# KC: More info: Bulls to offer Curry shorter offer with incentives



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ory?coll=cs-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Typing on my phone, can't post quotes. So Bulls will make offers Curry, Chandler, Duhon very early in free agency process. Du 3 years, six mil? 

Good that we're making Eddy an offer, but there's no way he accepts our first one.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sound like Eddy may be getting max money from Paxson but not max years?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Good news all the way around. Seems to me that Pax wants Curry to prove himself longer before he is given any long term offers. If a team locks him in long term, Bulls are open to a trade.

I am very pleased we keep we will offer Chandler a long term deal. 

We may know as early as tomorrow what the monatary offers were. 

Great that we are keeping Duhon!! 

As for Pargo, he will get rewarded for being instant offense in some games.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> Sound like Eddy may be getting max money from Paxson but not max years?



I can guarantee you that Pax's first offer to Eddy is *nowhere near the max*.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> I can guarantee you that Pax's first offer to Eddy is *nowhere near the max*.


I'm expecting the initial offer to be 38 million/4 years, Curry will demand max. But if Paxson offers Curry that, and Curry comes back with a counter offer of 57 million over 6 years, does Paxson decline that? Thats an average of 9.5 million, definitely not breaking the piggy bank there.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I dont think eddy is gonna be a Bull next year .Tyson longterm deal while he possibly gets a shorter one with weight and medical clauses .I think he will turn down any Bulls offer not the max and will eventually get S & T .


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

bullsville said:


> I can guarantee you that Pax's first offer to Eddy is *nowhere near the max*.


Totally agree!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> After making a $5.14 million qualifying offer, the Bulls own the rights to match all offers for Curry during the free-agent recruiting period, which runs from Friday until July 22.
> 
> The Bulls also made qualifying offers to Tyson Chandler, Chris Duhon and Jannero Pargo and will present contract offers to their respective agents, as well as Curry's, as early as Friday.
> 
> ...



gotcha covered with the quotes DMD!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> The Bulls are curious to see how an irregular heartbeat Curry experienced on March 30 and his subsequent three months of inactivity and testing affects the level of interest from other teams.


KC must have got it wrong on this one.

Everyone knows the Bulls only care about Eddy's health.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> KC must have got it wrong on this one.
> 
> Everyone knows the Bulls only care about Eddy's health.


Yeah, because being concerned about his health and how that health might affect the risk of offering him a long-term deal are mutually exclusive. 

They should just max him out. Damn the torpedoes, right?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> KC must have got it wrong on this one.
> 
> Everyone knows the Bulls only care about Eddy's health.


LOL


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

From KC's article:



> One possible suitor, however, no longer appears to be interested. According to a report in Friday's Akron Beacon Journal, Cleveland now is expected to re-sign center Zydrunas Ilgauskas. *This development comes despite LeBron James courting Curry, a close friend with whom he speaks almost daily.*


Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but is there any way that James will be pissed when the Cavs resign Ilgauskas and then fail to get Redd? They would basically be the same team that they were last year.

If James and Curry are so close, what are the odds of them playing together in Chicago instead down the line? I only bring it up b/c this might be a really good reason to think about keeping Curry.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

onetenthlag said:


> From KC's article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like I said in the other thread.

Don't let Curry go to James, let James go to Curry.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Is the max year for contracts six, under the new CBA?

I expect that "incentives" come in the form of a team option to terminate the contract after two years, or something like that. I'm sure that there's a lot of clauses in there for missed games because of health.

I don't think that those are all that bad for Curry. If he and his agent are reasonable about it, I think they should be able to make a deal happen. 

It does leave the door open for other teams to toss that risk out the window and just make him big unconditional offers, but I don't think that any team would do that. You'll see the same thing happen with Stromile Swift this season.

But if Pax has him down for a $48 mil 5 year deal with a team option on year 3, then I think they should negotiate it like so:

"Pax, make it $52 over 5, team option on year 4, player option on year 5"

"Rose, make it $50 over 5, team option on year 3. No player option."

And so on and so forth. The overall number should be fairly pretty solid; it'll be those things that they negotiate. I think Pax does want Curry, does want to pay him well, but DOES want to cover his back with insurance on Curry's health. 

Philly has officially played itself out of free agency for the next three years. Why? Because they are paying Todd MacCulloch and Jamal Mashburn through 2007. $16 million a year, knocked off the salary cap, every single year.

Pax doesn't want that. You don't want the third and fourth highest salaries on your cap going to NOTHING. Even if Uncle Jerry can get insurance to pay 80% of it, it would be jacked up to have that destroy your franchise like that. Even with the new rules that allow much easier buyouts, there's still a LOT at risk.

I think other teams will be smart about this too, and I think Eddy will end up in Chicago.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yeah, because being concerned about his health and how that health might affect the risk of offering him a long-term deal are mutually exclusive.
> 
> They should just max him out. Damn the torpedoes, right?


Like Paxson, I just want what is best for Eddy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I think Curry's QO is higher than MLE. That would preclude teams trying to use MLE to make offers to him.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Like Paxson, I just want what is best for Eddy.


That's wrong, Paxson doesn't *just* want what is best for Eddy, he wants what is best for the Bulls. That's his job. He has never once claimed that he *just* wants what is best for Eddy- at least not since we quit playing games. And by leaving Eddy off the post-season roster- which was in EDDY'S best interest- he DID do what was best for Eddy.

It stopped being about Eddy's health the day the post-season ended for us. When there were no more games to be played and no chance of Eddy dropping dead on the court, it became all about a new contract.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

As a restricted free agent, I don't see Curry taking the shorter offer with incentives. He will make more money by going out on the market, getting the best deal out there (probally more the MLE from someone Atlanta?), and then let the Bulls (most likely).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> It stopped being about Eddy's health the day the post-season ended for us. When there were no more games to be played and no chance of Eddy dropping dead on the court, it became all about a new contract.


I agree. The syrupy sweet quotes from Paxson indicate otherwise.

for instance....

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...brite,1,1200669.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines



> His positive report is terrific news for Eddy. The next step is to schedule a face-to-face meeting between Eddy and Dr. Cannom. *Our goal has not changed from Day One, and that is to ensure Eddy's long-term health as our No. 1 priority.*


There are dozens of other quotes to choose from to the same affect.

In the end, its the contract, I agree. Notice "contract" rarley if ever appears in Paxson's quotes about this matter.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Like Paxson, I just want what is best for Eddy.


:rofl: You got the Paxson company line quote machine on full blast.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree. The syrupy sweet quotes from Paxson indicate otherwise.
> 
> for instance....
> 
> ...


And hasn't Pax done all he can to "ensure Eddy's long-term health"? (Yes) 

What else can he do to "ensure Eddy's long-term health"? (Nothing that I can think of)

So when did he say he "just wants what's best for Eddy"? Easy, HE DIDN'T.

"What's best for Eddy" involves a big, long-term contract. I've never once heard Pax say "we're going to give Eddy a huge, fully guaranteed deal, the organization be damned".


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

Kukoc, do you disagree with the notion that Eddy's long-term health and contract go hand in hand?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

bbertha37 said:


> Kukoc, do you disagree with the notion that Eddy's long-term health and contract go hand in hand?


Why- he just wants "what's best for *Eddy*". That may not be in sync with what is best *for the Bulls*, but I'm assuming after Pax let Jamal leave .................

And unless Eddy is cleared to play and declared 100% healthy, Pax can't even trade him, so of course Eddy's long-term health is job #1.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

bbertha37 said:


> Kukoc, do you disagree with the notion that Eddy's long-term health and contract go hand in hand?


And that the first priority would be to get Curry healthy before any other issues can be addressed?

This isn't complicated stuff.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

As long as its clear that Paxson cares about Curry's health primarily from a long-term investment due diligence perspective (as opposed to the "thoughts and prayers" side), I'm satisfied.

Also, its interesting to see in the KC article that the Bulls are focused on the tactical advantage Eddy's heart condition will have in the contract negotiations. 

Not surprising at all.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Kukoc, do you disagree with the notion that Eddy's long-term health and contract go hand in hand?


Unless my irony detector has broken, I think he might be pointing out perhaps prior lip service from the Bulls org was very heavy on the one hand (Eddy's long-term health) and very light on the other (contract). And tinged with scorn for any suggestion that finances might be an issue.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Unless my irony detector has broken, I think he might be pointing out perhaps prior lip service from the Bulls org was very heavy on the one hand (Eddy's long-term health) and very light on the other (contract). * And tinged with scorn for any suggestion that finances might be an issue.*


That would have to be an inference made by the reader. Not saying it's an unreasonable inference to make, but there was definitely no concrete "scorn" that I was aware of. It was just the reality of the matter that getting all the facts as far as Eddy's health dovetailed with BOTH ensuring his future health wasn't in jeopardy and having the facts necessary to move into contract negotiations. 

It was never an all-or-nothing issue. As far as I could tell, the Bulls WERE primarily interested in ensuring Eddy's health and ensuring that he and they both had as much info as possible about his condition. The fact that this goal coincides nicely with an upcoming contract negotiation doesn't mean they were entirely in this from a financial/basketball operations perspective, and obviously they weren't 100% altruistic in their desire to get all the facts either. Maybe I'm just naive, but I do think their intent was a solid 90% in the altruism camp though.

I must say though, that a little bit of the DaBullz/ScottMay brand of doubt/skepticism is starting to creep in now that we have another beat writer making "sign and trade" remarks. I think the ideal situation for the Bulls is the shorter contract that Pax apparently wants. But life ain't ideal. This could get interesting.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I'm on board with
17% altruism
32% financial
51% ditka


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm on board with
> 17% altruism
> 32% financial
> 51% ditka


LOL, yeah I'll go with that from Pax's point of view.

But as for Reinsdorf, it's 100% financial, we all know he's Satan and has no heart whatsoever...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

onetenthlag said:


> From KC's article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Cavs are exploring more than just Redd this offseason. They will not come back with the same team next year. Jeff Mcinnis for one is gone. So is Traylor. So is Diop and Wagner. Luke Jackson will be there. Martynas will be there.

And then either a star like Ray Allen, or a bunch of good role players.

Most of the Cavs fans I talked to didn't want Eddy either. Z scores as much, but he rebounds more and plays better defense, and is going to be cheaper most likely, to aquire. Lebron and Mike Brown have actually been pressuring the Cavs to re-sign him, if you read reports coming out of cleveland.

I would wager that Atlanta is the one to offer him the big money. Though given that Pax is talking about sign and trades, it could be literally any team.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Don't expect the Hawks to make an offer to Curry, they don't like him, he's not their guy. Tyson Chandler is the one that the Hawks will offer the max too. I remember during 2001 the Hawks wanted to draft Chandler, Clippers wanted Curry, and the draft was expected to go Brown-Curry-Chandler. But then the Bulls and Clippers agreed on a prearranged trade, that allowed the Bulls to get both Curry and Chandler, because if Clippers took Curry, the Hawks would have nabbed Chandler, so the trade had to be arranged with Chandler being taken #2. The Hawks had no interest in Curry at 3, and since their man Chandler went the pick before, they took Gasol and traded him. Now form my sources, Curry isn't the Hawks target this offseason, and Chandler is once again, and I think Paxson knows this, and thats why he expects to match CHandler to the max if Chandler doesn't sign the first deal.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> Now form my sources


LOL, it's funny, but when you say that it's almost as reliable as Sam Smith's "sources"...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree. The syrupy sweet quotes from Paxson indicate otherwise.
> 
> for instance....
> 
> ...



Notice Paxson's actual quote is not what you represented it to be.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> LOL, it's funny, but when you say that it's almost as reliable as Sam Smith's "sources"...


Lets just say its a shadowy figure named Rico Kipe.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Notice Paxson's actual quote is not what you represented it to be.


The sarcastic post earlier in the thread was tongue in cheek, clearly.

As we can see... the Bulls are primarily concerned about Curry's health from an investment perspective and are curious to figure out how to use the condition for a tactical advantage in the upcoming negotiations... according to KC's article.... as many felt all along.

MikeDC summed up well what I was getting at in regards to Paxson/Bulls.

Until the next news cycle, my thoughts and prayers, along with the Bulls organization's, are with Eddy Curry and his "health."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Is "health" the same thing as health? I'm very confused.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I do have another question. Did anyone ever, *and I mean anyone and I mean ever*, on this board come to the defense of Paxson by saying that there was no business element to the Bulls concern over Curry's heart condition?

If so, could someone provide me a link to who wrote that? 

Because, I've got a feeling we all know that if Curry was the Berto Center janitor that Paxson wouldn't have flown him all over the country for medical tests and would not have held a press conference to announce that he wouldn't be able to clean toilets for the next 6 weeks.

Typical straw man. The only thing that any poster, or Paxson himself, defended against was the notion that the Bulls were taking a course of action deliberately to drive down Curry's value.

The revisionist history is getting a little tired.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I do have another question. Did anyone ever, *and I mean anyone and I mean ever*, on this board come to the defense of Paxson by saying that there was no business element to the Bulls concern over Curry's heart condition?
> 
> If so, could someone provide me a link to who wrote that?
> 
> ...



Yeah, but would a janitor really have the condition of "athlete heart". And even if he did somehow have the condition, would it really affect how he does his job, I don't think doing his custodian duties would be life threatning. And what does this have to do with John Paxson, does he even know the janitor. Paxson knows Curry, and its his job to protect the players on the court. The Berto janitor would be for Reindsorf to deal with, not Paxson.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

sloth said:


> Yeah, but would a janitor really have the condition of "athlete heart". And even if he did somehow have the condition, would it really affect how he does his job, I don't think doing his custodian duties would be life threatning. And what does this have to do with John Paxson, does he even know the janitor. Paxson knows Curry, and its his job to protect the players on the court. The Berto janitor would be for Reindsorf to deal with, not Paxson.



Maybe it's just the mood I'm in, but this post struck me as amusing. Sloth, you are cut from a strange cloth, my friend. 

And right when these thoughts were coarsing through my brain, I read your avatar, and my sentiments were only reinforced. 

I guess that's what you get for living in Wisconsin.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

sloth said:


> Yeah, but would a janitor really have the condition of "athlete heart". And even if he did somehow have the condition, would it really affect how he does his job, I don't think doing his custodian duties would be life threatning. And what does this have to do with John Paxson, does he even know the janitor. Paxson knows Curry, and its his job to protect the players on the court. The Berto janitor would be for Reindsorf to deal with, not Paxson.


I was trying to make an illustrative point by using an absurd scenario.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Typical straw man. The only thing that any poster, or Paxson himself, defended against was the notion that the Bulls were taking a course of action deliberately to drive down Curry's value.
> 
> The revisionist history is getting a little tired.


Is anyone on this thread arguing with you?

At the end of all this "loving care" about Curry's health comes a cold, hard business decision.

Due to the way things have played out, that business decision will be easier for the Bulls, at least from a finance perspective.

They seemingly now have a pretty good idea of what Curry's condition is but have stained him enough publicly to probably prevent another team from making a run at him. 

Nice job by Paxson, even if it perhaps was not what he was trying to do. But, I give him credit for Deng even though that trade was not what he was trying to do so he gets credit for the Curry move as well. Paxson also gets credit for Duhon, even though he didn't think much of him when he drafted him (almost cut him for mike wilks). 

Paxson seems to be blessed. He did go to Notre Dame after all. He’s like the Forrest Gump of general managers.

The more Cap Space the Bulls have the better off they will be. If they can get a healthy Curry for cheap and he stays happy, its good for the Bulls.... sucks for Curry though.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If finances were always a concern, then it's always been fair to question the team's dedication to the player's health. You can't seperate one from the other.

Like... ooops, ya don't say... holding out for a very questionable DNA test after the guy who told Reggie Lewis to quit said Curry was good to go might be a little unusual, but it's SOLELY rooted in concern for Eddy and the fact that it's going to screw his contract value is completely incidental?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> I was trying to make an illustrative point by using an absurd scenario.


Haha. I just have this really clear picture of the expression on your face when you typed that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> If finances were always a concern, then it's always been fair to question the team's dedication to the player's health. You can't seperate one from the other.
> 
> Like... ooops, ya don't say... holding out for a very questionable DNA test after the guy who told Reggie Lewis to quit said Curry was good to go might be a little unusual, but it's SOLELY rooted in concern for Eddy and the fact that it's going to screw his contract value is completely incidental?


I liked your other post better.

Talk about Pwned.

You are a gentleman.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I liked your other post better.
> 
> Talk about Pwned.
> 
> You are a gentleman.


You just gotta stir the pot, don't ya? :clown:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

... If MikeDC can take the high ground, then so will I.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Is anyone on this thread arguing with you?
> 
> At the end of all this "loving care" about Curry's health comes a cold, hard business decision.
> 
> ...


So in short, you're saying Pax has gotten lucky. I guess that's better than wanting him fired, so I won't complain. We're making progress. :clap:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> If finances were always a concern, then it's always been fair to question the team's dedication to the player's health. You can't seperate one from the other.
> 
> Like... ooops, ya don't say... *holding out for a very questionable DNA test * after *the guy who told Reggie Lewis to quit said Curry was good to go * might be a little unusual, but it's SOLELY rooted in concern for Eddy and the fact that it's going to screw his contract value is completely incidental?


There is no factual foundation upon which to build an argument that the Bulls did anything deliberately to drive down Curry's value:

(a) It appears that Dr. Cannom's diagnosis has convinced the Bulls to abandon their requirement for a DNA test - a test recommended by other cardiac experts Curry visited. The team didn't pull it out of midair. 

(b) "The guy who told Reggie Lewis to quit" did say Eddy was good to go, but he was also one of the "cardiac experts" the Bulls had consulted before announcing at Curry's press conference that the "cardiac experts" told them to shut Curry down for the rest of the season. 

Gosh, looks like even the "cardiac experts" have advocated caution and patience throughout. Maybe they had an interest in driving down Curry's market value as well? 

(c) The abandoned DNA test did not "screw" Curry's contract value (assuming thats even happened, See today's Trib), the shut down for the season after discovering an enlarged heart/irregular heartbeat did, if anything. A course of conduct almost certainly requested by the "Reggie Lewis guy" (Dr. Estes) that you seem to be so infatuated with.

Arguing the impropriety of Paxson's conduct by citing incomplete information is very easy.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> (c) The abandoned DNA test did not "screw" Curry's contract value (assuming thats even happened, See today's Trib), the shut down for the season after discovering an enlarged heart/irregular heartbeat did, if anything. A course of conduct almost certainly requested by the "Reggie Lewis guy" (Dr. Estes) that you seem to be so infatuated with..


I think the Bulls actions have less to do about effecting his market value b/c all the other teams have to do is read the medical reports.

By this lame insistance on the DNA report which the league's lawyers have advised against (from a Sun-Times report) I believe the Bulls are setting themselves up to jettison Curry and minimize any bad reaction from the fan base.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mike, you might not have seen this, so maybe I was a little harsh in that last post. A couple of people have pointed out recently that Dr. Estes' pre-press conference diagnosis was the same as Dr. Cannom's recent diagnosis and that, somehow, this evidences bad faith on the Bulls' part for showing caution with Curry and in "concealing" Dr. Estes original opinion. 

Ignoring the fact that other cardiac experts opined that a DNA test was a good idea, lets just focus on the Dr. Estes part of this theory.

Here are some quotes from the Eddy Curry Press Conference:



> *Bulls' team physician Dr. Kathy Weber*
> 
> "We've been as diligent as we can to rule out anything possible that would put him at risk. We're going to continue to do that until we feel it's safe for him to play."
> 
> ...


Link: http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/curry_pc_050414.html

In looking at the full story, these quotes are important. The Bulls, from the start, have stated that everything was looking "positive" and "favorable" and "benign". The spin they have put on this has been one of optimism and caution, not fear, doom and gloom to drive down Curry's value.

As for the caution part, which is where you fellas seem to think the plot lies, the last bolded part is of the most importance. It was the cardiac experts, of which Dr. Estes was one, who rendered a positive diagnosis but recommended shutting Eddy down for 6 weeks, thus bringing the potential for an adverse effect on his contract into play.

Thank you for taking it ALL into consideration before imputing a wicked motive to Paxson's treatment of the situation.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> I think the Bulls actions have less to do about effecting his market value b/c all the other teams have to do is read the medical reports.
> 
> By this lame insistance on the DNA report which the league's lawyers have advised against (from a Sun-Times report) I believe the Bulls are setting themselves up to jettison Curry and minimize any bad reaction from the fan base.


But from all indications, Dr. Cannom's report has relieved them of any concerns that the DNA test is absolutely needed. I mean, all reports are that the Bulls faxed a contract offer to Curry's agent on Friday. (No link, but see today's Trib) And the test *was recommended by at least one of the experts who saw Curry.* I don't see how that fact can be overlooked in any informed discussion of the situation.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> They seemingly now have a pretty good idea of what Curry's condition is but have stained him enough publicly to probably prevent another team from making a run at him.



Well, despite all of your big Pax criticism, this doesn't really seem to be the case considering today's news, does it?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=69366

The NBA’s free-agent negotiating period began Friday, but recruiting free agents was pretty well buried on the task list of Bulls general manager John Paxson.

Paxson continued to monitor Eddy Curry’s health status after the 22-year-old center visited Los Angeles cardiologist Dr. David Cannom on Thursday.

The Bulls’ primary focus in free agency is to re-sign their own players. Beside that, their summer-league candidates begin a minicamp at the Berto Center today.

Curry is expected to resume basketball activity soon with personal trainer Tim Grover. Grover isn’t sure when Curry will begin workouts but is confident his group is ready to deal with Curry’s heart condition.

“We’ve planned for this for a while,” Grover said. “Our own medical staff has some experience with this. I used to train Hakeem Olajuwon. He had a heart condition. Juwan Howard has a heart condition we’re dealing with.

“This is not new to us. We’re definitely prepared, at least on paper.”

The Bulls tendered qualifying offers to restricted free agents Curry, Tyson Chandler, Chris Duhon and Jannero Pargo on Thursday as planned, securing the right to match any offer those players receive from another team.

The Bulls plan to match any offer Chandler or Duhon receives and will most likely reward Pargo for his playoff heroics with a spot on next season’s roster. Curry’s situation is more complicated.

If any teams show significant interest in Curry, the Bulls are willing to orchestrate a sign-and-trade deal, provided they get a big man in return. If the interest isn’t there, the Bulls will attempt to re-sign Curry while minimizing their own risk.

It’s probably safe to eliminate the Bulls from contention for any of the big-name free agents. To clear cap room, the Bulls would have to renounce Curry, and they want to keep the midlevel exception available to re-sign Duhon.

Paxson has repeatedly identified the team’s greatest needs as a tall, defensive-minded guard and a big man who can shoot.

There is a surprising dearth of defensive-minded two guards on the market and the best available, Utah’s Raja Bell, reportedly agreed to sign with Phoenix on Friday. Two other candidates — San Antonio’s Devin Brown and Charlotte’s Keith Bogans — are both restricted and would be tough to pry free.

That’s why the Bulls are hoping 6-5 rookie Eddie Basden, the reigning Conference USA defensive player of the year at Charlotte, can shine for their summer league team.

As far as sweet-shooting big men, Donyell Marshall and Shareef Abdur-Rahim will probably get better offers elsewhere. That would leave the Bulls to pursue some second-tier power forwards.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But from all indications, Dr. Cannom's report has relieved them of any concerns that the DNA test is absolutely needed. I mean, all reports are that the Bulls faxed a contract offer to Curry's agent on Friday. (No link, but see today's Trib) And the test *was recommended by at least one of the experts who saw Curry.* I don't see how that fact can be overlooked in any informed discussion of the situation.


Curry and his agents have been very quiet. Bulls sources were leaking and leaking how critical this test was. Now it's not. Something smells in Denmark.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Here are some quotes from the Eddy Curry Press Conference:


I'm sorry I haven't been able to find the transcript or video of the conference to back this up, but I want to point out that the quotes on the Bulls site represent maybe 2% of what Cole and Weber said during their appearance. There was plenty of other stuff -- stuff you wouldn't expect to see cut and pasted in a recap of the event compiled by the Bulls PR staff -- that was not necessarily negative or dire, but sort of ominous in its vagueness. 

If the press conference was all sweetmeats and nosegays, it stands to reason that the firestorm of controversy in the other thread about how it would all affect Eddy's health likely wouldn't have ever been lit otherwise.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Here's the NY Post's Knick's beat writer's interpretation of "shorter offer with incentives":



> The Bulls, meanwhile, plan to lowball Eddy Curry because of his heart condition.


:laugh:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I've been reading around the web, and we really don't know what the Curry offer will actually be. There are just a lot of rumors and beat writer speculation going around right now. In the article that TomB posted earlier, it said Curry is planning to start workouts at the Berto Center soon, and that would lead me to believe that Curry is fully planning on resigning with the team. For all we know Paxson could offer Curry are 6 year-57 million contract, or something within that, which would be a 9.5 average per a year, which won't break the bank for the Bulls. KC claims to have a source within the organization that told him about the short incentive based offer, but from what I saw in most other articles, they just expect it to be a short term offer, not that they actually have a source. Hopefully Curry and the Bulls can agree on something soon.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Here's the NY Post's Knick's beat writer's interpretation of "shorter offer with incentives":
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh:



Umm, yeah. The ever-responsible, never hyperbolic, _New York Post_. Sheesh.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Mute point, Paxson said he will match any offers on the 3 Bulls players. That is pretty much true unless some team offers Duhon the max contract for a 2nd round pick which would start at the MLE and then go max in the 2nd year, which is highly, highly unlikely. Everyone will be back ont he train to Clarksville.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Umm, yeah. The ever-responsible, never hyperbolic, _New York Post_. Sheesh.


Umm, yeah. Hence the :laugh:.

Here's a "sheesh" right back at ya, and I'll even throw in a "lighten the Christ up" just because I'm nice.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Umm, yeah. Hence the :laugh:.
> 
> Here's a "sheesh" right back at ya, and I'll even throw in a "lighten the Christ up" just because I'm nice.



Whoops, my bad. I was assuming another management slam. Lightening up commencing now.

Of course, my "sheesh" and "Umm, yeah" were more directed at my disdain for the NY Post than you. Perhaps we could both stand to "lighten the Christ up."


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Whoops, my bad. I was assuming another management slam. Lightening up commencing now.
> 
> Of course, my "sheesh" and "Umm, yeah" were more directed at my disdain for the NY Post than you. Perhaps we could both stand to "lighten the Christ up."


:cheers:

I'm chalking up my irritability to my sunburn.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> :cheers:
> 
> I'm chalking up my irritability to my sunburn.



:cheers: 


Haha. My arms are actually peeling as we speak. Combine that with a nice little hangover and well, yep, now I'm cranky.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I'm sorry I haven't been able to find the transcript or video of the conference to back this up, but I want to point out that the quotes on the Bulls site represent maybe 2% of what Cole and Weber said during their appearance. There was plenty of other stuff -- stuff you wouldn't expect to see cut and pasted in a recap of the event compiled by the Bulls PR staff -- that was not necessarily negative or dire, but sort of ominous in its vagueness.
> 
> If the press conference was all sweetmeats and nosegays, it stands to reason that the firestorm of controversy in the other thread about how it would all affect Eddy's health likely wouldn't have ever been lit otherwise.


But those are still accurate quotes. And they clearly express cautious optimism, not "sweetmeats and nosegays". 

Look, the reality is that the Bulls didn't paint a doom and gloom scenario around Eddy. They painted a scenario of caution. Caution that was at all times based on at least one, some, most, or all of the cardiac experts examining Curry. 

Thats the bottom line, isn't it? Can you really dispute any of that in good faith with some sort of objective evidence? 

Frankly, I don't think there is much left to talk about regarding this angle of the situation.


----------

