# Curry Doesn't Deserve the Max



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

I just came home from the T-Wolves game and can tell you the win was sweet. However, when the coach does not have enough confidence to put Curry in at crunch time this tells you something. It is a good thing too. Othello made some big plays down the stretch. Curry is ok but is not a max player. I am not a Curry hater. Just making an obvious observation.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>charlietyra</b>!
> I just came home from the T-Wolves game and can tell you the win was sweet. However, when the coach does not have enough confidence to put Curry in at crunch time this tells you something. It is a good thing too. Othello made some big plays down the stretch. Curry is ok but is not a max player. I am not a Curry hater. Just making an obvious observation.


Ok three things.....

1. He had 19 and 7. When Brand had that and we lost by 30 he was hailed as the next Cashmir Pulaski.

2. When he was out of the game before coming back in we went on a horrific slide with.....you guessed it.....Othella Harrington out there.

3. It's not just about "deserve." When are people like you going to get that? Do I need to fly you out to my apartment and get a chalkboard and go into theories of economics like "supply and demand" with you and also ask you what you suppose we would do to replace Curry if we chose to not match the max or at least 10 million dollar offer he is going to get from someone else.

Are you arguing that anyone at the center position other than Shaquille O'neal has a better combination of size, strength, athleticism and smooth touch in the post? Yeah you could bring up Stoudemire and Duncan. Duncan I view as more of a versatile player and I won't fault Curry for not being TD or Amare. Plenty of max players aren't as good as either. So in Econ 201 you would be taught that players like Eddy are in short supply. Remember the words "short supply." They will be helpful throughout this tutorial.

Ok now.....since you can be such a threat in the halfcourt offense with low post scoring, players like Eddy are in high demand. Remember the words "high demand." See if you have reliable offense in the low post that you can go to as a safety valve, you can win games against teams who play good defense and are also maybe getting a little lucky on offense with their jumpers or whatever. And once you establish that threat down low, it's in the back of your opponents head, and it frees up players like Kirk to be able to hit 1 out of every 3 jumpers with relatively little defense all up in their face.

See so at the end of the tutorial we get to where reality all merges together. The theory is simple. Low supply + high demand = an increase in the price of the product. The product in this case is Eddy Curry.

Also....you are paying for Eddy's next 4-6 seasons on this summer's extension, not for what he is doing this year. Curry is currently not making the max. When he does and either doesn't progress or gets worse or gets fat or whatever, then rip him.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Curry Doesn't Deserve the Max*



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!


Can you post without insulting people?


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Curry Doesn't Deserve the Max*



> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> Can you post without insulting people?


I didn't insult anyone. If you chose to read it that way then that's how you chose to read it. Explaining economic theories is an insult? Yeah you don't like my tone. Well guess what. I don't like yours either. So what?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Re: Re: Curry Doesn't Deserve the Max*



> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> Can you post without insulting people?


Come on, the guy started a thread that says "Curry doesn't deserve the max"- I actually found the response to be a lot tamer than I expected. 

But just as funny, either way.


----------



## RealFan (Jun 12, 2002)

I hear you Gipper. It's all about what other people think Curry is worth. Whatever Paxson thinks won't matter when it comes time to sign Curry to the dotted line.

I think Krause helped a lot of other teams sign players (by bidding up their services) such as Tim Thomas...


----------



## Killuminati (Jul 30, 2002)

I wouldn't be that disappointed if Curry got the max just because he's a legit center that has unlimited potential. Chandler on the other hand does not deserve it and hopefully him and his agent don't ask for it. I'd hate to lose him but he's even less of a factor than Duhon offensively.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I have faith that Paxson won't overpay Curry, which is what giving him the max would be doing. Nobody on this team deserves the max.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> I have faith that Paxson won't overpay Curry, which is what giving him the max would be doing. Nobody on this team deserves the max.


So please....give me your genius response on how we would replace Eddy Curry and not become the Milwaukee Bucks.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> So please....give me your genius response on how we would replace Eddy Curry and not become the Milwaukee Bucks.


Irrevelant, because Curry won't get max offers. Besides, if Curry gets the max, I see no reason why Chandler wouldn't either. It's a bad idea to give max contracts to two guys who aren't even all stars.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

We need to pay whatever it takes, to keep Tyson and Curry. Screw short-term economics, that team needs a lot of investment, in order to get on the top.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

So please....this I wanna hear. Say we re-sign Tyson for 10 and we're at 40 million. Please.....tell me who we're gonna get that is actually better than Dan Gadzuric for 7 million or whatever it is left on the cap. I want to hear how we'll avoid becoming this year's Minnesota (best case) or this year's (Milwaukee Bucks) worst case. Please....tell me how we'll be anything but a team that would be so good, "if we only had a center."


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Curry Doesn't Deserve the Max*



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't insult anyone. If you chose to read it that way then that's how you chose to read it. Explaining economic theories is an insult? Yeah you don't like my tone. Well guess what. I don't like yours either. So what?


"Do I need to fly you out to my apartment.... "

Yes because that point is really is crucial to the argument you are making. 



> Curry is currently not making the max. When he does and either doesn't progress or gets worse or gets fat or whatever, then rip him.


Oh yes. Lets lock him in to a huge deal and when he's truly an underachiever, then we can rip him. What kind of backwards thinking is that. If he's not doing enough to play late in the fourth, how could Pax sign him to a max deal.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

What kind of backward logic is it to assume he'll go back to being fat when he gets paid and then rip him for it now. Because that happens a lot.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

In the unlikely scenario that Curry is getting max offers, you let him go, unless Paxson feels like he is going to make huge improvements. Right now, he is nowhere near a max player. Curry is replaceable too. The guys closest to being irreplaceable on this team are Deng and Hinrich, and they are nowhere near max players.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> In the unlikely scenario that Curry is getting max offers, you let him go, unless Paxson feels like he is going to make huge improvements. Right now, he is nowhere near a max player. Curry is replaceable too. The guys closest to being irreplaceable on this team are Deng and Hinrich, and they are nowhere near max players.


Yes because combo guards and small forwards are just SO HARD to find compared to centers. LOL where do you get this stuff


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> What kind of backward logic is it to assume he'll go back to being fat when he gets paid and then rip him for it now. Because that happens a lot.


I know that happens a lot. But we can't argue Curry doesn't deserve it?

You are saying Curry is playing well enough to warrant a max deal because he will progress as a player in the future and the market for an athletic center is almost nil so it would be wise for Pax to lock him in.

However we should be able to a) question his current play b) project how he will do c) evaluate how much he is worth for the future and this includes the chance that he becomes a Curry that is content the way he is playing now and will not improve further. 

I don't want to put words in your mouth but you seem to be saying Curry shouldn't be nitpicked until he gets the max (or close to it) deal because currently he's on his rookie contract and he must underperfom. 

nevermind the Curry/Hinrich bash ratio. I like Curry a lot. His attitude has so far been grea, but he's inconsistent who doesn't rebound and makes mistakes in a contract year. 

You say "supply and demand" I say "buyer beware"


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It's hard to find true centers in this league, true, but how many "true centers" play 30 minutes a game and only pull down 5 boards? Our small forward does better than that, our point guard almost does better than that. We're not talking about a guy who dominates the middle and keeps the boards clean, we're talking about a one dimensional post scorer with a statline like a small forward. I'll pass on giving that a max contract.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Curry deserves short of the max. Somewhere like 8-10 million territory for 4-6 years depending on what the max years ends up being.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

We're not under the cap, and we've already tried the whole free agency thing. If this is a playoff team, you keep Curry and Chandler, regardless of what dollars it takes.

We're a big market team, and if we have a playoff team, then ownership needs to step to the plate and pay the bills.

It's more costly to let Curry walk then it is to pay him the max.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> It's hard to find true centers in this league, true, but how many "true centers" play 30 minutes a game and only pull down 5 boards? Our small forward does better than that, our point guard almost does better than that. We're not talking about a guy who dominates the middle and keeps the boards clean, we're talking about a one dimensional post scorer with a statline like a small forward. I'll pass on giving that a max contract.


LOL he isn't one dimensional. He's become one of the better defensive centers in the league as well. Perhaps even being above average at this point. He not only scores himself, but is such a threat that Kirk can miss 2 of every 3 without many hands in his face. 

We rebound well as a team. Why is it when talking about Kirk Hinrich's shooting percentage it's "well we're winning, team concept, pax and skiles, ra ra ra." And all that matters is that he's such a Pax-type "team concept" player. But with Curry it's time to nitpick at a stat that we are one of the best TEAMS in the league at?


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
> 
> We're not under the cap, and we've already tried the whole free agency thing. If this is a playoff team, you keep Curry and Chandler, regardless of what dollars it takes.
> ...


Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!!!!!! 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a bingo.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> I know that happens a lot. But we can't argue Curry doesn't deserve it?
> ...


But we can't forget the Curry/Hinrich bash ratio. Because if you try to do those things with Hinrich you get fired on by his posse hard.

But say we did. What about the Curry/Rose bash ratio? He DID make max money here and even the weekend he was traded, when you tried to bash him or do those things with him on this board or any other Chicago board you still had half the people on the board defending him because get this "he was a veteran" and veterans I guess should be held to a lower standard than 20 year olds. (Curry received more blame than Rose BACK THEN)


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> We rebound well as a team. Why is it when talking about Kirk Hinrich's shooting percentage it's "well we're winning, team concept, pax and skiles, ra ra ra." And all that matters is that he's such a Pax-type "team concept" player. But with Curry it's time to nitpick at a stat that we are one of the best TEAMS in the league at?


You're the one saying Curry is a max player, I've said repeatedly that Hinrich is *not* a max player. That's why.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I find it extremely doubtful that any team would offer Curry the max. If we can see his deficiencies than other GMs can as well. The days of outrageous salaries are over. 

Eddy doesn't deserve the max and he won't get the max, center market value or not. That said, I think he's a decent player, and he fills a huge role on this team. I would pay him anywhere from 50 million to ~70 million over 6 years. Any more than that is simply too big a risk. Jim McIlvaine, Calvin Booth, etc. killed their respective teams for years. 

When you consider that Troy Murphy got 50 million, and Boozer 68 million this past summer, it's reasonable to think he'll get somewhere around those two.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

I think due to age the max for Eddy Curry is 12 million..... I could be wrong....I'm not going to claim to be a cap guru. But I don't think im arguing that Eddy would turn down 6 years 70 million. If I have been I'll clarify. Can I guarantee Eddy will get the max? No. But the person I am arguing with is the poster who thinks it will be more like 8 or 9 than 12. If you say he'll make 11.5, then I'm not going to go crazy cause you think Eddy will get .5 mill less than the max. If however you're trying to come at me with 8-9....you are the person im arguing with. He'd either get a better offer, or say he didn't. He'd take the qualifying offer and be sitting here for a year with his mouth shut ready to tell the Bulls where they can stick it after NEXT season.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I'm all for signing Curry to the max if that is what it means to get him back, then that is what is neccassarry to do. If we don't have to sign him to the max to retain him, I'm all for that too.

The way I look like it, Curry has the 3rd most total effect on a game out of any center in the league behind Shaq and Yao only. He would be coming out as a senior this year, and anyone who wouldn't select him #1 overall would be called one of the stupidest teams ever. He is only going to get better, he is a good offense and defensive center. Rebounding is his only MAJOR flaw in his game anymore, and he has improved every other part of his game, so I don't see why he can't improve his rebounding. 

Curry should be a 22 ppg guy, but the only one holding him back is Scott Skiles or the guards. The guards or Skiles, I don't know which one, choose to abandon Curry in the post for the second half on a lot of occassions. 

Most Bulls fans should just sit back and realize that Paxson should just try to keep this team together unless we start getting offers of Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, and Kevin Garnett that we just can't pass up. Our best bet will to just keep this team together.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> 
> 
> You're the one saying Curry is a max player, I've said repeatedly that Hinrich is *not* a max player. That's why.


So you can only bring up the things that Spongy is talking about when it is argued like futur said, that Eddy is more likely to get the max or something very close to it, and be matched, by us, than not....but if its not a contract year then players who are held up as the best player on the Bulls by so many are not allowed to be micro-analyzed?


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> I'm all for signing Curry to the max if that is what it means to get him back, then that is what is neccassarry to do. If we don't have to sign him to the max to retain him, I'm all for that too.
> 
> The way I look like it, Curry has the 3rd most total effect on a game out of any center in the league behind Shaq and Yao only. He would be coming out as a senior this year, and anyone who wouldn't select him #1 overall would be called one of the stupidest teams ever. He is only going to get better, he is a good offense and defensive center. Rebounding is his only MAJOR flaw in his game anymore, and he has improved every other part of his game, so I don't see why he can't improve his rebounding.
> ...


In Cleveland .... Ilgauskas will be 30 and asking for probably 90 million dollars this summer. If they don't sign him their payroll will be at 23 million before the draft. You think they won't offer Curry a big deal lol. I'm not ripping you....that question is more for others. Would you rather pay Ilgauskas 18-20 million at age 36 or Eddy Curry 14 million at age 28? 

Only god knows what Curry could be with Lebron feeding him in the post. You think there would be problems getting the ball to Curry in optimal spots in Cleveland? You think if Curry backed his man down....Lebron would throw it to where Curry is now instead of where he's going to be when the pass arrives like Gordon did today? NO


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The Bulls absolutely can not afford to lose Eddy Curry. So the best thing is this...

a) Offer him a big, but not max, contract...BBS said a 4-6 year deal starting at $8-10 million. Throw in some incentives, if possible.

b) If this doesn't get it done, and Eddy wants to see what other teams will offer, let them offer.

c) Match ANYTHING that other teams throw at him. This is essentially a game of chicken that Pax has the upper hand on already (due to restricted free agency). Other teams will tie up their cap space for a time if they give an offer sheet.

This seems like a good strategy to me...I doubt Eddy gets insulted by the first offer, and we can match anything larger than that. For whatever the dollar, we need to keep him.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Dude, Calvin Booth and the other guys always sucked, its no mystery that they killed their teams, because their teams were stupid to offer them those contracts to crappy players. Eddy Curry is already a top 5 center in the league, and is maturing into a top competitor to take over Shaq's throne, the other is being yao ming, a player Eddy is kind of comparable, and Yao will undoubtedly get the max. Lets say Eddy Curry averages 17 and 7 by the end of the year, and Yao averages 18 and 8. Say the Rockets end 48-34, and the Bulls end 44-38. What makes Yao a no brainer max player and Curry not a no brainer max player? All these things are likely because Bulls have a easy March and April schedule, and Curry usually turns it up a notch in the last 2 months.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

I think that we should offer Eddy a contract that averages about $10 million a year. That's what I think he's worth. If he rejects it, fine. Go fetch a maximum contract offer somewhere else. If he indeed gets a max offer, we'll have time to decide whether to match it. 

I don't think that Eddy deserves the max either, and I don't think that teams out there will be eager to give it to him.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> We rebound well as a team. Why is it when talking about Kirk Hinrich's shooting percentage it's "well we're winning, team concept, pax and skiles, ra ra ra." And all that matters is that he's such a Pax-type "team concept" player. But with Curry it's time to nitpick at a stat that we are one of the best TEAMS in the league at?


Great.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> 
> 
> Curry should be a 22 ppg guy, but the only one holding him back is Scott Skiles or the guards. The guards or Skiles, I don't know which one, choose to abandon Curry in the post for the second half on a lot of occassions.


One guard in particular.........


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> One guard in particular.........


Well, it starts with Chris Duhon in the start of the 3rd quarter. Then by the time Hinrich gets switched to point guard, Curry has already been benched for the rest of the game if that was what you were getting at.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Why is it that in a thread entitled "Curry Doesn't Deserve the Max", I've seen Hinrich mentioned about 20 times?

What, exactly, does Hinrich have to do with how much money EC is worth?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Gipper never mention Curry and Lebron on the same team. I don't even want to think how many championships that team wins.

Also if we were to let Curry go to a team like Cleveland that would ruin the Bulls chance of winning it all because Curry would always be there with Lebron to eliminate the Bulls from the playoffs.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

A lockout is the best thing possible for the Bulls. Then there would be a possible 2 week free agency period and with the restricted free agents, teams wouldn't want to tie up their money in one of those players to have another team match that offer and just have their team lose out completely because they took a gamble on a restricted free agent.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I think Curry should fetch a contract roughly totalling:

6 yrs 66-69 million with an opt out clause by both sides after year 4. This will give curry a chance to demand a new max deal in 4 years, BUT it will give us the ability to eject the albatross (if he turns into one), while our players are still young. 

This will be one year AFTER we have to decide what to do with Gordon and Deng, AND 2 years after we've made a decision on Hinrich, which is NOT a no brainer from where I am sitting.....


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> The Bulls absolutely can not afford to lose Eddy Curry. So the best thing is this...
> 
> a) Offer him a big, but not max, contract...BBS said a 4-6 year deal starting at $8-10 million. Throw in some incentives, if possible.
> ...


He wouldn't be insulted by 10 or 9...but 8....yeah he would be. Or at least id bet


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

Just another thought on why we shouldn't offer Curry a maximum contract: if he gets a maximum contract offer somewhere else, it will only be 10% annual increase, which in fact will be a smaller maximum contract than the one that we would offer him (which has an annual increase of 12.5%). So even if we choose to match, we'd be paying about 10 to 15 million dollars less.

I think that the Clippers used the same logic on Elton Brand a couple of years ago.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Gipper never mention Curry and Lebron on the same team. I don't even want to think how many championships that team wins.
> 
> Also if we were to let Curry go to a team like Cleveland that would ruin the Bulls chance of winning it all because Curry would always be there with Lebron to eliminate the Bulls from the playoffs.


Actually, like you, I am thinking that team is a Dynasty.

They would torture us (and EVERYONE ELSE) for the next 8-10 years.



> A lockout is the best thing possible for the Bulls. Then there would be a possible 2 week free agency period and with the restricted free agents, teams wouldn't want to tie up their money in one of those players to have another team match that offer and just have their team lose out completely because they took a gamble on a restricted free agent.


I agree. Good point.



> Well, it starts with Chris Duhon in the start of the 3rd quarter. Then by the time Hinrich gets switched to point guard, Curry has already been benched for the rest of the game if that was what you were getting at.


Okay, 2 guards. Since when is i JUST the PG's responsibility to get the ball inside. I seem to remember everyone blaming KOBE (NOT to be confused with the actual PG, Derek Fisher), whenever Shaq didn't get enough touches. 

In our championship years, Scottie Pippen was the main distributor, not Paxson/Armstrong/Kerr/Jordan/ect....

Anyone can be an effective distributor, provided they have the talent, and I'm sorry, but the word is out on Kaptain Kirk (he has the talent), and he's not going to get a free pass, simply because he has changed positions, and he's a "Paxson kind of guy".:laugh:


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bullsville</b>!
> Why is it that in a thread entitled "Curry Doesn't Deserve the Max", I've seen Hinrich mentioned about 20 times?
> 
> What, exactly, does Hinrich have to do with how much money EC is worth?


Unequal treatment. Unequal presumptions. The different point of view which they are viewed in any given equal situation. It's tired. Really tired.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Gipper never mention Curry and Lebron on the same team. I don't even want to think how many championships that team wins.
> 
> Also if we were to let Curry go to a team like Cleveland that would ruin the Bulls chance of winning it all because Curry would always be there with Lebron to eliminate the Bulls from the playoffs.


If Eddy signed with Cleveland never would there be a sweeter revenge of a player and his fan base on his former detractors than that situation.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> I think Curry should fetch a contract roughly totalling:
> 
> 6 yrs 66-69 million with an opt out clause by both sides after year 4. This will give curry a chance to demand a new max deal in 4 years, BUT it will give us the ability to eject the albatross (if he turns into one), while our players are still young.
> ...


Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!!!


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> Just another thought on why we shouldn't offer Curry a maximum contract: if he gets a maximum contract offer somewhere else, it will only be 10% annual increase, which in fact will be a smaller maximum contract than the one that we would offer him (which has an annual increase of 12.5%). So even if we choose to match, we'd be paying about 10 to 15 million dollars less.
> 
> I think that the Clippers used the same logic on Elton Brand a couple of years ago.


Yes I never said we should be proactive (not that I'm saying you claimed that I did).....we should offer 10 and see what happens.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I want Eddy to do good to prove all the haters wrong, only I want to do it in Chicago, because I am a Bulls fan.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, like you, I am thinking that team is a Dynasty.
> ...


We don't run the triangle


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Max Players = Shaq, LeBron, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Nowitzki

I think no one in his right mind would confuse Curry with those players. He doesnt belong there, maybe after his next contract is over (supposedly will be a 4-year contract) he will achieve that status. Right now, he isnt even close. 
Curry's value, IMO, is between 10-12M. I think a fair contract for both sides would be a 4 year, 44M contract.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Curry is worth whatever someone else offers him or what he and Paxson agree to. (under the current CBA)

End of story.

If you disagree... you have to think that Paxson should trade him ASAP.

You should be just as worried about Chandler BTW.

I shudder to think about this Bulls team without Curry and Chandler.

Y'all want to win, right?


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> Max Players = Shaq, LeBron, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Nowitzki
> 
> I think no one in his right mind would confuse Curry with those players. He doesnt belong there, maybe after his next contract is over (supposedly will be a 4-year contract) he will achieve that status. Right now, he isnt even close.
> Curry's value, IMO, is between 10-12M. I think a fair contract for both sides would be a 4 year, 44M contract.


Well first of all Chapu Eddy is not eligible for the same max as those guys. Do you even know this or is this news to you? The max he can make is much lower than the max that Duncan can make. Isn't the max he can start out at due to his age something like 12 million guys? Anyone? I don't think ANYONE here including me is saying Eddy is worth 14, 16 or 18 to start....


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Curry is worth whatever someone else offers him or what he and Paxson agree to. (under the current CBA)
> 
> End of story.
> ...


Someone seeing reality for what it is instead of bowing down to their own value system and thinking their world view should rule the situation. Admirable. Bravo.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> We don't run the triangle


Are you being sarcastic? Or do I have to bring up the many MANY other players in the league who find a way to distribute the ball effectively without being the PG.....and DON'T run the triangle...

Funnily enough, the two rookies ranked directly above him (you know who they are), both find a way to effectively distribute the ball where it will be most effective WITHOUT being the Pg.......

EDIT: This is getting out of hand. Lets just get back the Eddy.....


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

Also I heard someone mention Deng and Hinrich being more irreplaceable than Curry. Aside from there being far more combo guards and small forwards with games than centers.....we shant forget this....

If we lost Deng we have Noce, if we lost Hinrich we have Gordon. If we lose Curry we have... uhhh, errr, uhhh. The first two would be downgrades at this point. The third is unthinkable.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you being sarcastic? Or do I have to bring up the many MANY other players in the league who find a way to distribute the ball effectively without being the PG.....and DON'T run the triangle...
> ...


I was just kidding around man yeah lol. I often wonder why Skiles doesn't have Deng and Curry on one side playing two man with the other three players on the other side. You'd think with Deng's length that he'd be a perfect candidate for designated post feeder. Apparently not.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> I was just kidding around man yeah lol. I often wonder why Skiles doesn't have Deng and Curry on one side playing two man with the other three players on the other side. You'd think with Deng's length that he'd be a perfect candidate for designated post feeder. Apparently not.



And stick Ben at the top of 3 pt line.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> And stick Ben at the top of 3 pt line.


If only I could be allowed to have a presentation with John Paxson lol.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

Eddy low posted on the right bottom of the key, Deng diagonal to him on the close side. Gordon at the top of the key but off to the left a little bit behind the free throw line, Hinrich behind the free throw line next to him and Chandler running the left baseline. Chandler's man doubles Curry turns around and whips the ball to Chandler, Gordon's man doubles pass to gordon, rotation pass to hinrich. Deng's man doubles and you pass back to Deng and swing it around the horn.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Some unbias opinions


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

Other fans hate Eddy Curry and downgrade him the most. Just like when Jordan became a perceived threat to Celtic and Laker fans in the late 80s they bashed him. But they didn't necessarily care if you tried to say something good about Horace Grant.

Eddy Curry is viewed nationally by insecure fans of other teams as our biggest chance to become great again. He has the highest ceiling of any Bull. So of course they will bash him at every turn. They all remember how we won in the 90s and told them all about it. They haven't forgotten that. The Bulls are still hated by fans of teams whose hearts were cut out by MJ.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> Some unbias opinions


Of course Sir...you still haven't answered my challenge. If we shouldn't match a max offer for Curry......how do you propose we will replace him and not become the Bucks?


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course Sir...you still haven't answered my challenge. If we shouldn't match a max offer for Curry......how do you propose we will replace him and not become the Bucks?


The Suns dont have Eddy Curry at center and they arent the Bucks, I think.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> The Suns dont have Eddy Curry at center and they arent the Bucks, I think.


Yes their center is Amare Stoudemire according to CBSsportsline.com....who currently ranks #1 on their center rankings.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes their center is Amare Stoudemire according to CBSsportsline.com....who currently ranks #1 on their center rankings.


So we dont need some guy like Curry starting at Center then....What about the Sonics? One of the best teams in the NBA with some scrub at Center.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> So we dont need some guy like Curry starting at Center then....What about the Sonics? One of the best teams in the NBA with some scrub at Center.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Too bad ....

El Chapo < Radman
Deng < Lewis
Gordon < Allen


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Eddy Curry is viewed nationally by insecure fans of other teams as our biggest chance to become great again. He has the highest ceiling of any Bull. So of course they will bash him at every turn. They all remember how we won in the 90s and told them all about it. They haven't forgotten that. The Bulls are still hated by fans of teams whose hearts were cut out by MJ.




You're making stuff up, because I don't think anyone still thinks that about Curry. Maybe two years ago. Deng and Gordon certainly have higher ceilings than Curry. I truly doubt Curry gets much better than he is right now.

The only thing he's improved since last year is his defense, and that's mostly because of effort (i'm sure contract year plays into that). Aside from that his offense is very good for a quarter, maybe a half, and then it sucks. And he's still a turnover machine who can't rebound.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> So we dont need some guy like Curry starting at Center then....What about the Sonics? One of the best teams in the NBA with some scrub at Center.


Name me one player on the Bulls as good as Ray Allen or Rashard Lewis? 

Look don't say.....if anyone ever could win without Curry, then we don't need him. You tell me who is on your list and what you think we can get them for. Saying "this team 3 divisions away from us wins without Eddy Curry, so it must mean that we will to, since after all....they did." 

I never said the only way to win was with Eddy Curry. I just want one of you geniuses to tell me who the hell is going ro replace him.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> ...


Kirk > Ridnour
Chandler > Collison/James/Fortson

Deng has the potential to be a better player than Lewis, a much more complete player. Gordon can reach Ray Allen status within 2-3 seasons. And Chapu is a better defender, rebounder and can score in other ways, but not from 3-point land like Radman.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Of course Sir...you still haven't answered my challenge. If we shouldn't match a max offer for Curry......how do you propose we will replace him and not become the Bucks?


Losing Curry would do some damage, but not as much damage as signing him to a max contract.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Name me one player on the Bulls as good as Ray Allen or Rashard Lewis?
> ...


The Bulls win many games when Curry is sitting, and thats during the 4th quarter. So why couldnt they win without him? 
I dont know who is available to replace him (either as a free agent or for trade), and thats not my job. And I can say "sign this guy and play him at center" and Skiles would disagree with me. So its a moot point. The Bulls can win without Curry, its a matter of finding the right players to join Chandler, Kirk, Gordon and Deng.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> 
> 
> Losing Curry would do some damage, but not as much damage as signing him to a max contract.


Agreed.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. You claim to be from Puerto Rico. Your opinion therefore carries about as much weight as mine would on a matter involving the Puerto Rican Olympic team.....none.

2. Weren't you the person who had the thread saying you were going to keep bumping it over and over again to say that the Bulls were the worst team in the league because that's what you claimed we'd be all year long? That was you. So how do you now purport to know ANYTHING about the Bulls. Yes Deng and Hinrich are so good that you thought we'd be the WORST TEAM IN THE NBA with them on our team.

3. Are you serious? First of all Eddy's become a better passer as well, killing 2 of 3 birds, or at least hitting them. Second....what proof do you have that Eddy's only motivation is his contract? Eddy can at least top our as a poor man's Shaq....what is Luol's ceiling? Kirk's? They've mostly mastered the things you can teach (Kirk a lot moreso than Deng, but BOTH more than Curry). Eddy has not. 

4. Again...that thread was the biggest bump I've ever witnessed on a message board.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> 
> 
> Losing Curry would do some damage, but not as much damage as signing him to a max contract.


Do you play for the LA "Dodgers"? Stop Dodging my question. I have a full plan that includes keeping Curry. Let's hear your plan for what we're gonna do if we let him walk.

Also....do you realize that Paxson made the definitive statement that "we can match, so they'll both be back next year." Do you think he was lying? Are you BJ Armstrong in real life and Pax talks to you about what he "really thinks"...? Are you John Paxson's wife? Looks to me like that was the statement he made and I don't remember him qualifying it with "unless Eddy gets the max in an offer sheet, then he may not be back."


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you play for the LA "Dodgers"? Stop Dodging my question. I have a full plan that includes keeping Curry. Let's hear your plan for what we're gonna do if we let him walk.
> ...


So if they are going to match no matter what, why didnt they offer Chandler and Curry contract extensions already? So maybe they can save 2 dollars? 
Paxson wont match offer sheets at any cost, he has proven to be an intelligent man. If both Curry and CHandler sign max offer sheets, they wont be back as Bulls players (at least not both).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> The only thing he's improved since last year is his defense, and that's mostly because of effort (i'm sure contract year plays into that). Aside from that his offense is very good for a quarter, maybe a half, and then it sucks. And he's still a turnover machine who can't rebound.


He can put the ball in the hoop with an efficiency that few in the NBA can match.

He's led the league in FG%.

He's a center than has a nice FT%.

His defense is OK.

We'd like to see him grab a couple more rebounds a game and block 1 more shot a game.

Last season many were saying "Curry is a fat-*** who does not care enough to stay in shape and is HORRIBLE on defense."

Look @ him now.

Ben Gordon is only 4 months younger than Curry.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> The Bulls win many games when Curry is sitting, and thats during the 4th quarter. So why couldnt they win without him?
> I dont know who is available to replace him (either as a free agent or for trade), and thats not my job. And I can say "sign this guy and play him at center" and Skiles would disagree with me. So its a moot point. The Bulls can win without Curry, its a matter of finding the right players to join Chandler, Kirk, Gordon and Deng.


But Paxson has said he'll be back so basically your premise is wrong to begin with.

Also.....Eddy sat the second half of the third and Minnesota stormed back. When Eddy doesn't play what is our record? 

When Eddy is in the game and we are forcefeeding him instead of ignoring him when he has position....we are always the aggressor on both ends.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> So if they are going to match no matter what, why didnt they offer Chandler and Curry contract extensions already?


They wanted to see them play this season. They can't sign them now even if they were willing to pay max.

You must admit that your hardline stance about Curry is significantly different than Reinsdorf's or Paxson's.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> So if they are going to match no matter what, why didnt they offer Chandler and Curry contract extensions already? So maybe they can save 2 dollars?
> Paxson wont match offer sheets at any cost, he has proven to be an intelligent man. If both Curry and CHandler sign max offer sheets, they wont be back as Bulls players (at least not both).


Because he stated that he wanted this season to tell the tale. After evaluation Paxson is now saying we will keep them. But remember....he still wanted to wait and see up until the deadline for extensions.

You really are illiterate aren't you.

You are remarkable. You are now disagreeing with John Paxson about what John Paxson factually said in quote on the record. It takes a special person....


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> They wanted to see them play this season. They can't sign them now even if they were willing to pay max.
> ...


Ding, ding, ding....

No....he and Sir Patchwork know something about what Paxson "really thinks" that the rest of us do not. Perhaps they can satisfy my curiousity as to who their mystery contact inside the Bulls organization is. It's gotta be somebody pretty high up.

Of course El Chapu jocks the 43rd ranked small forward in the league so....what can you really expect.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Because he stated that he wanted this season to tell the tale. After evaluation Paxson is now saying we will keep them. But remember....he still wanted to wait and see up until the deadline for extensions.
> ...


Paxson can say whatever he wants, that doesnt mean he is going to act accordingly. He is simply showing his desire to bring them back, to make Chandler and Curry feel wanted. 

Again, they will be back if the price is right.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Do you play for the LA "Dodgers"? Stop Dodging my question. I have a full plan that includes keeping Curry. Let's hear your plan for what we're gonna do if we let him walk.


You have full plans of paying Curry whatever it takes, whether or not it jeopardizes the franchise in the long term (which it does). Hell, put Chandler at center, we still have Davis. They will hold the position down better than Curry does, since Curry doesn't do anything like a big man except score. 



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Also....do you realize that Paxson made the definitive statement that "we can match, so they'll both be back next year." Do you think he was lying? Are you BJ Armstrong in real life and Pax talks to you about what he "really thinks"...? Are you John Paxson's wife? Looks to me like that was the statement he made and I don't remember him qualifying it with "unless Eddy gets the max in an offer sheet, then he may not be back."


Like I said in one of my 1st posts, it's unlikely that Curry gets the max. You're the one bringing all of this on. I'm sure Paxson wants Duhon back too, but if some other team offered the max, he isn't going to do the same. It's common sense. 

This will be my last reply in this thread. I'm going to make a prediction though, I think that if offseason rolls around and Curry doesn't get max offers, you won't be here to take the fall for being wrong. I'll be here, and maybe I'll be wrong, maybe not. I'm going to bookmark this thread.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding....
> ...


When you are losing an argument you always have to bring Nocioni back when no one is disscusing about him. This is an Eddy Curry thread and you still have to bring Nocioni back at some point. Im sure you are the kind of guy that still believes that USA Basketball is 20 times better than the rest of the world.

Being ranked 42 among small fowards isnt as terrible as being ranked 10th (I dont know where Curry ranks) among centers. Especially when the guys above you are mediocre at best. And Nocioni is still a rookie.

Back to Curry, please.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> Paxson can say whatever he wants, that doesnt mean he is going to act accordingly. He is simply showing his desire to bring them back, to make Chandler and Curry feel wanted.
> ...


Illiterate *****..... he said "so they WILL BE BACK." Not "I'd like to have them back" or "I'll take them for the right price. the quote was as follows:

"...if they want to seek offer sheets they can do that. We have the power to match, so THEY WILL BE BACK NEXT YEAR." 

*What about that don't you understand*?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> 
> 
> You have full plans of paying Curry whatever it takes, whether or not it jeopardizes the franchise in the long term (which it does). Hell, put Chandler at center, we still have Davis. They will hold the position down better than Curry does, since Curry doesn't do anything like a big man except score.


But... if we lose Curry... who will score?

Hinrich only scores at a sub 39% clip.
Duhon is worse.
Chander, Davis... no.
Deng? Maybe.
Gordon starts?

Having a big man that can score *is* an asset.
We need someone who can score down low... and when Curry shoots it goes in more often than not. And if he gets fouled he's pretty good from the line as well.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Illiterate *****..... he said "so they WILL BE BACK." Not "I'd like to have them back" or "I'll take them for the right price. the quote was as follows:
> ...


Have they signed their extensions? No, so take a seat and relax. They wont be back at any cost. Paxson isnt that dumb. No GM would offer Chandler the Max, for example. 

Enjoy!


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> 
> 
> You have full plans of paying Curry whatever it takes, whether or not it jeopardizes the franchise in the long term (which it does). Hell, put Chandler at center, we still have Davis. They will hold the position down better than Curry does, since Curry doesn't do anything like a big man except score.
> ...


Oh I'll be here.

But here's the thing you aren't getting because you are not intelligent. He didn't say "I'd like to have Curry back at the right price." He said "they WILL BE BACK."


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Wow, Eddy Curry (the next great thing) ranks 12th among centers. 
He is behind some future hall of famers, namely:
Primoz Brezec
Marcus CAmby
Nazr Mohammed (no link with Osama)
Mark Blount (That guy that anchors one of the weakest frontcourts)
Dampier (Who got a fat contract after playing good ball during his contract year).

Yup, Curry is worth the max...and much more.

:sigh:


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> 
> 
> You have full plans of paying Curry whatever it takes, whether or not it jeopardizes the franchise in the long term (which it does). Hell, put Chandler at center, we still have Davis. They will hold the position down better than Curry does, since Curry doesn't do anything like a big man except score.
> ...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Yet Paxson held firm. GMs everywhere called, but Paxson, according to league sources, didn't want to be the one who had lived through Curry's growing pains and then moved him just in time for the 22-year-old to blossom. It's a stance that history supports, since most every big man to jump directly from high school to the pros eventually makes it.


Piatowski said that Curry is better offensively and defensively then Yao Ming and that Curry is already a beast on both ends of the court. He didn't comment on rebounding of course.

Tyson Chandler also said that he will have a decent contract waiting for him this offseason, if not in Chicago, then somewhere else.

Curry stressed he just wants a decent contract, and he stressed many times that he wants to stay in Chicago.

I find it more likely that the Bulls would resign Curry for a contract of about 9-10 million starting, while they let Tyson walk for the same amount of money.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> Wow, Eddy Curry (the next great thing) ranks 12th among centers.
> He is behind some future hall of famers, namely:
> Primoz Brezec
> ...


Your paying for the next 6 years not this one. He's reached as high as 4th in those rankings. Call me when Noce makes the top 20.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Your paying for the next 6 years not this one. He's reached as high as 4th in those rankings. Call me when Noce makes the top 20.


Are you dumb or what? We are NOT talking Nocioni here. Its about Curry. If you want to talk Nocioni, open a new thread. 

And most probably, the Bulls are going to pay him for the next 4 years (thanks to the new CBA....but its a work in progress).


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

How come people still hold Eddy's defense against him, its been really good this year.

The only MAJOR flaw left in Curry's game is his rebounding.

Curry can

-score in the post
-defend the post 
-pass out of double teams
-offensive rebounding
-alter shots

weaknesses

-defensive rebounding
-ball control

'Curry is definitely worth at least 8 million.

but guys look at it this way, people are starting to look at Chicago, and its a desired destination now for free agents. So we can sign Curry and Gordon and stuff to phat contracts, and then just keep haulinin quality players with the MLE (unless they kill that with the new cba)


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> 
> 'Curry is definitely worth at least 8 million.
> 
> but guys look at it this way, people are starting to look at Chicago, and its a desired destination now for free agents. So we can sign Curry and Gordon and stuff to phat contracts, and then just keep haulinin quality players with the MLE (unless they kill that with the new cba)


No one would argue that (That Curry is worth at least 8M per year).
At the same time, you cant give this guy a Max contract. Anything more than 12M/season would be overpaying IMO.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I reccomend a 70 million 6 year contract. Just like Carlos Boozer almost.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

btw, I think if we don't trade Curry at the deadline he will be locked up long term with the Bulls.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> btw, I think if we don't trade Curry at the deadline he will be locked up long term with the Bulls.


Most probably. At the same time, Bulls fans would murder Pax if he "dismantles" this team midseason. When you are winning (well, this Bulls season can be linked with "winning") you try not to touch any major pieces. Curry is one of them.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Does Eddy deserve the Max? Of course not, the max should be reserved for elite players who have already proven their value on the court. 

Should the Bulls match an offer sheet of a max contract? Even though it hurts me to say it, we have to. We cannot lose Eddy for nothing. Pax by all his comments knows this and is already putting out signals that the Bulls will match no matter what. 

I think if the Bulls come to the table w/ a respectable long term deal of around 9-10million bucks, hopefully Eddy signs the deal. Let's not forget, this offseason a lot of big men are on the market Kwame Brown, Dalembert, Big Z, Swift, Gadzuric, Abdur-rahim (4/3), marshall, and are own Tyson chandler.

Teams like Atlanta w/ a lot of cap room might say "why pay Curry a full boat contract when we can save some money and get a lesser big man and add another FA instead of putting all our eggs in one player like curry?

The player who i think will surprise some of you w/ his contract will be Chandler. Chandler is constantly getting praise heaped on him left and right from NBA coaches. When it comes to re-signing Chandler he wont come as a bargain. I imagine both Curry and Chandler will get around the same amount of money. 

Pax wont offer a Max deal, but IMO he will match an offer sheet of a max deal.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you dumb or what? We are NOT talking Nocioni here. Its about Curry. If you want to talk Nocioni, open a new thread.
> ...


But you're a Noce jocker....therefore if you have something to say you open yourself up to "hey, what about YOUR boy."


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> No one would argue that (That Curry is worth at least 8M per year).
> At the same time, you cant give this guy a Max contract. Anything more than 12M/season would be overpaying IMO.


Dude I'm pretty sure the max Eddy can make due to his age IS 12 million. Anyone know the CBA specifics? If you think I'm saying he'll make more than 12 you're off.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> But you're a Noce jocker....


I just support my countryman, same with Ginobili. Give it a break, please.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude I'm pretty sure the max Eddy can make due to his age IS 12 million. Anyone know the CBA specifics? If you think I'm saying he'll make more than 12 you're off.


Without knowing the CBA specifics, you wouldnt go over 12M for Eddy?


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> Does Eddy deserve the Max? Of course not, the max should be reserved for elite players who have already proven their value on the court.
> 
> Should the Bulls match an offer sheet of a max contract? Even though it hurts me to say it, we have to. We cannot lose Eddy for nothing. Pax by all his comments knows this and is already putting out signals that the Bulls will match no matter what.
> ...


The thing is....I am under the impression that the max varies based on either age or years in the league. If the max for Curry is 14 mill then that's dicey but I still agree we'd have no choice. If the max is 12 then I am definitely claiming someone offers that. Just go look at Cleveland on hoopshype. I'm pretty sure the max to Curry is a bargain compared to what Ilgauskas will be asking for.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

BTW, this link should help:
http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/7847913

Randolph originally was seeking a six-year, $86 million extension, the maximum allowed under the league's collective bargaining agreement.

There you go.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> I'm pretty sure the max to Curry is a bargain compared to what Ilgauskas will be asking for.


Z already said he wont be asking for too much. He wants to stay in Cleveland.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> The thing is....I am under the impression that the max varies based on either age or years in the league. If the max for Curry is 14 mill then that's dicey but I still agree we'd have no choice. If the max is 12 then I am definitely claiming someone offers that. Just go look at Cleveland on hoopshype. I'm pretty sure the max to Curry is a bargain compared to what Ilgauskas will be asking for.



http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#9


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> The thing is....I am under the impression that the max varies based on either age or years in the league. If the max for Curry is 14 mill then that's dicey but I still agree we'd have no choice. If the max is 12 then I am definitely claiming someone offers that. Just go look at Cleveland on hoopshype. I'm pretty sure the max to Curry is a bargain compared to what Ilgauskas will be asking for.


I'm clueless on the CBA specifics on Max contracts. I know Zach Randolph got a max deal...Anyone know his contract details? 

A bonus of re-signing Curry is we wont have a 1000+ post thread titled "Curry update" like we do w/ Jamal.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm clueless on the CBA specifics on Max contracts. I know Zach Randolph got a max deal...Anyone know his contract details?
> ...



I posted about Zach's extension. Read page 7.

I have the impression that Bulls fans appreciate Curry, so they wont be bashing or laughing at Curry's performance if he were to leave Chicago.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I posted about Zach's extension. Read page 7.


I just saw that..thanks Chapu


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm clueless on the CBA specifics on Max contracts. I know Zach Randolph got a max deal...Anyone know his contract details?
> ...


http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/portland.htm


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>El Chapu</b>!
> BTW, this link should help:
> http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/7847913
> 
> ...


If Eddy got that we'd have no choice.....but I thought the max would be more like 72. I admitted to not knowing that. I could see Eddy getting 12, but I'm not saying he'll get 13.33 per. I hope he only gets 10, that would be sweet.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

Regardless of specific numbers its not about deserves....its about dealing with realities under the CBA. If those realities turn out more favorable and the max is 4 years..sweet. If not, we have to suck it up and match.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> If Eddy got that we'd have no choice.....but I thought the max would be more like 72. I admitted to not knowing that. I could see Eddy getting 12, but I'm not saying he'll get 13.33 per. I hope he only gets 10, that would be sweet.


But there will be a new CBA on place, so it wouldnt hurt that much to give him around 14 for 4 years instead of 6.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

I think a new CBA with a 4 year contract would be sweet for us IF we still had the ability to match any offer after those four years.....


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Curry Doesn't Deserve the Max*



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok three things.....
> ...



What he said :yes:


----------

