to retooled with 2 of the highly talented kids and the bulls have one of the top3 superstars and still have enough young talents left to support him. 
kirk
deng
andre
kg
chandler

thats a good team now.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Dan you state your case well. But take into consideration that players like Hinrich and Deng are more likely to be peaked (though Deng much less than Hinrich)....because they've mastered the things that can be taught. Hinrich is a coaches son who was shooting at a plastic hoop in his living room at 2 years old.
> 
> Eddy Curry on the other hand was a gymnast who outgrew gymnastics at age 14 or so and started playing organized basketball for the first time at age 15. He's very low on the things that can be taught and off the charts at the things that can't be taught.
> ...


Again I think you state the conventional wisdom very well. Guys who show a flair for scoring can learn how to do the other things well. Guys who do lots of things well probably have topped out. I think this conventional wisdom also is becoming increasingly more mistaken. NBA players even in their rookie contracts are set for life. They don't need to get better to feed their families. So the drive and determination to get better has to come from some other source - something other than that next contract. Guys like Hinrich and Deng who do the little things, I think, are more likely to have that drive and determination to get better. They will learn to adjust their games to their team's needs. And every year they will get better. Their "potential" might not be as high as some, but by being so much more likely to get near it, they usually will end up better players.

But there will always be those longshots that come through. Maybe Eddy Curry after getting his next big contract will recommit himself to developing a more complete game. Maybe he will develop a love for the game. That all could happen. But I think the odds are better that players like Hinrich and Deng will improve more than Curry. That is not conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom is not always right.

One last point. If we could take all the contracts of all of the big men who "coulda, woulda, shoulda" that never did, we could probably feed a small, impoverished nation for decades.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Noce barely played v. Dallas. We won.
> ...


And why didnt Curry play more against Houston? Because he was dominating Ming? Because he was too good to compete against them? 



Trivia: What all these guy have in common- Deng, Harrington, Hinrich, Nocioni, Chandler, Gordon, Piatkowski, Reiner, McGrady, Howard, Ming, Sura, Mutombo, PAdgett, Barry? 
They all out-rebounded the 6-11, 285, Eddy Curry. 
:|


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Dan you state your case well. But take into consideration that players like Hinrich and Deng are more likely to be peaked (though Deng much less than Hinrich)....because they've mastered the things that can be taught. Hinrich is a coaches son who was shooting at a plastic hoop in his living room at 2 years old.
> ...


Gip, don't overlook the fact that Eddie's revival has come from his teammates making him better as well. 

Eddie may have given up the restaurant buffet, but he's been dining on the dunk smorgasbord for more than a month now courtesy of some very nice passing.  

To me, the most valuable player is the guy whose performance is the most valuable to the team now. I agree, Eddy may be the most valuable in the next five years, but who are you saying is most valuable now?


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

If Garnett wants to play for the Bulls, I'd construct a trade proposal right away.

I know we would have to give up a lot of players to get him. the players I would trade are Kirk Hinrich, Eddy Curry and Luol Deng and Antonio Davis.

Who I want in return: Kevin Garnett, E. Johnson, Eddie Griffin, and 2005 first round pick.

*Why Hinrich?* It's tough to part with Kirk. He's our leader, he's our best player, the fan and the coaching staff loves him. But, If we want to acquire Garnett, we have to pay the price. Ben Gordon can fill in and try establish himself as a PG. But, if Ben can't handle the point, we have Duhon. Other than that I think there will be a lot of very good PG's coming through the draft in the coming years. Even in mid - late first round. We can use our pick from the Wolves to get either Roko Leni Ukic or Julius Hodge. Both are big guards who can handle the point.

*Why Curry?* This is a gamble. But I think for KG it's worth it. Frontcourt of KG and Chandler will become one of the best defensive frontcourt for years to come. Add Eddie Griffin to that who can play inside outside. I think we will have one of the most versatile and long frontcourt in the league. Ervin Johnson will provide veteran leadership. The bad is our frontcourt might be look very skinny.

*Why Deng?* Actually Deng is the hardest to give up for me. He has all around talent, fundamentally sound, and one of the hardest working player in our team. I think he's one of those glue guys. But I think talented swingman is not a very rare commodity one of these days. Beside, with KG, we can try to lure a good free agent swingman to play for us. Nocioni is still around

So Our lineup will look like: (assuming we get Wolves 1st rd pick and get Hodge or Ukic).

Chandler/Johnson/Reiner
Garnett/E. Griffin/Othella
Nocioni/A. Griffin
Hodge or Ukic/Piatkowski
Gordon/Duhon/Pargo

*The bad thing about that team is:* 

- We don't have too many players capable of scoring from inside the paint night in night out. KG and Othella are the only players I have in mind.

- Our SF lack of finese players. Nocioni looks more of a power player. Hodge can play SF but, he's damn scrawny.

- We might have to play Gordon and Duhon backcourt for awhile, which is very small, in case Hodge or Ukic doesn't work out.

*The good thing about that team is:*

- KG is the only high salary player we have. And probably Chandler which we have to resign this summer. That leaves us with a cap space to sign a SF

- We have a reliable foundation in KG. That should make the rebuilding easy. Especially with Pax eye for talent.

- KG will have a tough frontcourt teammates that he never had in Minnesota. Chandler and Nocioni. We will have a combination of finese and power in our frontcourt.

- KG, Gordon, and Chandler will be our core in the future. Gordon has shown that he has a special talent. He can take over game. He's explosive like Baron Davis. I get the feeling that if this two guys play together. Gordon is the one who will benefit the most. KG will keep us in the game. But Ben will be the one closing the game and take us far into the playoff. Ben can have Dwyane Wade impact on the team if paired with KG.

- Duhon gets his chance to really shine with big minutes. I see Eric Snow with better playmaking ability in him.

*The risk:*

- KG don't get a long with Skiles. Skiles has experience of feuding with star players. O'Neal and Kidd.

- Chandler's injury got worse and we might never see the Garnett and Chandler defensive monsters. And we don't have a talented Center to back it up. Eddie Griffin is a PF who operates more on the perimeter.

- Eddy, Kirk, and Deng will haunt us back by continuing to develop, becoming perennial All-Stars, and a few trip to the finals.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Again I think you state the conventional wisdom very well. Guys who show a flair for scoring can learn how to do the other things well. Guys who do lots of things well probably have topped out. I think this conventional wisdom also is becoming increasingly more mistaken. NBA players even in their rookie contracts are set for life. They don't need to get better to feed their families. So the drive and determination to get better has to come from some other source - something other than that next contract. Guys like Hinrich and Deng who do the little things, I think, are more likely to have that drive and determination to get better. They will learn to adjust their games to their team's needs. And every year they will get better. Their "potential" might not be as high as some, but by being so much more likely to get near it, they usually will end up better players.
> 
> ...


But you say that like there should be some sort of presumption that Curry is on the side of those who won't be motivated. 

Before you respond remember that this whole team was in shambles under Cartwrong and Floyd. 

Eddy Curry at 22 is putting up superior numbers to Brad Miller at age 25, and there are a lot more weapons on this team than the 2001 Bulls (Miller averaged 8.4 PPG, 7.7 RPG on 43% FG that year). He's already better than a lot of guys who panned out were when they were years older than Curry. 

For example you may think that Eddy Curry for some reason should invoke comparisons to certain players who you see as gleaming examples of why he won't, or is not likely, or is less likely than player X to work out.

Let's take Eddy's stats to this point (age 22) and take his best year in each stat, which is fair, because after all, he is college-aged.

Eddy Curry's high stats
15.4 PPG 6.2 RPG 0.9 APG 0.33 SPG 1.14 BPG 58.5% FG 71.7% FT

Now let's look at some of the guys that Eddy detractors WISH Eddy was.....

*Mel Turpin* played till the age of 29. Here are his career highs in each stat:

13.7 PPG 7.0 RPG 0.7 APG 0.8 SPG 1.3 BPG 54.4% FG 81.1% FT

Eddy still wins 3 of 7 stats despite his career being 18-22 while Turpin's was from ages 24-29.

*Benoit Benjamin* played from ages 21-35. Here are his career highs:

16.4 PPG -- In 15 seasons in the NBA he had one season where he averaged more PPG than Eddy Curry is this year. He was 24. Eddy Curry turns 24 in December 2006.
12 RPG -- He posted double digit rebounds twice in 15 years. I doubt severely that he ever played with rebounders as good as Tyson Chandler or even Charles Oakley.
2.1 APG -- In 15 seasons Benjamin posted over 100 assists 5 times
0.7 SPG
2.5 BPG -- Six seasons of over 100 blocks in 15 years
53.4% FG -- Benjamin played 15 years without ever getting within 5% of the FG% Eddy Curry posted at age 20
74.6% FT

It's pretty clear that Eddy only has to make below average strides in his game to be far better than Benoit Benjamin.

Now sample Eddy Curry's stats this year at age 22:

Eddy Curry 2004-05 Age 22
15.4 PPG 5.4 RPG 0.7 APG 0.33 SPG 0.95 BPG 53.0% FG 71.7% FT

Brad Miller 2000-01 Age 25
8.4 PPG 7.9 RPG 1.9 APG 0.58 SPG 0.67 BPG 43.5% FG 73.4% FT

Curry wins 3 of 7 stats v. a player 3 years his senior who has been to an All Star game.

Zydrunas Ilgauskas 2001-02 Age 26
11.1 PPG 
5.4 RPG -- WOW....just like Eddy
1.1 APG
0.27 SPG
1.35 BPG
42.5% FG -- OUCH
75.4% FT

Again Eddy goes 3-3-1 in stats v. a player 4 years older who has also been to an All Star game

Kevin Willis 1987-88 Age 25
11.6 PPG 8 RPG 0.4 APG 0.91 SPG 0.56 BPG 51.8% FG 64.9% FT

I think Eddy will be just fine.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*interesting*

The Bulls are currently 16-6 this season when Eddy Curry scores over his season average of 15.4 PPG.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

As we think about the "potential" of Eddy Curry, let's consider how much he has improved so far. When he reaches his potential we probably hope that he will play 40 minutes a game in big games. Here are his stats per 40 minutes for the last four seasons, except for minutes per game.

01-02: PTS (16.9), RB (9.5), AS (0.9), TO (2.4), ST (0.6), BK (1.9), TS% (54.0), MPG (16.0)
02-03: PTS (20.9), RB (8.7), AS (0.9), TO (3.4), ST (0.4), BK (1.5), TS% (60.7), MPG (19.4)
03-04: PTS (19.6), RB (8.2), AS (1.2), TO (3.2), ST (0.4), BK (1.5), TS% (53.8), MPG (29.5)
04-05: PTS (20.9), RB (7.4), AS (1.0), TO (3.9), ST (0.4), BK (1.3), TS% (57.1), MPG (29.0)

Looking at those numbers, Curry is better in four categories, worse in four categories compared to his rookie year. Compared to his second year, he is better in just one category, the same in two categories, and worse in five categories. Compared to last season, he is better in three categories, the same in one category, and worse in four categories.

I think Curry has gotten better since his second season, but the improvement has not been dramatic, at least in areas such as scoring and passing and rebounding. His minutes have gone up, so it looks like he has improved, but according to John Hollinger, most players' per minute stats improve as their minutes increase. Curry's really have not gotten that much better. He has improved in some areas, taken steps backwards in other areas. So if he has not improved a lot between the ages of 18 and 22, it seems reasonable to assume that there will not be huge improvements after age 22. Of course, that assumption may be wrong, but it is a little curious that Curry just has not gotten that much better in the measured stats over his four seasons. One has to wonder why.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> As we think about the "potential" of Eddy Curry, let's consider how much he has improved so far. When he reaches his potential we probably hope that he will play 40 minutes a game in big games. Here are his stats per 40 minutes for the last four seasons, except for minutes per game.
> 
> 01-02: PTS (16.9), RB (9.5), AS (0.9), TO (2.4), ST (0.6), BK (1.9), TS% (54.0), MPG (16.0)
> ...


But you dismiss the Scott Pollard variable. Remember Pollard in Sacramento. Really easy when you can come off the bench for 15 and sprint your legs out. It becomes a little harder when you play 25, 30, 35 minutes. Every minute you play is harder and takes more of a toll on you. Hell last night Houston's announcers on NBA Ticket made a pretty convincing argument that there isn't a better player in the league, per minute, than Dikembe Motumbo. I found myself actually saying...."well, maybe he has a poi....wait WHAT?!" 

Then you're dismissing the fact that he was practically left unguarded as a rookie and for most of his sophomore season, whereas his third year brought the first double teams of his career and now he is doubled and sometimes tripled (more of a 2 and a half).

Eddy has gotten better, because when you play MORE MINUTES and you draw MORE DEFENDERS, you get better just by being able to stay the same.

Hell.....Jordan's best statistical seasons were 87-88 and 88-89.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

Since this has evolved into an Eddy Curry thread...



> Trivia: What all these guy have in common- Deng, Harrington, Hinrich, Nocioni, Chandler, Gordon, Piatkowski, Reiner, McGrady, Howard, Ming, Sura, Mutombo, PAdgett, Barry? They all out-rebounded the 6-11, 285, Eddy Curry.


I'm trying to stop cursing Eddy for his rebounding. Zero boards for your starting center stinks, no question, and I would love it if he got 12 a game. But realistically, building a team is about finding players that perform well as a unit, and I'm beginning to think that we really don't need Curry to get 10 boards a night. He's currently averaging 5.40, and the Bulls are outrebounding their opponents by two boards a game. The immortal Luc Longley got 5.9 rebounds a game in 1998, and it was enough - because a) he did what that team needed, b) he had a freak next to him getting 15 a night, and c) he had good rebounders in the backcourt and at SF. In fact (and I hesitate to even breathe the names), you can make a pretty good analogy between Rodman/Jordan/Pippen/Kukoc as rebounders picking up the slack for a below-average rebounding center, and Chandler, Hinrich, Deng, AD and Noce picking up the slack for Curry. 1997-1998 team totals - 44.9 Reb per game, opponents 39.7 rebounds per game. 2004-2005 team totals - 43.5 rebounds per game, opponents 41.9 rebounds per game. This team is still coming together and is quite young - I would expect the numbers for all of them to go up to some extent as they enter their prime.

Curry is a below average rebounder. But by the time the Bulls can seriously challenge again, I would think he will at the least get 1-2 or so more rebounds a game, moving him to at least 7 per game (I hope that's very conservative) in his mid-to-late twenties. Assuming the nucleus remains more or less together, the Bulls should outrebound their opponents easily. It has been speculated that EC clears the way for others to get rebounds; I don't know if that's true or not. But I know I don't care who gets the rebound as long as they are wearing the right jersey, and the Bulls are rebounding fairly well.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> But you dismiss the Scott Pollard variable. Remember Pollard in Sacramento. Really easy when you can come off the bench for 15 and sprint your legs out. It becomes a little harder when you play 25, 30, 35 minutes. Every minute you play is harder and takes more of a toll on you. Hell last night Houston's announcers on NBA Ticket made a pretty convincing argument that there isn't a better player in the league, per minute, than Dikembe Motumbo. I found myself actually saying...."well, maybe he has a poi....wait WHAT?!"
> 
> Then you're dismissing the fact that he was practically left unguarded as a rookie and for most of his sophomore season, whereas his third year brought the first double teams of his career and now he is doubled and sometimes tripled (more of a 2 and a half).
> ...


The issue you bring up about increasing a player's minutes has been studied in quite a bit of depth by John Hollinger, who is one of the best in the business at NBA statistical analysis. And while, of course, there could be an isolated example that supports your case, the weight of the evidence suggests that most players see their performance improve as the minutes become more regular.

Meausred per 40 minutes, I do not find Mutumbo to be one of the top 100 players in the NBA, so I think the Houston announcers are overstating their case. And, of course, Mutumbo is one guy who probably could not go 30 or 40 minutes a night. But there are not many guys in the league as old as Mutumbo. And yes, stamina is one area where Curry has improved, but do we expect stamina to keep improving _after_ he signs a huge contract.

Curry might have been left unguarded as a rookie, but by his second year when he was putting together a lot of 10 point first quarters, he was seeing a lot of double teams. And teams learned over time that there is no cost to doubling Curry as he cannot on a consistent basis hurt you with a pass out of the double team. So the double teams have become more frequent and Curry has not yet been able to make the necessary adjustments in his game.

One question that you have to be asking yourself is this. If Curry is drawing more defenders and he is more of a focus of the offense, how come his assists per 40 minutes have not significantly improved?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Philomath</b>!
> Since this has evolved into an Eddy Curry thread...
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but I simply could not resist. Max contract players are not compared to Luc Longley. Rodman/Jordan/Pippen/Kukoc are not compared to Chandler, Hinrich, Deng, AD and Noce. Eddy is a poor rebounder, period. Dan's stats seem to support the theory that his numbers have improved at the same rate as his minutes. Sounds good, but unless we force triple OT every game from here on out then his numbers are still going to be in the realm of 5+ rpg. Not bad .... <b>FOR A GUARD.</b> Dead awful for a center. 

But alas, I digress. The argument isn't about Eddy's rebounding. Eddy certainly is the most attractive prospect on the Bulls simply because you cannot teach height and that is the reason why the T-Wolves will demand he be included in any trade for KG. His height, frame, and scoring ability certainly make scouts drool, but the same can be said about the beloved Benoit Benjamin. I'll give credit where credit is due - Eddy has made tremendous strides in his defensive game, but it certainly does not give him room to slack in his rebounding ability.

Regardless, the Wolves are not trading KG. They'll find ways to dump Spree and Sam before they trade KG.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Re: interesting*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> The Bulls are currently 16-6 this season when Eddy Curry scores over his season average of 15.4 PPG.


Hinrich 13-8, Gordon 14-11, Chandler 9-10, Deng 9-12


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Re: interesting*



> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich 13-8, Gordon 14-11, Chandler 9-10, Deng 9-12


Again Dan......the ultimate revenge comes if we DONT pay Eddy Curry. Seeing what we'll be next year will spring open season for Curry fans as he will no longer be around to blame, and we will be god awful. Unless you have some sort of plausible plan for replacing what Eddy brings.

Also I'm glad that you eluded to John Hollinger without ever really giving any data, but just telling me to take your word for it on minutes played. 

Still you did not address the effect of minutes plays, double teams v. single teams, better players who take up more stats around Eddy than his rookie year. The list of differences that have nothing to do directly with Eddy Curry's effort goes on and on and on and on. 

You're no doubt, from your posts, one of these people who supports "team first" by John Paxson. So how can you then turn around and start demanding stats? The team is the best it's been since Curry got here. It's better than it was when we had your heroes Brand, Miller and Artest back in 2000-01. If they stopped playing today they'd have what six more wins than that team full of your idols that people like you worship to the point of nausea. The team rebounds EXCELLENTLY. 

But that's not good enough. People want to blurt like droids "he wants max money, he doesn't deserve it." THIS ISNT ABOUT DESERVE. It's about "YOU WILL GIVE ME MAX MONEY IF I GRAB 1 RPG BECAUSE IF YOU WONT SOMEONE ELSE WILL." And that's not the attitude Eddy even displays, but he very easily could, and it is reality. You guys all know that if Eddy isn't good enough for you and Pax he's still good enough for a lot of fans of teams better than the Bulls, and a lot of GMs better than Pax. If you and John Hollister or whoever are so right about Eddy Curry....why was there daily trade rumors stating that the logo wanted Curry. So Curry's good enough for Jerry West (and you better believe he is) but he's not good enough for John Paxson? John Paxson is a "good" GM.....he couldn't even sniff the bottom of Jerry West's sneakers. In fact I'll go so far as to say that any opinion relating to basketball where West and Paxson were to have differing philosophies......West is right 100% of the time and Paxson never could be, if he disagreed with West. 

So please.....if you are really John Paxson posing as a poster.....release Eddy. Trade him to West and watch Jerry head deep into the playoffs and probably contend for a title while Eddy's stats reflect anything but a "team concept." 

You think Cleveland won't smack max money down for Curry and dump Ilgauskas if they get the chance? Oh I'd love to see Lebron and Curry. They'd make Chicago fans who don't appreciate Eddy look so terrible. Every time Eddy played us it would be 40 points for him and 20 assists for Lebron and "our gritty college winners" would get crushed by about 40.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Re: Re: interesting*



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Again Dan......the ultimate revenge comes if we DONT pay Eddy Curry. Seeing what we'll be next year will spring open season for Curry fans as he will no longer be around to blame, and we will be god awful. Unless you have some sort of plausible plan for replacing what Eddy brings.
> ...



:laugh: 


Replace "Eddy Curry" with "Jamal Crawford" and I guarantee you'll find the exact same post at just about the exact same time last year. Except is was the great Isiah Thomas who wanted Jamal.

And losing Jamal has *really* hurt us this season, we've really just totally gone in the tank... 

Oh wait, my bad, it's Jamal's *new* team, the *Knicks*, who are worse than last season.




> So Curry's good enough for Jerry West (and you better believe he is) but he's not good enough for John Paxson?


Of course, that's why West traded for Curry, because Paxson didn't want him, right? :laugh: 

Thanks for the laughs, keep up the good work!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: interesting*



> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich 13-8, Gordon 14-11, Chandler 9-10, Deng 9-12


Also interesting.

At least this season... when Curry is doing what he seemingly does best, which is scoring, the Bulls win.

If Curry could average 21 points, 8 rebounds and 1.5 blocks in 40 minutes and the Bulls are winning basketball games.... sign me up.

Curry does not excel in the little things at this point.
But he puts the ball in the hoop.
And when he does, the Bulls win.
That's good.

I'd like to see the statistical analysis regarding turnovers per game as a player gets older (not years in league... age). 

Can we expect Curry's TOs to go down and his assists to go up as he gets older?

Performance increases as minutes increase? Or do minutes increase as performance increases? Does a players per-minute production tend to increase or decrease in the late minutes of game versus the early minutes of games?

Maybe the Bulls would be just as good with Marc Jackson starting at center. 

I don't know.

As Bulls fans, do we want to take the risk of finding out?

Things seem to be working well right now.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> Dead awful for a center.


Yup. Pretty poor, if not dead awful. And, it will cost him money before his career is over if he doesn't fix it, especially if Bird rights were to come calling. But what I'm saying is, if he has to have a weakness, this particular weakness seems to be pretty effectively masked or compensated for by this group. That might make him a better value for this team than somebody who does what we would ideally like but may not really need that much (rebound), but can't do what we're desperate for quite as well (score in the post). In other words, maybe our group can use a 15 and 5 guy more than a 10 and 10 guy (Dampier etc.), for the same money, even if that's all he ever is. (I would be extremely disappointed if he didn't improve on that, but for comparison's sake...)

But definitely 5 rebounds is stinkarama.

As far as "comparing" our guys to the champs - NEVER! :laugh: Just an analogy of relative rebounding numbers - neither team had a good rebounding center, yet both were good rebounding teams.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: interesting*



> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> And losing Jamal has *really* hurt us this season, we've really just totally gone in the tank...
> ...


If we lose Curry and add 4 more kick-*** players like Deng, Noc, Gordon and Duhon then we might be even better.

Losing Curry and not replacing him with much may hurt.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: interesting*



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Again Dan......the ultimate revenge comes if we DONT pay Eddy Curry. Seeing what we'll be next year will spring open season for Curry fans as he will no longer be around to blame, and we will be god awful. Unless you have some sort of plausible plan for replacing what Eddy brings.
> 
> Also I'm glad that you eluded to John Hollinger without ever really giving any data, but just telling me to take your word for it on minutes played.
> ...


I work hard in practically everything I do to point out the shades of grey between the the black and white worlds that I am often bumping up against. I realize that this post of yours was mostly an exercise of relieving frustration, so there is not much there that has much to do with anything that I posted. That is alright.

It is funny hearing you refer to me as John Paxson, since it was not very long ago that many probably would have put me squarely in the anti-Paxson camp. Again those shades of grey come back to haunt me.

It is interesting that you mention Jerry West in the context of Curry. As far as I can tell, Curry is not playing for the Grizzlies. So that suggets that Paxson places a higher value on Curry than West does. So according to your logic above that West is always right when West and Paxson disagree, then you must be arguing that Paxson is wrong to value Curry so highly. That is an odd argument for you to make.

If you read what I post carefully and not try to put me into a black or white box, you will notice that I am saying that Curry has a lot of value to the Bulls.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I just saw that Dwight Howard had 15 points and *20 rebounds* tonight.

Has Eddy EVER grabbed 20 boards in a game?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> I just saw that Dwight Howard had 15 points and *20 rebounds* tonight.
> 
> Has Eddy EVER grabbed 20 boards in a game?


Has Howard ever scored 25 points or more?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: interesting*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that you mention Jerry West in the context of Curry. As far as I can tell, Curry is not playing for the Grizzlies. So that suggets that Paxson places a higher value on Curry than West does. So according to your logic above that West is always right when West and Paxson disagree, then you must be arguing that Paxson is wrong to value Curry so highly. That is an odd argument for you to make.


BRILLIANT!!!!!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Has Howard ever scored 25 points or more?


Actually, he has scored 24... the difference being that Howard has played 48 games straight out of HS while Eddy is in his 4th season out of HS.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, he has scored 24... the difference being that Howard has played 48 games straight out of HS while Eddy is in his 4th season out of HS.


How many 20+ point games does Howard have this season?

Curry has 12.

Curry excels @ scoring for a big man. 

Howard at this point is a beast on the boards. 

Every player has their own strengths and weaknesses. 

Why can't we just live with that instead of constantly picking on the weaknesses?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> How many 20+ point games does Howard have this season?
> ...


EC- 15.4 pts, 53.1% FG, 11.6 FGA, 4.35 FTA, 5.4 reb, .95 blk, 2.91 TO
DH- 10.5 pts, 49.6% FG, 7.24 FGA, 4.98 FTA, 9.7 reb, 1.59 blk, 1.86 TO

How is it that Curry- the "backbone" of our offense- gets to the FT line less than a HS rookie who basically gets no plays run for him on offense? And how does Howard have more assists, that's even more inexplicable.

Give Howard an extra 4+ FGA/game and he'd score as much as Eddy- and scoring is Eddy's *only* strength.

And BTW, Howard now has 4 20+point games this season, pretty good for a guy who only gets 7.24 shots/game. 

Howard also has 25 games of 10+ rebounds, Eddy 5.



And FWIW, Howard is the first rookie since Tim Duncan to have two 20-rebound games in a season- and his rookie season is barely half over.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> EC- 15.4 pts, 53.1% FG, 11.6 FGA, 4.35 FTA, 5.4 reb, .95 blk, 2.91 TO
> ...


I'm not going to argue with you that Howard is good. I'm sure when his contract comes up, if he continues to improve, he'll get the MAX.

Not quite sure what your point is regarding Curry. Even if you think Howard is better.... what's your point regarding the Bulls? 

The Bulls win when Curry plays well. If you are a fan of the team... you should be rooting for Curry to score.


EDIT:

Oh yah... Curry also has a higher FG% and a higher FT% than Howard.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you that Howard is good. I'm sure when his contract comes up, if he continues to improve, he'll get the MAX.
> ...


My point is that I want curry to actually play well... not just score over his average, but also PLAY DEFENSE and REBOUND.

Since January 1st, Eddy is averaging 4.4 rebounds in 29 minutes, that is simply unacceptable for a center.

And once you factor in his TOs and the fact that he rarely gets to the FT line, he's simply not the "offensive force" that many Bulls fans (you included, obviously) make him out to be.

Primoz Brezec averages 12.6 pts/game on 50% shooting, I guess by your standards he's an offensive force as well? And he outrebounds Eddy as well.

So my point would be that we can get a lot for Eddy in a trade because there are lots of people out there (like you, the Gipper, and apparently Jerry West) who think he's a future All-Star. So why not grab a Brezec-type with the MLE for offense and trade Eddy for a big, defensive SG and another defensive, rebounding big man. Eddy has such high trade value, we should be able to land something special in a trade, right?

Or does that make too much sense?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> 
> 
> My point is that I want curry to actually play well... not just score over his average, but also PLAY DEFENSE and REBOUND.
> ...


Curry is a decent defender. He needs to rebound better and block shots more.

If you think Brezec starting at center going forward would be a better option... then fine. We'll see what happens. I think if you look at the way a guy like Brezec scores and the way Curry scores that there is a difference..... and I certainly don't think this year's Bulls would look the same with Brezec starting at center.... but if you think that style is what the team needs then you are entitled to your opinions. I'll just have to disagree with you. We can get our big guard with the MLE this year. We already have Chandler as a great rebounder and we can pick up a dirty work type thug either via trade or other means.

Right now Curry averages about 20 points, 8 rebounds and 1.5 blocks per 40 minutes at the age of 22. Three to four years from now, if he's getting 40 minuntes and that projection holds and the team he is on is winning... he'll most likely be an all-star.



THIS SEASON WHEN CURRY PLAYS WELL THE BULLS WIN!!!!!!

Why can't you just enjoy that?


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: interesting*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> It is interesting that you mention Jerry West in the context of Curry. As far as I can tell, Curry is not playing for the Grizzlies. So that suggets that Paxson places a higher value on Curry than West does. So according to your logic above that West is always right when West and Paxson disagree, then you must be arguing that Paxson is wrong to value Curry so highly. That is an odd argument for you to make.


I'm pretty sure I phrased it as a question. I put you, who was bringing anti-Eddy filth, in the shoes of Paxson, and I said.....

"So Curry's good enough for Jerry West (and you better believe he is) but he's not good enough for John Paxson?" 

See how that is phrased as a question.....a question phrased to someone who is arguing that Eddy hasn't improved..... I'm basically saying, "so if you are John Paxson, are you not gonna pay him?" That was the context I spoke in. See if you answer that question "no, i am not going to pay Eddy Curry," then that would make you, the poster in the shoes of John Paxson, in disagreement with Jerry West. And if you are John Paxson and you disagree with Jerry West you are automatically wrong. Just like if you are Tim Legler and you try to take Michael Jordan on one-on-one, you are automatically going to lose.

So the paragraph you spouted was anything but brilliant....it actually showed an utter inability to interpret prose.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> ...


I don't think I remember seeing those "We're number 1 in FT%" foam rubber hands on sale at the stadium.


----------

