# Warriors discussing Curry



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Have not made an offer but are discussing it with each other. (No dialouge with Paxson, just internal talk in Warrior organization.)

*According to Mullin, the Warriors have had "internal" talks about Chicago Bulls center Eddy Curry, a restricted free agent, and are interested in a handful of other players.*


http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/sports/basketball/nba/golden_state_warriors/12711152.htm


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Time is running out. If they want to make an offer, they'd best hop to it. I think GS could be a good trading partner for a Curry deal. I know a lot of folks don't care for him, but I think Troy Murphy could fit in well with Skiles' system. Very good shooter (not much post game, though) and an excellent rebounder. A front line of Deng, Murphy and Chandler would own the boards. 

Admittedly, though, he is overpaid. But with his $60 million dollar deal, there'd still be a lot of capspace next summer left over.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Very good shooter (not much post game, though) and an excellent rebounder. A front line of Deng, Murphy and Chandler would own the boards.


I disagree he's a good shooter. At least in NBA games he's not... perhaps he is while shooting hoops in an empty gym.

66% of his shots are jumpers and his eFG on these shots is 41.4%
(by comparison, jamal crawford coverts his jumpers with an eFG of 47.2%)

He's a career 43% shooter at the PF position that likes to shoot jumpers.

On the inside, he converts with an eFG of 50.9%, but that's only 34% of his shots. Curry in comparison has an eFG from the inside of 65% and takes 71% of his shots from the inside.

If we were starting Deng, Murphy, and Chandler at the 3,4,5 I agree that we'd clear the boards. We sure would need to. I can't see where any consistent inside scoring would come from. Lotsa jumpers. Also, Murphy is far from a great defender.

He'd be better than nothing though I guess. He seems like a Paxson guy... at least they went to the same school.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

It seems to me that three of the biggest concerns about Curry would be whether he'd be healthy, whether we'd overpay for him and whether his defense will ever improve.

We could answer those questions right now by trading him for Troy Murphy! :clown:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> It seems to me that three of the biggest concerns about Curry would be whether he'd be healthy, whether we'd overpay for him and whether his defense will ever improve.
> 
> We could answer those questions right now by trading him for Troy Murphy! :clown:


Does Murphy have injury problems? He was healthy his first two seasons. He missed 12 games last season.  He missed *a lot * the season before (only played 29 games), but I don't know the nature of the injury. Is it the type that is prone to repeat? 

Troy Murphy's defense isn't great, but it is superior to Curry's. The guy averages *twice* as many boards a game. 

Can't really argue the overpayment part. I'm not itching for the trade. I'm just saying if there is to be a trade, getting Murphy would be pretty good.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree he's a good shooter. At least in NBA games he's not... perhaps he is while shooting hoops in an empty gym.
> 
> 66% of his shots are jumpers and his eFG on these shots is 41.4%
> (by comparison, jamal crawford coverts his jumpers with an eFG of 47.2%)
> ...


Good post. I was a little blinded by the 40% from three point range. In seasons past, his overall shooting percentage was better, but his 3s were far, far worse.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Murphy would have been the type of player that we'd want to surround Eddy with, not Tyson. An excellent rebounder with no post game. Remind you of anyone?

And going off of memory, I think Murphy missed most of the season before last due to a knee injury that wouldn't go away. AFAIK he isn't an injury risk.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> It seems to me that three of the biggest concerns about Curry would be whether he'd be healthy, whether we'd overpay for him and whether his defense will ever improve.
> 
> We could answer those questions right now by trading him for Troy Murphy! :clown:


It would be very difficult to make a trade with Golden State without taking Murphy, Foyle or Dunleavy back, because they actually have large enough salaries to perhaps work a deal. This is of course assuming that Richarson and the Baron aren't going anywhere, and we just don't need an overpaid point guard like Fisher. I supposed I'd probably be much more keen on Murphy if he was paid a decent amount less. I don't think he's worth more than 6/50 honestly. He's just not a very good defensive player, although he would certainly play well with Chandler on O. 

Foyle is just too overpaid to even take with a player like Pietrus that I would like. Dunleavy doesn't really fit in with all the small forwards we acquired last year. 

As with most trade possibilities involving Eddy, well, I'd rather just keep Eddy.

edit: Would the Warriors trade Murphy for Curry? I guess it depends on what they think they have in Diogu and Biedrins.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I wouldn't take on Murphy and his payroll. He's not worth it. I'd rather keep Curry. The only player I would want from that team is Biedrins and you'd have to add salary on GS's side to make it work. Dunleavy and Biedrins for Curry and possibly a protected first? I don't know what the salaries are like or if they even work, but I'd go for something like that - (which leads me to believe that GS wouldn't!).


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Why would Mullin let this out on the papers? This to me signals a "call me pax" from the GS GM to see if the Bulls are interested in a Foyle or Fish deal. GS has a better talent pool than the Knicks do but I doubt Pax does anything stupid by taking on those terrible contracts. A multi-player deal in separate trades to them might work out but I wouldn't mind Murphy for Curry straight up. He could be the big man who can board and shoot from the outside Paxson is looking for.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Does Murphy have injury problems? He was healthy his first two seasons. He missed 12 games last season. He missed *a lot *the season before (only played 29 games), but I don't know the nature of the injury. Is it the type that is prone to repeat?
> 
> Troy Murphy's defense isn't great, but it is superior to Curry's. The guy averages *twice* as many boards a game.


Murphy's defense is awful. Aside from rebounding numbers, which I don't think equate to much of anything in terms of actually playing defense against opposing players, I'd take Curry.

Even if one concludes they're equivalently bad defenders, bringing in a sapling like Murphy forces Chandler into defending whoever the biggest, strongest guy on the other team is. That'll make the net effect of Murphy/Chandler substantially worse than Curry/Chandler.

If you'll notice, the Bulls don't use Chandler in that role for very big stretches, and for good reason. Most of the time he's out there with Curry or AD, and they take on the more physical post guys and let Chandler do what he's most effective at: help, grab rebounds, guard quick guys, and alter plays.

This isn't just a criticism of Murphy, but of any guy like him - a jump shooting, perimeter PF with no ability to defend *big men*- we've got another thread on Radmanovic and he poses the same problem - they set us a big step back by filling the wrong role.

I could see us being just as well off - maybe better by getting Foyle. He at least fills that role and will let Chandler do what he excels at. We'd have trouble scoring, but we'd hold true to what we're best at.



> Can't really argue the overpayment part. I'm not itching for the trade. I'm just saying if there is to be a trade, getting Murphy would be pretty good.


I can think of a lot of other trades I'd prefer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I could see us being just as well off - maybe better by getting Foyle. He at least fills that role and will let Chandler do what he excels at. We'd have trouble scoring, but we'd hold true to what we're best at.


I agree.

I'd rather a Pietrus/Foyle trade... I think it would give us more of what our team needs right now.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Troy Murphy - No thanx!

Yes , on offense he's nice next to Eddy , and he can complement Eddy's lack of rebounding ability , but on defense they'll form the worst defensive backcourt in the league - our paint would become a slasher party zone.

Murphy is after an injury and has 6!!!!! more years on his contract. Paying him 13 mil when he's 31 ain't that ideal.

with GS I'd rather go for Biedrins or Pietrus or a pick or a combo of those (Taft , Dunleavey can also be involved)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I would have a real, real difficult time watching Bulls games if they traded Curry for Murphy, and not at all because of the loss of Curry. Troy Murphy is the Jalen Rose of the power forward set -- a conscienceless shooter, a criminally indifferent defender, and, most dangerously, a guy who thinks he's a hell of a lot better than he actually is.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I would have a real, real difficult time watching Bulls games if they traded Curry for Murphy, and not at all because of the loss of Curry. Troy Murphy is the Jalen Rose of the power forward set -- a conscienceless shooter, a criminally indifferent defender, and, most dangerously, a guy who thinks he's a hell of a lot better than he actually is.


I agree. Not a fan of Murphy at all.

I do see GS as a nice trading partner though. I would love to get back either Diogu or Biedrins. Both are young, tough big guys with alot of upside (both were lottery picks like Curry, as well). Not sure how high GS is on either of them though, or if they'd be willing to part with them for Eddy. And of course Pietrus is always a possibility.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Troy Murphy is the Jalen Rose of the power forward set -- a conscienceless shooter, a criminally indifferent defender, and, most dangerously, a guy who thinks he's a hell of a lot better than he actually is.


Ouch! Jalen of the PF set? Ironically I think that title belongs to Rose's college teammate, CWebb.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

http://slamonline.com/links/09192005/ - A take on Chris Mullin's "internal" talk about Curry.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I would have a real, real difficult time watching Bulls games if they traded Curry for Murphy, and not at all because of the loss of Curry. Troy Murphy is the Jalen Rose of the power forward set -- a conscienceless shooter, a criminally indifferent defender, and, most dangerously, a guy who thinks he's a hell of a lot better than he actually is.


I agree.

But is'nt Eddy the same at Center - imo thats exactly it!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree.
> 
> I'd rather a Pietrus/Foyle trade... I think it would give us more of what our team needs right now.


I agree with this -- I think Murphy is decent, and capable of improving further, but as others have said, he duplicates too much of what Tyson does and doesn't bring to the table.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

just keep curry. this bulls team need his scoring.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullet said:


> I agree.
> 
> But is'nt Eddy the same at Center - imo thats exactly it!


I don't agree with that at all.

I guess Eddy is "lazy" in the sense that he hasn't capitalized on all his God-given gifts, but I can't recall a single time he's taken a play off, or sulked because he established post position and didn't get the ball, or some of the stuff that Murphy does every time I see him play.

Mike DC has repeatedly made a good point that few have seemed to grasp -- we were an excellent defensive team last year that exhibited tons of toughness and won a bunch of games on hustle, and that was with Eddy Curry playing 29 minutes a game. How much damage could he have possibly done to our chances of winning? Put a number on it -- sans Curry, do you think the Bulls would have won 70 games last year? 60? 50? 

Once you disabuse yourself of the erroneous assumption that Curry was somehow holding us back, it becomes a lot easier to see how he actually contributed to the winning.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

3 thoughts....

Murphy is very, very redundant with Songailia. It's a huge commiment (and a slap at Darius) to gain a 3pt shooter. Not worth it in my book.

If they like Curry, GSW should just offer a 3 year MLE deal to Curry. Player option on year 3 (if permissable). Let the Bulls match.

Pietras and Foyle might make some sense. I don't think Biedrins is realistic.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> 3 thoughts....
> 
> If they like Curry, GSW should just offer a 3 year MLE deal to Curry. Player option on year 3 (if permissable). Let the Bulls match.


That's an interesting idea.

Curry would have to accept the offer for the Bulls to match, thus locking him into a pretty shallow deal. If Curry's confident he won't have health problems - as he seems to be - I don't see him doing that, since I'd set the MLE as the bottom of the range he'd get next year as a UFA.

On the other hand, if he's worried about playing, it might make sense.

In thinking about this, it also occurs to me that a big market and/or championship contending team could really throw the Bulls into disarray by making like a 5 year MLE offer to Eddy. 

I think, for example, the Nets still have their MLE since the SAR thing fell through. They're capped out for the forseeable future anyway, so they don't have the sort of cap space downside the Bulls have to signing Eddy to a deal like this. Adding him to their team would potentially help a lot, and it would hurt us, another contender, in the process.

IIRC, the Nets, Heat, Pistons, and Sixers all have their MLE left. Orlando's not a contender, but they strike me as a team that, by making a bold and risky move like that, could dramatically change their fortunes.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I don't agree with that at all.
> 
> I guess Eddy is "lazy" in the sense that he hasn't capitalized on all his God-given gifts, but I can't recall a single time he's taken a play off, or sulked because he established post position and didn't get the ball, or some of the stuff that Murphy does every time I see him play.
> 
> ...


Still , any way you look at it , Eddy is playing for about 50-60 % of his full potential , lets say if he had Kirks mentality. Man to man , Eddy really improved last season defensively - but as I recall , Billups was considered a weak defensive player before coming to Pistons. What I mean is just like having Big Ben and Sheed waiting in the middle every time a pistons gaurd gets scortched makes you look great , maybe having Guys like Kirk , Du , Deng and Noc gaurding Perimiter makes you look good as a heavy weight (and again , Man to man , Eddy is close to being a decent defender in my book).
with all laziness - Eddy was not to shy to ask for 85 mil last year , based only on the fact that when he was 18 he was one of the 'baby Shaqs' nominies. Yes , he could be great , but as I see it , he's laziness and get it all easy on potential alone have conquered him and he will never be an on court Killer as he should given character. Rebounnding with Eddy is too ugly to even discuss. Murphy can seriously rebound. But as I said , I would not touch Troys contract , thats overpaying. I'd rather take my chances with Ed.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> IIRC, the Nets, Heat, Pistons, and Sixers all have their MLE left. Orlando's not a contender, but they strike me as a team that, by making a bold and risky move like that, could dramatically change their fortunes.


Nets used their MLE on McGinnis. I think the Sixers used part of their MLE on Hunter. Detroit used part of their MLE on Dale Davis. Orlando used part of their MLE on Dooling.

Heat and GSW are two of the only teams that I can think of that are in a perfect scenerio for Curry. Capped out for quite some time and still have their whole MLE.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I see no upside for Curry to sign for the MLE with anybody.

If Curry ever signed a MLE contract (even if it were 5 yrs) Pax should match that no matter what. Let's say Curry never improves his game at all and just stays at his current level... MLE money is a bargain these days for what he brings. If Pax ever wanted to get rid of Curry, an MLE-type contract would be very tradeable.

As for the Warriors, I would be interested in either Pietrus, Diogu, or Biedrins. A deal would have to include one of them because there's no way in hell I'd trade for Murphy, Foyle, or Fisher's contract. Let's just say the Warriors were willing to give us Pietrus, but as part of the deal we have to take Foyle. Pax would be calling just about every team in the league trying to get someone to take Foyle off his hands... the problem with that is everyone knows Pax wants cap space for 2006, so any team that would take Foyle off our hands would demand we include a first round pick (at least) to take him.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

According to Pax

"our guard corp is set"

He won't take back any crap contracts either 

GSW can go on talking to themselves


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Having said that any theoretic GSW trade would need to include Mickael Pietrus and Zarko Carparkaba as principals for me to even be remotely interested 

Given Eddy's low market / status I don't think a team  currently gives up two talents like this 

Best offers have been Mihm and Sweetney and Pax has come out very clearly and said 

"I'm not giving Eddy Curry away"

So... the Bulls may be agreeable to a sign and trade still ..so long as they get acceptable talent back and no crap contracts to make it work 

The liklihood of that happening ?

2/10's of F'All.

We'll have Eddy back as a Bull....likely on the IL for awhile


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I guess Eddy is "lazy" in the sense that he hasn't capitalized on all his God-given gifts, *but I can't recall a single time he's taken a play off, *or sulked because he established post position and didn't get the ball, or some of the stuff that Murphy does every time I see him play.


Are you only referring to last year, or Eddy's whole career? Let's be honest - Eddy took half of the other team's possessions off his first couple years. He got much, much better last season.

Murphy only makes sense to us if Eddy is still here. His fg% was low last year because he and JRich were the only offensive players who could score on way too many nights until Davis arrived, and Murphy was basically a #1 option for a long stretch when JRich was hurt. He took countless long jumpers with a hand in his face. When he was open and in rhythm he was fine. And I really don't remember him having a sulking problem, and I live in Warrior territory. All that being said, I think he's overpaid and a less-than-optimal fit to our team as constructed.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Pietrus fans--REPRESENT!

I would be a happy bulls fan if we got Pietrus next year. I'd take on a bad contract with Pietrus even.

Pietrus>Curry for the Bulls. Pietrus, Deng, and Hinrich as the starting perimeter... :drool:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> According to Pax
> 
> "our guard corp is set"
> 
> ...


Pietrus is better than Basden. When Pax said that, I doubt he thought he could get a Pietrus.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Ike Diogu for Curry?

Ike would replace the scoring load that curry provided... and wouldn't be a bad replacement


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mike DC brought up Orlando

My guess is that the Magic don't make the playoffs this year and will be a lottery team

I wonder whether they would deal Kelvin Cato and their 2006 draft pick for Eddy ( say top 7 protected in the lottery in 2006 and unconditional thereafter )

We rent Kelvin Cato for a year and get a 1st round draft pick from say # 7 to #14 

We'd have to flick Pike to a team under the cap with cash considerations to pay his salary this season 

Basically ..the deal would be Eddy for a late round lottery pick

The Magic take a punt ..but Curry and Howard could be a pretty scary front court 

If I were Pax though and if you believe that Eddy will continue to have a pro career I don't know whether you would want the responsibility of pairing Eddy Curry with Dwight Howard on another team in the same conference


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

The Magic also specialise in big money contracts for guys that end up not being able to play and hamstringing the franchise..


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

The report indicates Mullin is considering a trade involving use of their $5 million trade exception. Using the trade exception to acquire Curry means he would be trading one or more of his cheaper contracts, not Foyle or Murphy.

How about Pietrus and Biedrins for Curry and the Bulls 2006 first rounder (in the high teens or low twenties)? Bulls get a defense-first two who has shown flashes of offensive brilliance and a pretty good center prospect. The Warriors finally get a starting center and a first round pick for a little "health" insurance. Eddy's rebounding deficiencies would be covered by Murphy, much like Chandler covers them for the Bulls It looks to me like JRich and Dunleavy are going to be the Warriors featured wing tandem for a long time, making Pietrus expendable. Biedrins looks good, but is not as developed as Curry, and will never have Curry's offensive game. At this late date, Curry would probably settle for something less than the moon, as long as it had a few guaranteed years. It all comes down to how much they like what Curry brings and whether they are willing to take a chance on his health.

Hinrich, Duhon, Pargo
Gordon, Pietrus, Basden, Pike
Deng, Nocioni
Chandler, Songaila, Harrington
Biedrins, Davis, Allen

Post scoring would be the biggest question mark for this lineup, but maybe Biedrins and Chandler can develop some offense over the next year or two - they are still very young players. At least with this approach, Paxson will have replaced Curry with other marketable assets.

I'd rather see Curry stay, signing a multi-year contract laced with conditions and incentives, but I could live with a deal like this, even giving up the pick (which I just don't see yielding much next spring). I'm not a big fan of the Curry for the QO scenario because I forsee the Bulls losing him next summer for nothing. Those who say we'll just use our capspace to replace him are overly optimisitc. Nazr, Pryzbilla, and Nene are not exactly all-world and may just resign with their existing teams unless the Bulls grossly overpay. There just aren't many quality centers in the league, and the pickings next summer are pretty slim.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

We can't trade the rights to our draft picks in consecutive years ( we lost the rights to ours last draft because of the Deng acqusition and that pick ended up as Nate the Knick )


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> We can't trade the rights to our draft picks in consecutive years ( we lost the rights to ours last draft because of the Deng acqusition and that pick ended up as Nate the Knick )


are'nt we able to trade the pick once the 2005 draft is over??? I believe it's the case...

I'd do the curry and 1st for Pietrus and Biedrins (easy , since I think Biedrins will grow to be a better overall player than Eddy)


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

I believe Bullet is right. The restriction is on trading consecutive future first rounders.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> We can't trade the rights to our draft picks in consecutive years ( we lost the rights to ours last draft because of the Deng acqusition and that pick ended up as Nate the Knick )


You cannot commit two _future_ first round pick. You could trade your pick seven years in a row so long as you're never committed to having more than one future pick going to another team. We could trade this years' pick and the deal above works just fine for me! (I suggested Dunleavy and Biedrins, but if GS has a trade exception they could use - all the better.) Sign me up! :clap:


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I don't see the Warriors trading Biedrins for Curry straight-up, let alone throwing in Pietrus. 

Would Curry + Pike for any combination of Pietrus, trade exception, Cheaney (expiring contract) work? I would be all for this. 

I'm with futuristxen, we could throw Deng, Pietrus, Basden, Hinrich, and Duhon out there to guard the perimeter. Imagine adding Big Ben or Pryzbilla next year and putting one of them next to Tyson in the frontcourt. Man that would be a nightmare for the other team to try and score.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Thanks for the specific rule relating to consecutive draft picks guys

I'm just not sure whether the Bulls want to leave their heart in San Francisco :brokenhea


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Any trade with GS for curry would have to include Biedrins and Pietrus. But is has to include Pietrus. That would fill our greatest need. An altheltic big time defensive SG. A starting backcourt of KH and Pietrus is the best defensive backcourt in the east, hands down. And then BG can play PG with pietrus and SG and at the end of the game KH and BG can play in the backcourt. GS would also need to come up with a big man and Biedrins would be a better player then Murphy.

I would hate to see EC go but for Biedrins and Pietrus it would be worth it. But IMHO GS would demand a DNA test before they commit to 60 million dollors.

david


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

giusd said:


> Any trade with GS for curry would have to include Biedrins and Pietrus. But is has to include Pietrus. That would fill our greatest need. An altheltic big time defensive SG.
> 
> david


I disagree, if we trade Curry we will be severly lacking an inside scoring presence.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ngaila,1,5359375.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


_The news isn't as good for Eddy Curry. All signs continue to indicate Curry will play the upcoming season on the Bulls' qualifying offer of $5.14 million.

Warriors executives reportedly have discussed pursuing Curry, but time is running out for Curry to make a deal or for his agent to find a team for a sign-and-trade that is acceptable to Paxson.

Paxson said Golden State has not contacted him._


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Professor said:


> How about Pietrus and Biedrins for Curry and the Bulls 2006 first rounder (in the high teens or low twenties)? Bulls get a defense-first two who has shown flashes of offensive brilliance and a pretty good center prospect. ...
> 
> Hinrich, Duhon, Pargo
> Gordon, Pietrus, Basden, Pike
> ...


This is the trade I like. I'm of this nagging suspicion that either Duhon or Ben will be out of Chicago sometime soon, if we get exploited at the 2 spot. If not, then we'll just need to find time to give to Pietrus, making Basden almost a useless find (unless we can use him in trades somehow, which I doubt). But in any event, there is definitely room on the Chicago Bulls roster for Mickael Pietrus.

As for Biedrins, we don't really know what to expect yet, but he looks like he's tough enough for the NBA. He looks like Darko, strong physique and a fairly tough big man, but he's already got much more seasoning than Darko (of course, that's not saying much).

Pietrus + Biedrins + trade exception for Curry + Pike?

As noted, the Diogu/Taft/Foyle/Murphy/Zarko thing they have going on there will be interesting to see who shakes out of it and who doesn't. 

By the way, someone mentioned something about Murphy's injury. It is plantar fasciitis (a heel spur), and it is chronic. It's the same ailment that Toni Kukoc had, and whatever team has Troy can expect maybe 68-73 games from him in good times, and less than that in bad.

Kukoc injury history:

56 games in 99-00. 
65 games in 00-01.
59 games in 01-02.
63 games in 02-03.
73 games in 03-04 (by this time, he's averaging 20 mpg and is conserved well enough to extend his total number of games played)
53 games in 04-05.

This is the slightly worse case scenario for plantar fasciitis.



> Plantar fasciitis (pronounced PLAN-tar fashee-EYE-tiss) is an inflammation of the plantar fascia. "Plantar" means the bottom of the foot, "fascia" is a type of connective tissue, and "itis" means "inflammation". Heel spurs are soft, bendable deposits of calcium that are the result of tension and inflammation in the plantar fascia attachment to the heel. Heel spurs do not cause pain. They are only evidence (not proof) that a patient may have plantar fasciitis. The plantar fascia encapsulates muscles in the sole of the foot. It supports the arch of the foot by acting as a bowstring to connect the ball of the foot to the heel. When walking and at the moment the heel of the trailing leg begins to lift off the ground, the plantar fascia endures tension that is approximately two times body weight. This moment of maximum tension is increased and "sharpened" (it increases suddenly) if there is lack of flexibility in the calf muscles. A percentage increase in body weight causes the same percentage increase in tension in the fascia. Due to the repetitive nature of walking, plantar fasciitis may be a repetitive stress disorder (RSD) similar to tennis elbow. Both conditions benefit greatly from rest, ice, and stretching. Surgery is a last resort and may result in more harm than good in up to 50% of the patients.


http://heelspurs.com/_intro.html

I like Troy Murphy as a nominal player on any team, but no thanks for his salary and injury.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-050922bullssongaila,1,5359375.story?coll=cs-home-headlines
> 
> 
> _The news isn't as good for Eddy Curry. All signs continue to indicate Curry will play the upcoming season on the Bulls' qualifying offer of $5.14 million.
> ...


Maybe Pax should pick up the phone and dial.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Maybe Pax should pick up the phone and dial.


That is not his job.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> That is not his job.


That's right. He doesn't cold call.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> That's right. He doesn't cold call.


He's too proud.

EDIT: added :clown: to indicate attempt at humor.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> He's too proud.


It wouldn't make any sense under the circumstances, it has nothing to do with pride. When a player is available, other teams should make the first call to express their interest. Teams know by now that a good offer could land them Eddy Curry. They aren't calling. There's a reason for that.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> He's too proud.


Just out of curiosity, did any of you read the article in the Sun Times that actually put that statement into the appropriate context? He was referring specifically to the Knicks, not generally like the Trib article made it appear.

Here is the statement as reported by the Sun Times:



> The Bulls did complete a sign-and-trade deal before last season that sent Jamal Crawford to the Knicks.
> 
> "We did that for two reasons -- to get rid of a bad contract and to change the direction of our team,'' Paxson said. "And the only way we're only going to do this [sign-and-trade] is if we get something we really like in return. But right now, it's not my obligation [to contact the Knicks]. *I'm not interested, so why would I make a telephone call.*''


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull181.html

I agree that it absolutely is a GMs job to call other teams about deals. And if Paxson didn't believe that was part of his job he'd be an idiot. But he didn't actually say that when put in the appropriate context.

Although, I'm sure the "Paxson doesn't call teams" line will become the new cheesy battle cry around here notwithstanding the fact that what he said was actually perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

Paxson decided to gut the team two seasons ago. Do any of you seriously think that he wasn't calling around the league looking for interest in Jalen Rose? Come on.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> It wouldn't make any sense under the circumstances, it has nothing to do with pride. When a player is available, other teams should make the first call to express their interest. Teams know by now that a good offer could land them Eddy Curry. They aren't calling. There's a reason for that.


Just so we're perfectly clear. You believe that:

1. Leon Rose's claim that multiple teams are interested in Curry is an out-and-out lie.

2. Mark Bartlestein's claim that more than half the teams in the league were interested in Songaila is gospel truth.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Just so we're perfectly clear. You believe that:
> 
> 1. Leon Rose's claim that multiple teams are interested in Curry is an out-and-out lie.
> 
> 2. Mark Bartlestein's claim that more than half the teams in the league were interested in Songaila is gospel truth.


Huh? I never said either of those things. My statement implied that teams aren't interested in giving up anything of significant value for Curry, which would make it pointless from the Bulls' point of view. I'm sure teams are "interested" in Curry. Interested in making an offer worth our while? Doesn't seem so.

I never even commented on Bartelstein's comments, but since you asked, I think that's routine overexaggerated agent talk. He's being paid to say nice things about his client and to make him as valuable and marketable as possible. Phrases like "teams foaming at the mouth" gave that one away.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

What's he supposed to call about?

Pax: Hi, Chris. I hear you're interested in Eddy. What will you give me in return?

Mullin: Anyone on our roster.

Pax: OK, thanks. Not interested.

--------------

And I'm not kidding here. I don't see one trade with the Warriors that makes sense. Even where they've got talented guys like Davis and Richardson, I don't see how they work very well for us. Pietrus is the only guy that really makes sense to me, and I wouldn't trade Curry for him straight up.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Paxson decided to gut the team two seasons ago. Do any of you seriously think that he wasn't calling around the league looking for interest in Jalen Rose? Come on.


At some point in between the time he guaranteed playoffs (start of season) and the Jalen Rose trade (1 month later) he probably did make a phone call, or at least picked up the bat-phone in his office.

Which means that he probably went from guaranteeing playoffs to giving up on the team and season in less than a month, assuming it takes some time to finalize a deal. Perhaps 2 weeks? 3 weeks? That was a bad year. 

Perhaps if he made another call or two we would have received more in return, or at least not had to give up Marshall. 

Also, perhaps giving up on a 5-12 by 12/1 team after a brutal west coast road trip was a little premature, given that our team last season was 2-10 after 12/1.

Oh well. We did make the playoffs last year (knocked out by average team in first round) and are slated to be an average team in the east this season and are getting ready to accept hemmoraging more starter-level talent. All is well!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> At some point in between the time he guaranteed playoffs (start of season) and the Jalen Rose trade (1 month later) he probably did make a phone call, or at least picked up the bat-phone in his office.
> 
> Which means that he probably went from guaranteeing playoffs to giving up on the team and season in less than a month, assuming it takes some time to finalize a deal. Perhaps 2 weeks? 3 weeks? That was a bad year.
> 
> ...


Nice deflection. What about the Sun Times article?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Huh? I never said either of those things. My statement implied that teams aren't interested in giving up anything of significant value for Curry, which would make it pointless from the Bulls' point of view. I'm sure teams are "interested" in Curry. Interested in making an offer worth our while? Doesn't seem so.


If at this point the plan is to attempt to force Curry to retire, or to have him play for the QO, then *any* offer would be worth our while so long as it doesn't return cap-unfriendly contracts. 

If Paxson doesn't want Curry for the long haul, and all of his actions point to that being his stance, he should absolutely be soliciting deals for Curry, whether it's by phone, e-mail, smoke signal, sky-writing, whatever.



> I never even commented on Bartelstein's comments, but since you asked, I think that's routine overexaggerated agent talk. He's being paid to say nice things about his client and to make him as valuable and marketable as possible. Phrases like "teams foaming at the mouth" gave that one away.


What is the basis of your opinion that "Songaila's market value is far higher than $2.2 million"? If you apply the same rigid "A player, even a restricted free agent, is only worth what he is offered" logic to Songaila that you have done to Curry/Chandler, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion other than to have put a lot of faith in what his agent is saying. 

If I've just missed the media reports about there being an NBA land rush for Songaila's services, then I apologize.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Nice deflection. What about the Sun Times article?


I don't consider it a deflection. Seems like another data point that helps explain why Paxson does not seem to get much in return for trades.

This quote ....



> "I don't think it's my obligation to cold-call teams," he said.


and this section....



> A source close to Curry said Paxson will not negotiate with an Eastern Conference team but has sent out feelers to Memphis and Denver, both from the Western Conference. Paxson said he has not spoken to representatives from either team.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,3426565.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


Perhaps the quote in the suntimes article and the quote in the trib article are two different statements by Paxson? Seems like you are assuming otherwise. Yah, you can interpret the Sun-Times one to only mean the Knicks. I don't interpret the Tribune one that way though.

If only the Sun-Times quote was made public, I don’t think people would be joking around about it as much. The Tribune quote and overall article are more troubling, IMO.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> If Paxson doesn't want Curry for the long haul, and *all of his actions point to that being his stance*, he should absolutely be soliciting deals for Curry, whether it's by phone, e-mail, smoke signal, sky-writing, whatever.


Excluding, of course, the rumored deal with three guaranteed seasons at a guaranteed $19-26 million plus incentives and additional seasons.

I don't think its obvious that Paxson doesn't want Curry for the long haul. In fact, *assuming* this deal to be the accurate report, it would appear that Paxson does want Curry for the long haul, Pax just wants to get him on the most favorable/risk adverse terms that the team believes are reasonable.

However, if Paxson actually has no interest in Curry, then you are absolutely right. If a GM is not sold on a player, he should initiate talks to explore movement. I agree with miz and Yodurk on lots of stuff, but this isn't one of them. 

The thing is, as I pointed out above, and as I pointed out in another thread that was similarly ignored, Paxson's statements went only to the Knicks and its hard to disagree with his reasoning. If he doesn't want what they are offering, nor anything else they have, why would he call?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> It wouldn't make any sense under the circumstances, it has nothing to do with pride. When a player is available, other teams should make the first call to express their interest. Teams know by now that a good offer could land them Eddy Curry. They aren't calling. There's a reason for that.


The risk of losing Curry for nothing at this point is higher IMO. Paxson should be doing whatever it takes to get the best possible deal for the Bulls. I think this involves working with other teams. Not *just* sitting on your hands and hoping the CBA will save you.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps the quote in the suntimes article and the quote in the trib article are two different quotes? Yah, you can interpret the Sun-Times one to only mean the Knicks. I don't interpret the Tribune one that way though.
> 
> If only the Sun-Times quote was made public, I don’t think people would be joking around about it as much. The Tribune quote and overall article are more troubling, IMO.


Its the same quote. You can't be serious. 

The Trib takes that one sentence and extracts it from its context. The Sun Times article contains the book-end statements that put it in context. 

I don't see how you can actually dispute that with a straight face.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Its the same quote. You can't be serious.
> 
> The Trib takes that one sentence and extracts it from its context. The Sun Times article contains the book-end statements that put it in context.
> 
> I don't see how you can actually dispute that with a straight face.


How do you know its based on the same statement? Check out the context of the quote in the Tribune article.



> A source close to Curry said Paxson will not negotiate with an Eastern Conference team but has sent out feelers to Memphis and Denver, both from the Western Conference. Paxson said he has not spoken to representatives from either team.
> 
> "I don't think it's my obligation to cold-call teams," he said.


So, the writer (or editor?) felt the best place for that quote was after the sentence about Paxson allegedly not wanting to deal with any eastern conference teams but has indirectly felt up Jerry West and Kiki (hey now). Then they say that Paxson didn't speak to representives from either team.

Then the quote.

The context seems to be at least the Griz and the Warriors and perhaps the entire eastern conference at that point. Also, its teams, not team in the tribune quote. 

There is a difference between

"But right now, it's not my obligation [to contact the Knicks]."
and 
"I don't think it's my obligation to cold-call teams,"

If those quotes are based on the same statement, then somebody has a messed up audio recorder. (or perhaps the agenda against the wicked bulls organization reaches all the way to tribune tower!!!!!! :eek8: :eek8: :eek8: :eek8: :eek8: )

It seems reasonable to think that Paxson was responding to a question like "Have you contacted the Warriors or Grizzles?" in the Tribune article.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Excluding, of course, the rumored deal with three guaranteed seasons at a guaranteed $19-26 million plus incentives and additional seasons.
> 
> I don't think its obvious that Paxson doesn't want Curry for the long haul. In fact, *assuming* this deal to be the accurate report, it would appear that Paxson does want Curry for the long haul, Pax just wants to get him on the most favorable/risk adverse terms that the team believes are reasonable.


I don't disagree . . . however, we've seen at least two reports that suggest this offer was retracted when it wasn't accepted and is no longer on the table.



> However, if Paxson actually has no interest in Curry, then you are absolutely right. If a GM is not sold on a player, he should initiate talks to explore movement. I agree with miz and Yodurk on lots of stuff, but this isn't one of them.
> 
> The thing is, as I pointed out above, and as I pointed out in another thread that was similarly ignored, Paxson's statements went only to the Knicks and its hard to disagree with his reasoning. If he doesn't want what they are offering, nor anything else they have, why would he call?


Pax has no one to blame other than himself for being backed into a corner with Curry. I believe that Pax has not considered Curry a part of the long-term plan for a while now, certainly before the heart problem became manifest. So to complain about not being in a position of strength with Curry and to bemoan the lack of offers and to go so far as to state he won't try and drum up offers just looks ridiculous on Paxson's part.

I don't want the Knicks' or Warriors' garbage, either, just like I felt we could have gotten a much better player if we'd dealt Crawford from a position of strength. But I would happily take their garbage, provided it's not cap-unfriendly garbage, over bringing back Eddy for the QO. If he plays for the QO this season, I would put our chances of retaining Eddy at less than 3%. And even as much as Skiles likes to bash Eddy, if Eddy's healthy, Skiles will play him upwards of 30 mpg, making this year effectively counterproductive from a long-term chemistry standpoint. I would just rather have the rest of the core of the team begin to learn how to live without Eddy now as opposed to forestalling the inevitable for another season.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> If at this point the plan is to attempt to force Curry to retire, or to have him play for the QO, then *any* offer would be worth our while so long as it doesn't return cap-unfriendly contracts.
> 
> If Paxson doesn't want Curry for the long haul, and all of his actions point to that being his stance, he should absolutely be soliciting deals for Curry, whether it's by phone, e-mail, smoke signal, sky-writing, whatever.


Here's one major thing that we're in disagreement about. Although the QO usually means a player is punching his ticket out of town, in Eddy's [very unique] case it's about the only option Pax has to where he feels he's sufficiently protecting the Bulls from lack of insurance and/or team options on a contract (seeing how Eddy's rejected the 3-year, $19-26M offer). Subsequently, with our bird rights and vast financial flexibility next summer, I think that we *might* be able to outbid other teams and retain Eddy just by offering him more than anybody else. It's hard to say how much that will be, because so much of that has to do with both Eddy's health and his overall productivity next season which we'll find out in due time. Maybe Pax feels it's worth the risk of possibly retaining Eddy next summer as an UFA, rather than trading him for role players.





> What is the basis of your opinion that "Songaila's market value is far higher than $2.2 million"? If you apply the same rigid "A player, even a restricted free agent, is only worth what he is offered" logic to Songaila that you have done to Curry/Chandler, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion other than to have put a lot of faith in what his agent is saying.
> 
> If I've just missed the media reports about there being an NBA land rush for Songaila's services, then I apologize.


My basis of Songaila's market value revolves around the fact that he's a skilled, productive big man, and probably one of the better backup PF's in the league. There are about 6-8 backup PG's getting contracts this summer at $3M per year (including our very own Chris Duhon). Big men are tougher to find than PG's, and yet he's making LESS than Duhon. My point is that he kinda got screwed over by the SAR signing and the Bulls reaped the advantages. People around here complain that the Bulls don't take advantage of the bargain opportunities enough. Seems to me we'll have one of the better bargains you can find.

Why do you think I'm putting faith in Bartelstein's comments? I've been saying for weeks that $2.2M for Songaila is a great deal. I don't need to read quotes to formulate an opinion. And I don't recall ever saying that "a player is only worth what he is offered", especially in regards to Curry/Chandler. The closest thing I've said to this is that there's no reason for the Bulls to overpay just because other team's are overpaying for similar players (specifically regarding the Dalembert contract). Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else, Scott?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Excluding, of course, the rumored deal with three guaranteed seasons at a guaranteed $19-26 million plus incentives and additional seasons.
> 
> I don't think its obvious that Paxson doesn't want Curry for the long haul. In fact, *assuming* this deal to be the accurate report, it would appear that Paxson does want Curry for the long haul, Pax just wants to get him on the most favorable/risk adverse terms that the team believes are reasonable.
> 
> ...


Actually, Ron, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm speaking on the assumption that Curry has been a part of Paxson's long-term plans for quite some time, which ScottMay and kukoc4ever clearly don't believe. It is my opinion that the health concerns and lack of insurance is the lone factor complicating matters. I particularly agree with your 2nd paragraph above, where Pax merely wants Curry with ample protection for the team. We all would like to see Eddy Curry playing for the Bulls, which includes Pax IMO; we just don't want the team being held back by potential health issues, or even the ramifications of Eddy's health issues (which may include both mental setbacks, as well as the possibility of starting the season out of shape for the 4th time in 5 years).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> There is a difference between
> 
> "But right now, it's not my obligation [to contact the Knicks]."
> and
> ...


Although I think that is a significant stretch, I suppose you are right. He could have made one statement in the context of the Knicks only, and then made a seperate, virtually identical, statement in response to a different question. 

The papers quote largely identical statements with minor differences all the time. I've even seen three or four sentence long quotes cited with minor differences in the Chicago papers. In fact, having read the Bulls articles from 3 separate papers with regularity for the last 8-10 years, I can say its a frequent occurrence.

To me, it is obvious that the "[to contact the Knicks]" bracket replaces the "to cold call teams" portion of the quote. Admittedly, your reading is theoritically possible, but I find it extremely unlikely.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> If he plays for the QO this season, I would put our chances of retaining Eddy at less than 3%.



See, I just don't feel this way. First off, we're going to have more money than most teams next summer, and somehow should Eddy play this season and be healthy, we could offer him a long term deal. I believe, though I am not sure, that we will be able to offer him a six year deal next year (even as our own unrestricted free agent), whereas all other teams will only be able to offer him five. Often that sixth year is where a player really makes the big money. Keep in mind Curry's connection to the city of Chicago and the rebirth of the Bulls as a powerful franchise, I think Eddy might change is tune if Paxson is able to show him a lot of money next summer. I wouldn't count on it, but I'd put the odds much higher than you did. 

But maybe I'm foolishly optimistic.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else, Scott?


Nope, you're the guy.

I am happy with paying $2.2 million for Songaila. It's a fair deal for an offensive specialist who looks to be in line to get roughly 24 mpg. It gives us a lot more bang for the buck than the Malik Allen signing does, that's for sure.

But I don't get how you can claim it's "one of the better bargains you'll find" or "it's well-known his market value is way higher." There isn't much evidence that I can find to indicate the Kings were willing to give him all of the MLE even before SAR entered the picture. Similarly, I can't find anything that suggests teams were throwing offers at Petrie either before or after SAR was signed. Finally, I'm not sure that Songaila IS more valuable than some of the point guards that were signing -- yes, he is, literally speaking, a "big man," but he doesn't really play like one, especially on defense. The fact is, he was a better fit for us than for most teams because of our strong defensive team concept, and because of our desperate need for offensive punch.

All I'm saying is that prior to the SAR signing and Petrie rescinding his QO, Songaila was pretty much in the same boat as Curry, albeit for much smaller stakes -- his GM was warning teams not to bother offering him anything, because he'd match, yet at the same time, the GM wasn't interested in offering Songaila what he was asking for (or anything close to it, apparently). Restricted free agency severely hamstrung his options, as well as the options of any teams that were interested in signing him or trading for him.

Curry faces many of the same obstacles, and that's even without factoring in his heart issues, yet instead of accepting these, you point out with mock dolefulness how the lack of offers equates a lack of interest. This was all I was trying to point out.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Pax has no one to blame other than himself for being backed into a corner with Curry. I believe that Pax has not considered Curry a part of the long-term plan for a while now, certainly before the heart problem became manifest.


Well, that is a fundamental difference in our respective positions that can't be resolved. I disagree. I think Paxson has always had questions about Curry, but that he like enough of what he saw that he wanted to keep him in the fold. Neither of us can prove or convince, so there is no need to go further on that issue.



> If he plays for the QO this season, I would put our chances of retaining Eddy at less than 3%.


I think the % is higher than that, but I definitely agree its unlikely. The thing is, I just don't care.

A


> nd even as much as Skiles likes to bash Eddy, if Eddy's healthy, Skiles will play him upwards of 30 mpg, making this year effectively counterproductive from a long-term chemistry standpoint. I would just rather have the rest of the core of the team begin to learn how to live without Eddy now as opposed to forestalling the inevitable for another season.


That is a very good point.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> See, I just don't feel this way. First off, we're going to have more money than most teams next summer, and somehow should Eddy play this season and be healthy, we could offer him a long term deal. I believe, though I am not sure, that we will be able to offer him a six year deal next year (even as our own unrestricted free agent), whereas all other teams will only be able to offer him five. Often that sixth year is where a player really makes the big money. Keep in mind Curry's connection to the city of Chicago and the rebirth of the Bulls as a powerful franchise, I think Eddy might change is tune if Paxson is able to show him a lot of money next summer. I wouldn't count on it, but I'd put the odds much higher than you did.
> 
> But maybe I'm foolishly optimistic.


Nicely said, just what I've been trying to get across. I guess if I had to quantify our chances of retaining him next summer as an UFA, I'd put it at 40-50%. But when you factor in that most other teams are capped out, the possibility of sign-and-trades come into play, which means our chances of losing Eddy for nothing are very low; like 3% perhaps?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> See, I just don't feel this way. First off, we're going to have more money than most teams next summer, and somehow should Eddy play this season and be healthy, we could offer him a long term deal. I believe, though I am not sure, that we will be able to offer him a six year deal next year (even as our own unrestricted free agent), whereas all other teams will only be able to offer him five. Often that sixth year is where a player really makes the big money. Keep in mind Curry's connection to the city of Chicago and the rebirth of the Bulls as a powerful franchise, I think Eddy might change is tune if Paxson is able to show him a lot of money next summer. I wouldn't count on it, but I'd put the odds much higher than you did.
> 
> But maybe I'm foolishly optimistic.


Eddy will go to whomever offers him the most money. His agent, his mom, his posse and his creditors will see to that. Curry is not about principle. He's about the dollar. He won't take a MLE deal to play with the Spurs if he's got a $70mil offer on the table from another team - even a team like the Hornets or Hawks. He'll take the money - I'm almost sure of it. The only way he's not a Bull is if he's traded away in the next week or after next season, some team offers up all they can and Pax just doesn't feel he's worth it. I'd say the latter is a distinct possibility.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Nicely said, just what I've been trying to get across. I guess if I had to quantify our chances of retaining him next summer as an UFA, I'd put it at 40-50%. But when you factor in that most other teams are capped out, the possibility of sign-and-trades come into play, which means our chances of losing Eddy for nothing are very low; like 3% perhaps?


Ha! I think the chances of losing him for nothing are actually well higher than that too!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> See, I just don't feel this way. First off, we're going to have more money than most teams next summer, and somehow should Eddy play this season and be healthy, we could offer him a long term deal. I believe, though I am not sure, that we will be able to offer him a six year deal next year (even as our own unrestricted free agent), whereas all other teams will only be able to offer him five. Often that sixth year is where a player really makes the big money. Keep in mind Curry's connection to the city of Chicago and the rebirth of the Bulls as a powerful franchise, I think Eddy might change is tune if Paxson is able to show him a lot of money next summer. I wouldn't count on it, but I'd put the odds much higher than you did.
> 
> But maybe I'm foolishly optimistic.


I don't know about foolishly, but what your viewpoint doesn't take into account is that Eddy and his agent (an extremely successful attorney who isn't going to live and die based on his getting 4% of 40 million vs. 4% of 60 million) are human beings who probably aren't going to soon forget how adversarial the Bulls were this offseason.

Eddy, find a doctor who will clear you. Eddy, find a insurer who will insure you. Eddy, don't want our lowball offer? Then trade yourself.

Maybe I'm foolishly pessimistic, but hometown or not, I think Eddy will be looking for a fresh start with a slightly more supportive organization.

The really ironic thing to me that if Paxson is waiting out this year with the hopes that our ability to offer a sixth year will be the difference-maker when Curry's an unrestricted f/a, under that scenario, we'd almost by definition be paying Curry a lot more than his market value (e.g., if Team X offers Curry a five-year, $50 million deal, we're going to have to pay him at least six years, $60 million to make it worth his while).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> To me, it is obvious that the "[to contact the Knicks]" bracket replaces the "to cold call teams" portion of the quote. Admittedly, your reading is theoritically possible, but I find it extremely unlikely.


And given the context of the quote in the Tribune article, I find my interpretation to be likely, not just "theoritically possible."

But I guess that's as close as we're gonna get.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't know about foolishly, but what your viewpoint doesn't take into account is that Eddy and his agent (an extremely successful attorney who isn't going to live and die based on his getting 4% of 40 million vs. 4% of 60 million) are human beings who probably aren't going to soon forget how adversarial the Bulls were this offseason.
> 
> Eddy, find a doctor who will clear you. Eddy, find a insurer who will insure you. Eddy, don't want our lowball offer? Then trade yourself.
> 
> ...


Everything you are saying here makes sense. I bet Eddy and his agent are quite pissed right now, but if he sticks around this year and things are good, things could be smoothed over. 

And as for next summer, yeah, I'd be much more confortable overpaying Eddy Curry then than giving him a four year guaranteed deal now. If he plays (which I'm not sure he will -- we'll see if Pax and Skiles will even let him see floor time without the test -- if they won't let him play, I retract my optimism for any future signing) and is healthy, then he is worth committing to long term. I still hold out that Paxson would have offered a six year deal worth at least 50 million had this heart thing never come up.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Nope, you're the guy.
> 
> I am happy with paying $2.2 million for Songaila. It's a fair deal for an offensive specialist who looks to be in line to get roughly 24 mpg. It gives us a lot more bang for the buck than the Malik Allen signing does, that's for sure.
> 
> ...



Thanks for clarifying what you were talking about.

To be clear, I'm not directly equating lack of offers to lack of interest. Tyson Chandler in particular I know many teams would love to get their hands on, but most of the league is too capped out to have made an offer. Songaila, I believe, is too good a player to have not garnered interest and I was certainly baffled that he lasted this far into free agency (Pax has made similar comments). I can only assume that they figured the Kings would match a MLE offer sheet, but this was all before Abdur-Rahim fell into their laps. By that point, most teams had spent their exception money and Songaila was left with only partial exception offers, hence why he settled for the best "situation" in Chicago.

I admit that in Eddy's case, I did point out that teams were not very interested in making offers, but I happen to think this has almost everything to do with the health/insurance concerns, while work ethic/weight/motivation concerns also factored in just slightly. When you add it all up, teams with the cap room to make an offer just didn't feel like the potential reward would outweigh the risk. Not too different from what Paxson is going through right now, only Pax is facing the issue of losing an asset for nothing if the situation isn't handled properly.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Ha! I think the chances of losing him for nothing are actually well higher than that too!


I know, I just felt an urge to use the 3% label for some reason.

Realistically, I'll guesstimate a 15-20% chance that we lose Eddy Curry for nothing next summer. I base this on the fact that only the cheap bottom-feeders will have the cap room to make an offer for above the MLE, and any other team would need to obtain Eddy via sign & trade. Of course it is also possible that some team trades for expiring contracts to get under the cap during the season, but would a team really go to the trouble? This isn't Steve Nash we're talking about (which the Suns pulled cap relief moves to sign). It's Eddy Curry. I just don't see it happening.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The really ironic thing to me that if Paxson is waiting out this year with the hopes that our ability to offer a sixth year will be the difference-maker when Curry's an unrestricted f/a, under that scenario, we'd almost by definition be paying Curry a lot more than his market value (e.g., if Team X offers Curry a five-year, $50 million deal, we're going to have to pay him at least six years, $60 million to make it worth his while).


So be it, just as long as we get insurance and can ink him to that contract knowing that he's just come off a productive season and is past his malfunctioning heart.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, that is a fundamental difference in our respective positions that can't be resolved. I disagree. I think Paxson has always had questions about Curry, but that he like enough of what he saw that he wanted to keep him in the fold. Neither of us can prove or convince, so there is no need to go further on that issue.
> 
> I think the % is higher than that, but I definitely agree its unlikely. The thing is, I just don't care.


See, I've got a question here for you and several other folks. Pax has repeatedly shown himself to be non-ambivalent about Curry. We can debate the level of absolute level he "likes" Eddy, but it's clear at this point - after sticking with him for two years and this heart condition fiasco, that Paxson doesn't view him as a liability or "easily replaceable" player. If he did, it stands to reason there were some opportunities to move him or let him go.

If Pax valued him only at some low level, even dealing him for questionable talents like Michael Sweetney or Nazr Mohammed or whomever would probably get the job done. If Pax valued him only at some low level, he wouldn't have spent so much time saying they wanted to re-sign him and telling other teams not to waste their time unless they at least offered credible assets in return.

It seems pretty inescapable from all of this that Pax assigns a fairly high worth to a healthy Eddy Curry.

What I'm curious about is that the guys here who seem most eager to be rid of Curry, most eager to say he sucks, most inclined to belive any speculation about him, you guys are mostly those who have been most defensive of Paxson, most vociferous in saying we should "trust his judgement" and that he's the best thing since sliced bread.

That seems incongruous to me. What gives? It seems like you should either, to varying degrees express less faith in Pax or more support for Eddy as a quality player we should keep.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> What I'm curious about is that the guys here who seem most eager to be rid of Curry, most eager to say he sucks, most inclined to belive any speculation about him, you guys are mostly those who have been most defensive of Paxson, most vociferous in saying we should "trust his judgement" and that he's the best thing since sliced bread.


Who's saying Curry sucks? There's a decent-sized gulf between thinking he sucks and thinking life will go on if Curry is moved or goes elsewhere next season. I wouldn't say that many people could be deemed eager to get rid of him, either. Just that given his past performance and the bizarre situation Curry and the Bulls are in, Paxson's negotiating stance is reasonable, and if that means Curry's longterm future is somewhere else, them's the breaks. 

Personally I'm really hoping we either retain Curry or find a way to get something worthwhile in return, but I don't really agree with all the bellyaching about Pax's handling of the situation to this point. It's a bizarre situation and both sides are doing what's in their interests.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> See, I've got a question here for you and several other folks. Pax has repeatedly shown himself to be non-ambivalent about Curry. We can debate the level of absolute level he "likes" Eddy, but it's clear at this point - after sticking with him for two years and this heart condition fiasco, that Paxson doesn't view him as a liability or "easily replaceable" player. If he did, it stands to reason there were some opportunities to move him or let him go.
> 
> If Pax valued him only at some low level, even dealing him for questionable talents like Michael Sweetney or Nazr Mohammed or whomever would probably get the job done. If Pax valued him only at some low level, he wouldn't have spent so much time saying they wanted to re-sign him and telling other teams not to waste their time unless they at least offered credible assets in return.
> 
> ...



I'll take a whack at this...

I think that Pax has been on the fence about Curry for his term as GM. He knows what a special talent he is. He also knows what a frustrating talent he is. I don't see how you can separate the two when evaluating the player - Eddy Curry.

Looking at your bolded statement, sure, Pax does assign a fairly high value to a healthy Eddy Curry. Who wouldn't? That's not the reality of the situation though, is it? So, I suppose I'm having a hard time with your not understanding why, given Curry's current, unproven health situation, Pax is taking the line he's taking. Also, this isn't just about how Pax is valuing Curry, but how the league as a whole is viewing him. He's at rock bottom. This whole "he values a healthy Curry" rhetoric is pretty pointless as he's not proven to be healthy. We're down to trading him to GS for their injury exception and a couple of picks?

Finally, you sure do seem to be doing a lot of generalizing in this post. You lump posters who say he sucks (haven't read any of this anywhere) with posters "inclined to believe any speculation" (not sure what that means because you could be lumped into the same club) and that Pax is the best thing since sliced bread (haven't really seen that anywhere other than Basghetti's thread). Seems to me that Pax has done a good job. Taken a team with a culture of losing and in two years time has assembled a good group of players who have won and who seem to be committed to getting better. I fail to see what's wrong with that. 

What I don't understand about the Evil Empire club is how you talk of Curry like he's destined for the Hall of Fame. He IS replaceable. He doesn't suck, but he's hardly a super-star level player either. Especially given his current unknown health status. So, in the final analysis, since I don't have anything close to as much information as Pax about Curry and since he's done what I consider a pretty good job in turning the biggest joke of a team over the last six years into a respectable ballclub in a short time, yes, I trust his judgement. I guess the better question is Mike, why don't you?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> If Pax valued him only at some low level, *even dealing him for questionable talents like Michael Sweetney or Nazr Mohammed or whomever would probably get the job done.* If Pax valued him only at some low level, he wouldn't have spent so much time saying they wanted to re-sign him and telling other teams not to waste their time unless they at least offered credible assets in return.


I like what ViciousFlogging said (and flash as well!), b/c it pretty much sums up my stance (and many others as well). I'll even add that very few people have called Eddy *easily* replaceable, but replaceable nonetheless, meaning the team could find someone to take his place and probably not drop a bit in the standings.

But in reply to the bolded part, Mike...given the Bulls' current financial situation, I just don't see the benefits of trading Eddy Curry for a Michael Sweetney or Nazr Mohammad right now. What's the point if we can sign a free agent of that caliber next summer anyway. The end result would be the exact same as if we traded Eddy for such a player. So why would it make a difference if we traded for this sort of player or not? If we trade Eddy, it's really only worth it if we get someone who's better than what's available next summer. I'm thinking that Pax has this very same viewpoint, which is why he's not rushing to trade Eddy right now.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> It seems pretty inescapable from all of this that Pax assigns a fairly high worth to a healthy Eddy Curry.


He does and he doesn't. 

He and Skiles are weirdly bipolar when it comes to Eddy. You have Skiles saying Eddy needs to "jump" and he's reportedly told Paxson to trade Eddy, yet he played Eddy more minutes than anyone other than Hinrich. You have Paxson weirdly reluctant to let the guy go, yet he treats Eddy so shabbily this off-season that I personally find it unimaginable that Eddy would sign here following a year spent on the QO.

I don't really care how the story ends at this point. I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bulls are better with Eddy Curry than without, and the so-called Eddy replacements I've seen bandied about are either inferior to Eddy, don't fit our team the way Eddy does, or aren't realistically obtainable.

Training camp starts in eleven days. I know that the rest of our guys have super jibs and are straight-up winners and oughtn't be affected by the uncertainty of the Curry situation, but it is really time to stop the madness and either compromise on a multi-year deal (and I am aware that Curry needs to do his part) or trade the guy.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I don't know about foolishly, but what your viewpoint doesn't take into account is that Eddy and his agent (an extremely successful attorney who isn't going to live and die based on his getting 4% of 40 million vs. 4% of 60 million) are human beings who probably aren't going to soon forget how adversarial the Bulls were this offseason.


[green]Absolutely agree...Eddy and the principality of Eddydom ( currently big enough to suceed the Union if they really wanted to ) will blow off $20M large quicker than Eddy can blow off a Destiny Child's gig.

And as to his morally bound agent? 

Hey..y'know it !

He didn't become what he become by just maximising the buck in the exertion of his services if it also maximised the earn capacity for his client

Even if Eddy wanted to stay with the Bulls and take a theoretic extra 20 large ... I would expect that Leon Rose ( so named because he is so honourable in his dealings that he always comes up smelling like a Rose ) to prove it's never about the dollar for Leon baby , I would expect Leon baby to take his $800K in extra commission , and in grand gesture , make a huge bonfire down the Lower Wacker Express in the coldest night of the year next Winter to warm the homeless ..even if only for one night [/green]


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> See, I've got a question here for you and several other folks. Pax has repeatedly shown himself to be non-ambivalent about Curry. We can debate the level of absolute level he "likes" Eddy, but it's clear at this point - after sticking with him for two years and this heart condition fiasco, that Paxson doesn't view him as a liability or "easily replaceable" player. If he did, it stands to reason there were some opportunities to move him or let him go.
> 
> If Pax valued him only at some low level, even dealing him for questionable talents like Michael Sweetney or Nazr Mohammed or whomever would probably get the job done. If Pax valued him only at some low level, he wouldn't have spent so much time saying they wanted to re-sign him and telling other teams not to waste their time unless they at least offered credible assets in return.
> 
> ...


Mike, you really don't get where I've been coming from. 

I don't think Eddy Curry sucks, nor have I ever said that. I have consistently pointed out his signficant flaws, while acknowledging his obvious strengths, in saying that I consider him replaceable. I've also said that, though replaceable, keeping him under a reasonable, low risk contract would be just fine by me. Being replace*able* does not = "you suck" nor does it mean "*must be * replaced". It means you are fine, but if you go, an adequate or better substitute will be found.

For example, I've never said that Songaila at the 4 with Chandler at the 5 could replace Curry. And I'm really high on Songaila. 

But there are player(s) that could be obtained next season that when brought together would, in my opinion, make this team as good or better than it would have been with Curry. Agree or disagree, I've listed Nene and Harrington as two in particular. But those guys would likely be accompanied by others (like Songaila) with the additional capspace. Trades also become easier to facilitate.

Had Curry never been sick and got Tyson Chandler's deal, I would have criticized Paxson for overpaying. Now that there are health questions, I feel even stronger about it. Just because I point out unfair criticisms of Paxson (of which there are a lot in here), doesn't make me his lap dog. I was ready to grab a pitchfork if Chandler wasn't signed.

I do trust Paxson's judgment, generally. But I don't agree with him on everything when it happens. Indeed, I still disagree with some of his past moves. I'm just of the mind that his success rate provides him with, at the very least, the benefit of the doubt that we should wait and see how things pan out before we judge him too harshly.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I like what ViciousFlogging said (and flash as well!), b/c it pretty much sums up my stance (and many others as well). I'll even add that very few people have called Eddy *easily* replaceable, but replaceable nonetheless, meaning the team could find someone to take his place and probably not drop a bit in the standings.
> 
> But in reply to the bolded part, Mike...given the Bulls' current financial situation, I just don't see the benefits of trading Eddy Curry for a Michael Sweetney or Nazr Mohammad right now. What's the point if we can sign a free agent of that caliber next summer anyway. The end result would be the exact same as if we traded Eddy for such a player. So why would it make a difference if we traded for this sort of player or not? If we trade Eddy, it's really only worth it if we get someone who's better than what's available next summer. I'm thinking that Pax has this very same viewpoint, which is why he's not rushing to trade Eddy right now.


Nice post durk

Both Nazr and likely Sweets will be available come the summer anyway...so what's the point 

Stay firm ...hold on to you chips ..and maintain position 

Calling? Gimme a freaking break... if Pax wanted to deal in a big way (outside of a mild curiousity as to the running being made by other teams ) he would be on the phone quicker and more often than Ravi Singh , employee of the month for calls made in sheer volume , from Global Telemarketing Call Centres R US in Calcutta.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> He IS replaceable. He doesn't suck, but he's hardly a super-star level player either.


How does this differienciate Curry from anyone else on the entire team? How is he replaceable? Do we have to $12m in our cap space next season and hope the best FA comes our way?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

EDIT: Johnston797, I was responding to a post that you have now changed.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

_OK, this was a post directed at a poster who deleted his post directed at a post that I made and then modified. I'll just leave the part I don't understand....._

Let's talk about how replacable Curry really is. Are the two options (Nene and Harrington) mentioned above really the two best realistic options? In a different thread, even some of his supporters said that for the Bulls that Harringon is a step back from Curry. How does this make Curry replaceable? It certainly doesn't make him easily replaceable. 

It sounds like it gives us a big hole that Pax is going to have to work his butt off to close and it's going to take a lot of cap space, a lot of assets or both to fix.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> Crap? If so, it's a response in kind to: "What I don't understand about the Evil Empire club is how you talk of Curry like he's destined for the Hall of Fame."
> 
> 
> 
> Why do this? Let's talk about how replacable he is. Are the two options (Nene and Harrington) you mentioned above really the two best realistic options? In a different thread, you, I believe, said Harringon is a step back from Curry. How does this make Curry replaceable?


First, I removed my post because you had. But I've explained in excruciating detail why I think he's replaceable in threads that you even participated in. Do I really need to do it again now?

And I don't think I said Harrington is a step back. I think I said he's not the replacement. Chandler is the replacement and Harrington plays the 4. Not to mention the additional free agents the Bulls could sign at a variety of positions to shore up the team. Money that would not have been available if Curry were (is) retained.

I don't think of it in the terms of what one player could replace Curry (except Nene). I think of it in terms of after its all said and done next summer, is it realistic to think that Pax can put together a team as good or better as it would have been with Curry? I think the answer is a hearty "yes". I'm not pining to lose Curry. I just don't care one way or the other.

To my evaluation, much like Crawford, Curry's strengths are significantly negated by his weaknesses. Therefore, his overall impact on the actual outcome of games, to me, is not all that significant.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> First, I removed my post because you had. But I've explained in excruciating detail why I think he's replaceable in threads that you even participated in. Do I really need to do it again now?


Don't do anything you don't want to, Ron. Are you wasting too much of the day at work again?



Ron Cey said:


> And I don't think I said Harrington is a step back. I think I said he's not the replacement. Chandler is the replacement and Harrington plays the 4.


Who's the backup center? What does that cost? 

Which is closer to the way you feel?

A.) A healthy Curry is quite replaceable.
B.) If Pax uses most or all of his cap space, bring in more than one player and continues his excellent GMing, then we will be fine.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> To my evaluation, much like Crawford, Curry's strengths are significantly negated by his weaknesses. Therefore, his overall impact on the actual outcome of games, to me, is not all that significant.


I don't even know how to evaluate comparing Crawford to Curry. I don't see Crawford starting on a good team. A healthy Curry is a starter for the 10 years.

Still, it took a #3 pick to improve upon Crawford. What will it take to improve upon Curry? How does Pax get it done.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Which is closer to the way you feel?
> 
> A.) A healthy Curry is quite replaceable.
> B.) If Pax uses most or all of his cap space, bring in more than one player and continues his excellent GMing, then we will be fine.


They go hand in hand. B explains A.

Except I don't think the term "healthy Curry" is appropriate because of all the uncertainty on that front.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> They go hand in hand. B explains A.


No wonder we rarely agree. These two items are far from equivelent IMHO.

We should proabably agree to disagree.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> No wonder we rarely agree. These two items are far from equivelent IMHO.
> 
> We should proabably agree to disagree.


Done and done. :cheers:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I've just finished reading two pages of spirited banter about Paxson and the Curry situation. . . I can't help but feel strangely left out. I really don't care what happens to Curry or what Paxson exactly said. 

I'm trying to figure out how I exactly got to this point. It has been a hard off season. At some point in time you have to ask whether turnong every negotiation into a to-the-death cage match is the best way to run a franchise. 

Bottom line. Regardless of whether the Bulls retain Eddy's services next season, there is no way this team is focussed come the start of the season. The Bulls are setting themselves up to take a giant step backwards.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> I've just finished reading two pages of spirited banter about Paxson and the Curry situation. . . I can't help but feel strangely left out. I really don't care what happens to Curry or what Paxson exactly said.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how I exactly got to this point. It has been a hard off season. At some point in time you have to ask whether turnong every negotiation into a to-the-death cage match is the best way to run a franchise.
> 
> Bottom line. Regardless of whether the Bulls retain Eddy's services next season, there is no way this team is focussed come the start of the season. The Bulls are setting themselves up to take a giant step backwards.



Unfortunately I think your right


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

SST, you may be right, We have some new players, Deng and Eddy not playing immediatly we could stumble out of the gate similar to last season.


----------

