# The price you pay for no patience



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

Eddy Curry is playing great!Every time I check out game stats he has about 24pts. a night! Man Paxson should have never let him go.I confess however that I was getting a little tired of him,but I thought that 1st year they made the playoffs with him we were a real good team.We would have gotten past Washington for sure if him and Deng weren't hurt.I know the whole DNA thing played a part but Paxson should have waited.Now Chandler who we thought was a waste of money is doing more then the guy we thought was worth all the money.We dumped J.R. Smith,whats next? Thabo and Tyrus out the door? I think Paxson is good at getting young experianced players but the ones that have little experiance he stuggles to have patience for them. I think our record would look very different if we had Chandler,Curry and Crawford still.Remember when we had Larry Hughs and we just traded him without giving him a chance?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

He's only scored 24+ 3 times.

0-3 , the knicks record when eddy leads then in scoring.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

We've given away so many players with Pax and to a lesser extent Krause that you could build two teams out of it.

Krause:

Hughes
Artest
Brand
Voskuhl
Miller

Paxson:

Curry
Chandler
Thomas
J.R. Smith
Crawford

In all seriousness, I don't think ANY of these players are superstars. All these players have proven to work put into different situations with different kinds of support. I still don't think they'd work well as squads, perhaps because I have such horrid memories of those 23 and below win seasons.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Eddy Curry: 15.5, 6.4 

In the post, I'd rather have:

Zach Randolph: 25.5, 10.4
Carlos Boozer: 22.2, 12.4
David West: 17.4, 8.3
even Hakim Warrick: 15.7, 6.1

Oh, but some of those guys aren't centers! We all know that getting production from the center spot is hard!

Yao Ming: 25.7, 10.1
Mehmet Okur: 15.1, 8.4
Zaza Pachulia: 14.3, 8.4
Emeka Okafor: 16.6, 11.0
Andrew Bogut: 12.1, 7.5

Heck, I'd take Andrew Bynum (8.3, 6.3)

The point is, maybe for a center Curry is above average, but we ALWAYS knew that. He had as good seasons with Chicago.

But he'll never be Shaq, or come near the Duncan/Dwight Howard class, or even really be as good as an Okafor, who gets it done much more fiercely on defense as well as can score down low.

So let's be real here. Curry has some nice games, but his team still stinks, they don't go to him enough (but there's obviously a reason for that), and his stats are exactly the same as they've always been.

Eddy Curry is who we THOUGHT he was. He is who we THOUGHT HE WAS. CROWN him if you want to, but he IS who we THOUGHT he was.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> We've given away so many players with Pax and to a lesser extent Krause that you could build two teams out of it.
> 
> Krause:
> 
> ...


i'm sorry, but when did the bulls have larry hughes? he's been a sixer, a warrior, a wizard, and a cav.
voshkul didn't even make the team when he was a late 2nd rounder with the unforgettable khalid el-amin, and the other 3 were premature decisions without question. although, rumor has it that artest had displayed many eccentricities early on but no one knows if that was why he was traded.

curry, chandler and crawford had 4 years to show reach their "potential" and were woefully inconsistent, even without the DNA fiasco. curry likely would still be a bull had that not surfaced, however, he's still a fundamentally flawed player and doesn't seem likely to be a "center"piece player any time soon. 

crawford wanted to be paid like a consistent performer, and wasn't so his departure wasn't necessarily a bad thing. he wasn't a better player than kirk, and he wasn't going to be a pg with kirk, so letting him leave didnt really hurt, imo. i'm also of the opinion that had the williams injury not occured, pax would have tried moved him (or possibly williams) to denver (who was in need of a pg back then) for the pick that became carmelo anthony, and we'd be looking at an entirely different dynamic here today. 

i suspect that even the "core" guys will only get 4 or so years to prove themselves as legit, and in light of those guys making the playoffs in their first 1-2 years might get them an extra year or so to get into and past the second round. jordan's bulls lost 3 times in the first round; i doubt pax has forgotten how long it takes for teams to mature. their weren't wholesale changes during that time, only tweaks (cartwright acquistion) and the maturation of pippen and grant. further, most organizations will let a player play through his initial contract before moving him, unless there's extreme circumstances or huge blunder/gambles, i.e. chandler for brand or artest for rose.

thomas and smith were philosophical decisions, but thomas has been dumped by many teams, so why do the bull get the "no patience" tag when philly, milwaukee (who paid him major figures) phoenix, who he purportedly "helped" in the playoffs let him walk?

sure, the jury's out on smith but it's clear that denver's situation is totally different from the bull; denver had no one to play the 2; the bull had at least 3 guys already. bad decision? possibly,but time will tell if and when smith flourishes into an all-star. i wouldn't "crown his ***" after a few nice games.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm not sure the Bulls management lacks patience as much as they lack courage when it comes time to sign players to long term contracts.

They dumped Pippen, Kukoc, Artest, Miller, Brand, Crawford, Curry and Chandler in the prime of their careers in large part because they were reluctant to pay market price for their services. In most cases the excuse was that the Bulls were in a "rebuilding" mode and wanted to have cap space available to acquire quality free agents like Mercer, Miller, Erob or D. Marshall, or most recently Ben Wallace. Of course Mercer, Miller & Marshall were traded away (for J Rose & JYD :thumbdown: ), ERob was a bust  , and Chandler was given away to pay for Ben:frenchy: . 

So one product of the last 10 years of the history of Bulls management is that the "patience" required to believe that cap space is of any value other than to improve the owners bottom line is wearing thin.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Eddy Curry has been a 16 PPG scorer. It's not unlikely that he's strung a few 20 point games together in the past.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Its pointless to discuss the Krause trades. So I won't.

As for the Paxson trades, the only one I'm beginning to doubt the wisdom of was Chandler. And that isn't so much about Chandler as it is about the fact that Wallace is such a horrifying disappointment as a team leader, veteran, and teammate.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Its pointless to discuss the Krause trades. So I won't.
> 
> As for the Paxson trades, the only one I'm beginning to doubt the wisdom of was Chandler. And that isn't so much about Chandler as it is about the fact that Wallace is such a horrifying disappointment as a team leader, veteran, and teammate.


I give Paxson a bit of a pass on the Chandler trade (a trade I've always hated) because I have a suspicion it was mandated from above (not the heavens) for money reasons (hence the expiring contract instead of talent in return).


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i'm sorry, but when did the bulls have larry hughes? he's been a sixer, a warrior, a wizard, and a cav.


If I remember correctly the Bulls did a 3 way deal where they traded Toni Kukoc to Philadelphia for the seventh pick in the draft (enabling the Bulls to draft Mihm and then trade him for Crawford on draft day). The other team in the trade got Hughes. The upshot being is that the Bulls could have gotten Hughes, instead of the draft pick, straight up for Kukoc. I may have gotten the mechanics of this deal a little off but I'm sure the bottom line is correct.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Its pointless to discuss the Krause trades. So I won't.


It's only pointless if you think the GM is the only person who makes personnel decisions. 
Krause and Paxson had the same cheapskate boss.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Too much patience can be the death of your franchise, though.

Krause, IMO, had way too much patience for the team's good. When do you draw the line and say, "It's time to stop losing and start winning"?

Realistically, you can't just stand pat with your young guys when you're suffering through 20-30 win seasons for 5 consecutive years. At some point you have to admit that the formula isn't working and it's time to make a change.

In Curry's case, we had 1 winning season, but the heart issues really complicated our ability to re-sign him and he really isn't good enough to take such a big risk on. It'd be different if this were Duncan or KG we were talking about. As it stands, I don't regret that trade seeing the talent we got back (and still might get back in next year's draft).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> It's only pointless if you think the GM is the only person who makes personnel decisions.
> Krause and Paxson had the same cheapskate boss.


I know, I know. Down with Jerry, and all that. 

Sorry, I'm not a big "hate the evil millionaire owner" type of fan. As far as I'm concerned, Reinsdorf and Co. aren't great but they aren't bad either. They are average - just like most owners. That is where GMs come in to make the difference.

I'm just looking at ball in this thread. And looking at Wallace's tear-soaked headband is starting to make me second guess giving up on Chandler (and his contract). 

I'm not convinced yet. But I'm worried. The other Paxson deportees I don't give a second thought.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Too much patience can be the death of your franchise, though.


Phili
Boston
Seattle
Minnesota
soon to be Memphis and Indiana


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Shensher racked up a double double his first NBDL game 10 and 11.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Replace Ben Wallace, PJ Brown and Duhon on this team with the three Cs and we go to the Eastern Conference Finals in the next 2 years.

That would be the best young team in the NBA.

And this season, the three Cs with their massive salaries would be *cheaper* than mr 60 million, mr wise and mr vodka swig.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Replace Ben Wallace, PJ Brown and Duhon on this team with the three Cs and we go to the Eastern Conference Finals in the next 2 years.
> 
> That would be the best young team in the NBA.


:lol: :lol: 

only in nba live 07.

keep the day job, cause as i recall those 3 won around 30 games or so when they were teammates. further 2 of the 3 haven't sniffed the playoffs since and of those 2, one has NEVER been to the playoffs except as a frickin' spectator. his occasional highlight on espn is entertaining though.


get this man gm a job; i'm sure he'll be great. :biggrin:


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Replace Ben Wallace, PJ Brown and Duhon on this team with the three Cs and we go to the Eastern Conference Finals in the next 2 years.
> 
> That would be the best young team in the NBA.
> 
> And this season, the three Cs with their massive salaries would be *cheaper* than mr 60 million, mr wise and mr vodka swig.


Well the Knicks have 2 of three and they're going nowhere so maybe Tyson is the anserw to the equation. :lol:


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> It's only pointless if you think the GM is the only person who makes personnel decisions.
> Krause and Paxson had the same cheapskate boss.


You mean that cheapskate boss whose other team won the World Series in 2005?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I do miss our 47 win team. While we have improved our roster on paper, that team will have a special spot in my heart. Guys we drafted, a true definition of a team where each player had a specific role, and the guys surprising the entire league with our team D and record 25ish straight games of holding teams below 100 pts. I truly believed if we had Eddy and Luol for the playoffs we were headed to the ECF.

As much as I changed my views on Eddy and Tyson not being great individual players (never fulfilling their potential), on that 47 win team, it was a great roster.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> As much as I changed my views on Eddy and Tyson not being great individual players (never fulfilling their potential), on that 47 win team, it was a great roster.


Yah, its seems crazy to not want 

the 2nd best scoring center in the NBA

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=C

and the 2nd best rebounder in the NBA.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/b...,FC,C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006&sort=26

on your team. 

Oh yah, they are both 7 footers and are only 24 years old. These guys are two of the best 7 footers in the game, which is the reason Krause drafted them.

I guess we can keep figuring out ways to cobble together trades for Sean May giving up Ben Gordon to solve our big man woes and delude ourselves that we are better off.


2nd best rebounder in the NBA. 2nd best scoring center.

p-p-p-p-p-p-production.

Its a shame. Sigh. 

At least the “win later” story looks OK. Thabo and Tyrus on the court alongside Deng, Nocioni, Hinrich and Wallace yesterday looked like a real NBA team length and athleticism wise, although its still a couple years off. The Knicks are still going to be a poor team due to Marbury and Francis not being very good so we can get a decent pick.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

7RINGS? said:


> Eddy Curry is playing great!Every time I check out game stats he has about 24pts. a night! Man Paxson should have never let him go.I confess however that I was getting a little tired of him,but I thought that 1st year they made the playoffs with him we were a real good team.We would have gotten past Washington for sure if him and Deng weren't hurt.I know the whole DNA thing played a part but Paxson should have waited.Now Chandler who we thought was a waste of money is doing more then the guy we thought was worth all the money.We dumped J.R. Smith,whats next? Thabo and Tyrus out the door? I think Paxson is good at getting young experianced players but the ones that have little experiance he stuggles to have patience for them. I think our record would look very different if we had Chandler,Curry and Crawford still.Remember when we had Larry Hughs and we just traded him without giving him a chance?


No offense, but if you actually watched the Knicks games, Eddy is a huge reason they give up so many points and lose so many games regardless of how many 20 point night he puts up. He is a terrible rebounder and provides no defensive presence. Guys like TJ Ford are able to drive in the lane uncontested while super Eddy just sits and watches. No thanks.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh yah, they are both 7 footers and are only 24 years old. These guys are two of the best 7 footers in the game,.


Is there an award for being two of the best 7 footers in the game? Curry is a terribly one sided player who doesnt help teams win. In last night's game, Curry was unstoppable on the offensive end in the fourth quarter, yet they were unable to outscore Toronto. Why? Because Eddy can't play defense or alter a shot and guys were driving in the lane and forcing open jump shots.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Curry is a terribly one sided player who doesnt help teams win.


The Chicago Bulls won with Eddy Curry. 

When paired with Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Deng and Nocioni versus the crappy Marbury and very average Francis, the Bulls would be a much better team than the one we have now.

We get all excited when we see some level of production from Sweetney for a reason. Its so obvious we need the inside presense that Curry provides.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

http://www.82games.com/0607/06NYK10D.HTM

Eddy Curry's +/-. He gives up more points than he scores. I guess if you are a 20+ point scorer (although he isn't), then you aren't responsible for losing games by not doing anything else on the court.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Is there an award for being two of the best 7 footers in the game?



No, but NBA GMs pay productive ones big $$ for a reason.

2nd best rebounder in the NBA. 2nd best scoring center in the NBA.

Thank goodness for the Knicks picks to help save the Bulls from this blunder. Tyrus looks like he'll be a nice option at the 4.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Chicago Bulls won with Eddy Curry.
> 
> When paired with Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Deng and Nocioni versus the crappy Marbury and very average Francis, the Bulls would be a much better team than the one we have now.
> 
> We get all excited when we see some level of production from Sweetney for a reason. Its so obvious we need the inside presense that Curry provides.


I've proven to you and everybody else that the Bulls won despite of Curry when they won 47 games. He was hurt for a long stretch and we played much better when he wasn't there. Sweetney provides rebounding and defense, much moreso than Curry.

Curry always seems to have an excuse (in this case Francis and Marbury are crap). Great players don't need excuses. They make others better and help their teams win.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37 Go hear and proclaim your Curry love. The majority of Bulls fans are happy that Stanley Roberts Jr. is gone from here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> http://www.82games.com/0607/06NYK10D.HTM
> 
> Eddy Curry's +/-. He gives up more points than he scores. I guess if you are a 20+ point scorer (although he isn't), then you aren't responsible for losing games by not doing anything else on the court.


Yah, and Ben Wallace is -15
http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI14D.HTM

Hinrich is -44
http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI3D.HTM

Looking at raw +/- is next to useless, IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> I've proven to you and everybody else that the Bulls won despite of Curry when they won 47 games.


Paxson disagrees with you. You have proved nothing. Why don't you go focus on Ben Wallace tipped balls and some more of your ridiculous "proofs?" 




> Curry always seems to have an excuse


No excuse at all. We've already seen a NBA team win with him as its leading scorer.

Paxson is the one who needs to prove if he can win without Curry.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> 2nd best rebounder in the NBA. 2nd best scoring center in the NBA.


That theory works if Tyson could guard two people, which he can't. Tyson is a good player and getting better, but he is no Ben Wallace.

Curry is a liability all over the floor. He would need to average 30 points a night to justify his weaknesses, but he only averages 16.1.

BTW, how is 16.1 second best scoring center in the NBA? Yao Ming, Howard, JermaineO'Neal, Shaq, Duncan, Okafor, Krstic all average more than that. I guess you have to put on your "Eddy Curry Rose Colored Glasses" where defense, rebounding and shot blocking mean nothing and where 16.1 is somehow the second highest per game average in the league. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> That theory works if Tyson could guard two people, which he can't.


News flash. Putting the ball in the hoop is important too. 



> BTW, how is 16.1 second best scoring center in the NBA?


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006



> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Would you mind talking about how Ben Wallace outplayed Tyson Chandler the other night or talk some more about raw +/-? That amuses me.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson is the one who needs to prove if he can win without Curry.


Didn't we make it to the playoffs last year? I thought he proved that already. Didn't Curry NOT make it to the playoffs last year?

In the magical 47 win season weren't we 9-4 without Eddy Curry at the end of the season? That seems like we proved we could win without him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Didn't we make it to the playoffs last year? I thought he proved that already.


.500. Not winning. Crappy conference explains the playoffs. Woo-hoo.

2-4 in the playoffs.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> In the magical 47 win season weren't we 9-4 without Eddy Curry at the end of the season? T


What was the Bulls record without Kirk Hinrich that season?

Do you think Kirk Hinrich was an important part of the 47 win team?


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> News flash. Putting the ball in the hoop is important too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Putting the ball in the hoop is imporant too? We score 99 points per game. We have enough offense with other players like Deng, Gordon, Noc who also rebound and who play defense.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...g=pg&qual=true&season=2007&seasontype=2&pos=c

Ben outplayed Tyson. Bulls 111, Hornets 108.

Go ahead create a poll. Would the Bulls be better off with Crawford, Chandler, Curry right now.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> What was the Bulls record without Kirk Hinrich that season?
> 
> Do you think Kirk Hinrich was an important part of the 47 win team?


He played the entire season and was our leading scorer.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> .500. Not winning. Crappy conference explains the playoffs. Woo-hoo.
> 
> 2-4 in the playoffs.


Still better than Eddy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> He played the entire season and was our leading scorer.


Wrong yet again.

He played 77 games and the Bulls were 5-0 without him.

Now, I'd never be foolish enough to say Kirk Hinrich wasn't important that season, even though we were 5-0 without him.

Curry stepped up and led the way when Hinrich was gone.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2004&b=20050323&tm=Tor
Curry is leading scorer. Bulls win.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2004&b=20050326&tm=Chi
Curry is leading scorer. Bulls win.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2004&b=20050328&tm=Chi
Curry is leading scorer. Bulls win.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Still better than Eddy.


Better than Dwight Howard and Chris Bosh last year as well.

I guess they are "losers" as well. LOL.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Ben outplayed Tyson.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> .500. Not winning. Crappy conference explains the playoffs. Woo-hoo.
> 
> 2-4 in the playoffs.



what are your thoughts on Wade's interviews where he says the Bulls played them harder than anyone in the playoffs? should I believe his account of things, or yours?


also, I like Wallace over Chandler on the floor in part due to him giving us something on offense, as in catching the ball. if anyone finds that reason funny, i would argue TC's offensive skills are funnier, possibly hilarious.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> what are your thoughts on Wade's interviews where he says the Bulls played them harder than anyone in the playoffs? should I believe his account of things, or yours?


I think that's a nice thing for Wade to say.

If we really were that good of a team, I would expect a > .500 record last season.

The Bulls work their asses off most of the time. Noone disputes that they give most teams a spirited contest. 






> also, I like Wallace over Chandler on the floor in large part due to him giving us something on offense, as in catching the ball.


I like Wallace on the days he shows up as well. Problem is, there have been several times this season that Wallace hasn't produced well at all.

Give me Chandler, Curry and Crawford over Wallace, creaky 'ol PJ and Duhon any day. Especially next season. And the season after that. And the season after that. And the season after that. And the season after that. And the season after that.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

If we kept Crawford we wouldn't have had the cap space to sign anyone this year. No Wallace, Gooden, Wilcox, Nene, etc. Had we kept Crawford, then Jerome Williams' contract would still be on the books this year. Combine JYD's salary with Jamals and we'd only have the MLE to spend. 

I agree I'd rather have Curry/Chandler over Wallace/PJ right about now. The x-factors are of course Tyrus and whomever we get with next year's pick. 

I really don't care about losing Crawford. Had we let him go for nothing it wouldn't have bothered me at all. The fact we were able to dump Jerome Williams along with him is a bonus. We used their cap space to land Wallace & Griffin. I'd take those two over JC/JYD every time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The issue I was discussing is Crawford, Curry and Chandler versus Duhon, PJ and Wallace.

The three Cs are cheaper than Duhon/PJ/Wallace and better from a "win now" perspective and certainly from a "win later" perspective.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> The issue I was discussing is Crawford, Curry and Chandler versus Duhon, PJ and Wallace.
> 
> The three Cs are cheaper than Duhon/PJ/Wallace and better from a "win now" perspective and certainly from a "win later" perspective.


It's not that simple, unfortunately. I personally would definitely rather have the 3 Cs over those other 3 you listed, BUT, as I said it's not that simple. You can't just compare the 2 trios. You have to take into consideration Tyrus Thomas and the guy we get next draft. So you have to compare 4 players and a future player to the 3 former players to be fair about it. If looking at the whole picture, I suppose I'd have to go with the current grouping, cause I think that Tyrus could turn out to be the best of the group, and if we get lucky and land a player like Oden or Durant, then Tyrus and Oden/Durant make that VERY lopsided assuming they reach their potential. 

My take on it is I love the Curry trade. I'd take Tyrus over Eddie, simply because as Lou said, Eddie's too one dimensional. All he is is a big body that can score, and doesn't rebound or play defense well. Tyrus could turn into something special, and I think he will assuming he's coached well and utilized correctly. Not only do I think he'll be better, but he'll be damn fun to watch, unlike Curry.

Crawford would be nice, but as already mentioned he was inconsistent and didn't get the job done, but those old teams were bad so it's hard to tell what he'd be like on a better team with better supporting cast and coaching. 

Chandler on the other hand, vs PJ Brown, is a damn joke. Stupidest move I've ever seen a GM take that I can think of right now, next to Brand for Chandler, and of course the Blazers passing on Jordan. (Every time I think of that, I just try to imagine what it would've been like to have seen Air Jordan & Clyde The Glyde on the same team in their primes, for years...amazing if they could've co-existed...I used to think the same thing about Iverson and Stackhouse...that didn't work out too well). Trading a young, improving, shot-blocking and rebounding 7' guy to dump the contract with absolutely nothing in return is just inexcusable any way you try to skew it.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The issue I was discussing is Crawford, Curry and Chandler versus Duhon, PJ and Wallace.
> 
> The three Cs are cheaper than Duhon/PJ/Wallace and better from a "win now" perspective and certainly from a "win later" perspective.


Would you rather have the three C's over Duhon/PJ/Wallace/Thomas and the pick swap?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The issue I was discussing is Crawford, Curry and Chandler versus Duhon, PJ and Wallace.


seems to me this "issue" is a never ending merry-go-round with some fans until pax and company (or their successors and assigns) win a championship, which is fine; detractors need something to keep their juices flowing.....the *fact* of this "issue" is that those 3 are GONE, LONG GONE AND NEVER TO RETURN, and i say damn good riddance. and get rid of any player who can't show consistency after 4-5 years. and that includes duhon, pj and wallace, just so there's no confusion with this "issue" (lol).

however, there is a positive that remains an option in this scenario regarding the three with "potential"; they need all the fans they can get since they are still struggling to gain a foothold in the upper echelon of players, that echelon that you so passionately cling to in the revisionist hope that "what could have been if paxson wasn't a bad gm" inferences.

with that stated, the knicks with curry and crawford (he makes a lot of money.....man that seems ripe for criticism; yummy!!) seem like a far more interesting soap opera to which an attachment of circular critical analysis and "issues" (is marbury a dog? should nate be a globetrotter? and many, many more, lol) are far more reaching than what the bull, a "jibby" sort, who frown on such controversies and want to move, however bumpily, toward a common goal (read;championship). so too for the hornet (who's got NO history of winning...think of the criticism to lay there; ownership management, KATRINA!!!....woooo hooo!!), where such passion could really discern how much of an impact the fourth leading rebounder in the league has on the franchise, not only now but in the future, when he's 29 or 30, look out he might get a jumpshot!!!. after watching chandler's impactless 17 rebound game the other night, i lose *no *sleep over his loss. a move needed to be made, whether fans agree or not, so too were possession of the balls to make it, being the significant point; not what could have been done with players that failed to meet expectations, expectations being a good thing. measuring those players a totally fruitless exercise. further, those players are still attempting to meet expectations and again, haven't helped the teams with purportedly better players move forward.

i like the idea of moving forward, so curry, chandler and crawford will only interest me as a casual nba fan in contests that i might have the time to watch, nothing else.:frenchy:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Would you rather have the three C's over Duhon/PJ/Wallace/Thomas and the pick swap?


Conceivably, its even more than that. It could include the return on a trade that PJ's expiring contract facilitates. 

Or not. Its just a possibility. 

In any event, only in my cold-sweat dreams are Curry and Crawford on this team instead of Tyrus and Christ.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

Seeing this thread, version 6,700021.33 of a common theme based on the same old I-IV-V, 12 bar A-A-B-A iteration of the same old song and dance, one must take note of the following:
what ever happend to the poster Tyson_Eddy_Jamal_is_the_future??


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

BULLHITTER said:


> seems to me this "issue" is a never ending merry-go-round with some fans until pax and company (or their successors and assigns) win a championship, which is fine; detractors need something to keep their juices flowing.....the *fact* of this "issue" is that those 3 are GONE, LONG GONE AND NEVER TO RETURN, and i say damn good riddance. and get rid of any player who can't show consistency after 4-5 years. and that includes duhon, pj and wallace, just so there's no confusion with this "issue" (lol).
> 
> however, there is a positive that remains an option in this scenario regarding the three with "potential"; they need all the fans they can get since they are still struggling to gain a foothold in the upper echelon of players, that echelon that you so passionately cling to in the revisionist hope that "what could have been if paxson wasn't a bad gm" inferences.
> 
> ...


What a terrific post. I don't know if you are a Deadwood fan, but if you aren't you should be. When reading this, I kept thinking of Al Swearingin. 

Needless to say, I agree with every word.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What a terrific post. I don't know if you are a Deadwood fan, but if you aren't you should be. When reading this, I kept thinking of Al Swearingin.
> 
> Needless to say, I agree with every word.


Ditto..... "must spread rep....."


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Would you rather have the three C's over Duhon/PJ/Wallace/Thomas and the pick swap?


That's what I was getting at. You gotta factor in TT and the NYK pick, which could turn out to be a star. As someone else stated later, the cap space has to be factored in too, but I consider the Tyson trade a detriment, not a benefit. If I had to choose one full scenario over the other, I'd take the present one over the 3 C's. However, it would've been possible to have had 2 C's (minus Curry) and Tyrus and the pick...that's best case scenario IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Would you rather have the three C's over Duhon/PJ/Wallace/Thomas and the pick swap?



That will have to be revisited in a couple of years. The blind luck of the Knicks picks does change matters.

Tyrus looks like he could be a really good player. 

We're talking 2 years out in terms of Tyrus though, and I don't know what to make of the pick swap @ this point.

As of right now we're looking at 2 of the top young 7 footers in the game who are among the best in the league at what they do and a solid NBA combo guard for a often listless 60 million dollar energy player, a very raw yet promising 19 year old 6'8" small forward / power forward and some very replaceable players.

The twin towers have shifted from potential to production. If someone said 5 years ago that neither would be a superstar at age 24 but one would be the 2nd best scoring center in basketball and the other would be top 5 in the NBA in rebounding I don't think people would be gnashing their teeth.

I would have rather built upon the spot we were at instead of blowing it up. #3 in the conference. 6 games over .500 with tons of upside and a solid, young, legit player at every position. 

Now we're debating PJ vs. Malik vs. Sweetney and hoping Ben Wallace will find a fountain of youth.

Come on pick swap.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> That will have to be revisited in a couple of years. The blind luck of the Knicks picks does change matters.
> 
> Tyrus looks like he could be a really good player.
> 
> ...


There is more unknown this way, but potentially a much higher upside. Tyrus alone has more upside than Chandler and Curry, and assuming we get a high pick again (I think it's very likely) that pick will have more potential too. We already know that neither Chandler or Curry will be superstars. We know that they're good at what they do, but that's it, and they both have big shortcomings. Curry's is a lack of rebounding and D, and some would say effort. Chandler's is a lack of offense and stupid fouling. Granted the 2 entities are entirely separate, as we didn't package them together for the picks, but comparing Curry alone to Tyrus and next year's NYK pick, we definitely got the better end of that deal...plus the unknown with Curry's disorder. Chandler on the other hand was a complete waste giving him away, unless as someone else mentioned, we get a key player next offseason with the cap space (I don't expect to, but you never know). 

So basically, what it all comes down to, is the potential to get TWO superstars with the picks, instead of 2 quality starters in Curry and Chandler.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think that's a nice thing for Wade to say.
> 
> If we really were that good of a team, I would expect a > .500 record last season.
> 
> The Bulls work their asses off most of the time. Noone disputes that they give most teams a spirited contest.


the Bulls were not great during most of that year, but you cant deny that the team on the floor towards the end of the year was way better than that record showed. The core made a lot of strides during the course of that year (Deng going to the hole more started then, has gotten better now). Sweetney got himself in gear towards the end of the year.





kukoc4ever said:


> Give me Chandler, Curry and Crawford over Wallace, creaky 'ol PJ and Duhon any day. Especially next season. And the season after that. And the season after that. And the season after that. And the season after that. And the season after that.


those guys are irreplaceable? news to me.

not only is Curry a problem defensively, but we're a better offensive team now without Curry because we move the ball around and involve others. with Curry, the ball isnt coming back out unless it's blocked.

as far as Chandler... not only do i like Wallace more, at 32... but regarding the future... why were you in such a hurry to deal him to Golden State if he's so irreplaceable on the defensive end? whether it's TT or others, i dont see why we cant replace a Tyson Chandler in the future.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The issue I was discussing is Crawford, Curry and Chandler versus Duhon, PJ and Wallace.
> 
> The three Cs are cheaper than Duhon/PJ/Wallace and better from a "win now" perspective and certainly from a "win later" perspective.



Curry is better in the lets-have-a-swinging-door-down-low-on-defense perspective.

OH!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> the Bulls were not great during most of that year, but you cant deny that the team on the floor towards the end of the year was way better than that record showed. The core made a lot of strides during the course of that year (Deng going to the hole more started then, has gotten better now). Sweetney got himself in gear towards the end of the year.


They played well against the Heat.

The games they won were the absolute best that team could have played, IMO, especially Game 3. 

The Heat were not playing at the top of their game at all. And they still won in 6.





> those guys are irreplaceable? news to me.


Not irreplaceable. We're going to have to burn the found money to do it though. Thank goodness for the found money.




> not only is Curry a problem defensively, but we're a better offensive team now without Curry because we move the ball around and involve others. with Curry, the ball isnt coming back out unless it's blocked.


We were not a better team last season without Curry.




> as far as Chandler... not only do i like Wallace more, at 32... but regarding the future... why were you in such a hurry to deal him to Golden State if he's so irreplaceable on the defensive end? whether it's TT or others, i dont see why we cant replace a Tyson Chandler in the future.


Not in a hurry. The GS idea was a better trade than the Hornets one, if the organization had its mind made up to dump him. My preference was to keep Chandler.

We have plenty of big men on the roster right now. PJ Brown. Malik Allen. Sweetney. Big Marty. Just have them give us the production that Chandler does, right? Oh wait, they can't.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Curry is better in the lets-have-a-swinging-door-down-low-on-defense perspective.
> 
> OH!


LOL. Funny. Let's hope this "contending" team can get over .500 by the end of December.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL. Funny. Let's hope this "contending" team can get over .500 by the end of December.


The point stands: you dont think a reason the Knicks give up so many points is the fact you can layups on them in the half court? not to saddle Curry with all of that, but he is their overweight center after all.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> We were not a better team last season without Curry.


come playoff time, we were better without Curry. we score more without Eddy, for whatever reason. and i know you wont mention his defense...ever.

when Curry goes up against talented bigs, even PFs, he fades. that's what you face in the playoffs -- good bigs. but i doubt we'll see him in that environment anytime soon. the whole crux of your point depends on the fact that he missed 04-05 playoffs... and all the fantasy/illusion you can create from that fact.

also you double back on your point when you say how great we played (Eddyless) against Washington that series. "we could have been even better with Eddy!" more like worse.




kukoc4ever said:


> We have plenty of big men on the roster right now. PJ Brown. Malik Allen. Sweetney. Big Marty. Just have them give us the production that Chandler does, right? Oh wait, they can't.


Chandler's "production": weakside shotblocking that isnt all that great, ball ends up in row 10. he can grab rebounds over people, but i'll take a guy who might rebound less... but can turn 6 fouls into 12 and put a body on someone. Ben Wallace!

if Chandler doesnt become that 6-->12 type defender, all his career rebounding stats will be as pointless as they were in the final result of the Chi/NOK game.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> when Curry goes up against talented bigs, even PFs, he fades.


He had a good game against the Bulls. He scored at will. Do you think the Bulls bigs are not talented?




> also you double back on your point when you say how great we played (Eddyless) against Washington that series. "we could have been even better with Eddy!" more like worse.


Eddy and Deng.

Paxson agrees BTW. He said that "Eddy was a big part" of what they did that season. 



> Chandler's "production": weakside shotblocking that isnt all that great, ball ends up in row 10. he can grab rebounds over people, but i'll take a guy who might rebound less... but can turn 6 fouls into 12 and put a body on someone. Ben Wallace!


I'm waiting to see the Ben Wallace you speak of emerge. So far it looks like a 2nd straight year of declining production from Big Ben. 60 million over 4 years. Old age is a *****.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

...


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> ...


...

























My God!!!


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

sorry, now i have a break again.



kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson agrees BTW. He said that "Eddy was a big part" of what they did that season.



That was nice of him to say. 



kukoc4ever said:


> He had a good game against the Bulls. He scored at will. Do you think the Bulls bigs are not talented?


Ben is underperforming, there's no doubt. he struggled with Eddy, much as he did with Howard. However, the Shaq you saw at the beginning of last year (and the beginning of this year) is not what we saw come playoff time. 

Similarly, the Ben you see now is not what you'll see in the playoffs. It's something we're not used to in jib-world, but star players take it easy early on. plus in your comments, you're always trying to get us out of straight up jibbiness, so i'm sure you can understand the need for guys like that.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Similarly, the Ben you see now is not what you'll see in the playoffs. It's something we're not used to in jib-world, but star players take it easy early on. plus in your comments, you're always trying to get us out of straight up jibbiness, so i'm sure you can understand the need for guys like that.


I see little need for players like the Ben Wallace we've seen the first month of the season. Especially at his massive price tag and the sacrifices the franchise had to make to get him.

Rebounds are down. Blocks are down. Still bad on offense.

I hope he does right the ship. Dear Lord, what a horrible, expensive bust if he keeps this up. This is as poorly he has played in years. He *has* to improve.

As for stars not playing well to start the season, when I look at the league leaders….

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_PER.htm

I see the usual top performers. Dirk. Melo. Wade. LeBron. Duncan. Yao. KG. They don't seem to have much trouble playing well the 1st month of the season. Back when we had stars here (MJ, Pip) I don't remember them taking the 1st month of the season off either.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Chandler on the other hand, vs PJ Brown, is a damn joke. Stupidest move I've ever seen a GM take that I can think of right now, next to Brand for Chandler, and of course the Blazers passing on Jordan. (Every time I think of that, I just try to imagine what it would've been like to have seen Air Jordan & Clyde The Glyde on the same team in their primes, for years...amazing if they could've co-existed...I used to think the same thing about Iverson and Stackhouse...that didn't work out too well). Trading a young, improving, shot-blocking and rebounding 7' guy to dump the contract with absolutely nothing in return is just inexcusable any way you try to skew it.


I don't think trading Chandler for PJ Brown was as much a mistake as signing Chandler to the big contract the season before. The Bulls didn't trade Tyson Chandler expecting to receive a better (or even equal) player in return, they traded him because they didn't believe he was worth the money they promised to pay him the season before. They had to give up the better player in the trade because they had to pay a premium in order for the Hornets to give up future cap space and take on an overpaid player.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I see the usual top performers. Dirk. Melo. Wade. LeBron. Duncan. Yao. KG. They don't seem to have much trouble playing well the 1st month of the season. Back when we had stars here (MJ, Pip) I don't remember them taking the 1st month of the season off either.


agreed, i dont like the behavior. but of all the active guys you mention, Shaq is older... and Shaq got the ring last year.

so just because I dont like Ben being lackluster right now doesnt mean it's not the best thing for the franchise, compared to what the non-Ben alternatives were.


now, if we want to talk about Eddy being lackluster, and Tyson missing games because of a hellacious case of acid reflux.... we can have that conversation longer than the one about Wallace. the one about Wallace does involve rings and NBA Finals games, as well.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Would you rather have the three C's over Duhon/PJ/Wallace/Thomas and the pick swap?


I would rather have the 3 C's right now. 

We'd have front-court scoring, young fairly developed 7 footers, a tall combo guard with point guard skills.

Regardless of what they're doing now and how jibless they continue to look in their separate teams, we had a great balance on OUR team. WE could've won more games, WE could've gone much further. 

WE wouldn't be complaining as much about post scoring, the fact that we live and die by the jumper, and lack of size.

Turns out that Pax doesn't really know what he's doing.

I really don't care what kind of new talent we chance unto because it appears that their talents are going to be marginalized in the the name of the team and it's going to take a while anyway --- might as well have gone with what worked pretty damn well.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> I would rather have the 3 C's right now.
> 
> We'd have front-court scoring, young fairly developed 7 footers, a tall combo guard with point guard skills.
> 
> ...


I honestly believe that the below roster is perenial 1st round and out (2nd rd and out at most) roster. And nothing more.

KH, Gordon, Deng, Noc + 3C + no cap space

With this roster, only way up is the development within with no promise to quick fix (through FA or draft)


I'd much rather have

KH, Gordon, Deng, Noc, Wallace + TT, Thabo, 2007 pick + cap space.

This too is probably 1st round and out roster or 2nd rounder BUT we still have potential and flexibility down the road.

Some people act like with 3C we will contend for the Championship RIGHT NOW ( or near future). From what I have seen in the last 5 years, one thing is clear. 3C won't bring you a Championship. 

This much I know. For sure.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> one thing is clear. 3C won't bring you a Championship.
> 
> This much I know. For sure.


fortunately, for fans of the bull, so does john paxson.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

lougehrig said:


> No offense, but if you actually watched the Knicks games, Eddy is a huge reason they give up so many points and lose so many games regardless of how many 20 point night he puts up. He is a terrible rebounder and provides no defensive presence. Guys like TJ Ford are able to drive in the lane uncontested while super Eddy just sits and watches. No thanks.


I see your point but thats in the Knicks system.They have a bunch of clowns playing around him! He would be great for the Bulls and he was playing very good in his last season with us before the whole heart thing came up.I see he had another 25pt game! and some more rebounds!! Oh well maybe we are watching two different players.


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

7RINGS? said:


> Now Chandler who we thought was a waste of money is doing more then the guy we thought was worth all the money.


I don't think that Chandler would average 12.2 reb here in Chicago. And I also think Wallace would be around 12 reb per game with the Hornets too. I think the rebounding average from that two have depending a lot to the playing systems.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

people should really stop arguing with "kukoc4ever". he's making all these other dudes look really really dumb. 

getting back to the title of the thread. its impossible to debate eddy curry on this board. even when you come with numbers like he scores 16pts a game with an excellent percentage, people will come back at you with arguments that are not tangible at all. he's fat. he's lazy. etc. etc. the fact of the matter is that his weaknesses were covered up well by the 24 year old playing next to him in tyson chandler. tyson chandler if not now, will be an excellent rebounder and good defender. what's more is that curry showed improvement in his conditioning, rebounding effort, and defense. (but again, my eyeballing is good as career curry detractors eyeballing him)

the sad thing about the curry debate is, when we got him we were singing the praises of someone just as fat and one dimentional. then we went out at got another one dimentional player, who's one good dimention is declining along with his whole game. but neither here nor there.

the real or at least recent disaster is the bulls thinking that they were somehow ready for the "next level". you dont trade a 24 year center in tyson, for a 32 year old center in ben for millions over his true value unless you think a) you're ready now b ) ben wallace, a player totally reliant on his physicality would somehow produce for a long period of time. 

whatever happened the bulls proved there not ready, even though there was no reason to think they would be. they should of let the team developed, instead they stunted there growth by dealing away good young players. 

on top of that, they let the conservative organizational bull**** get in the way of keeping a player like jr smith because he wasnt a "right way player" for nothing.

paxson and skiles screwed up. lucky enough they got real lucky that the knicks are imploding.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

theyoungsrm said:


> people should really stop arguing with "kukoc4ever". he's making all these other dudes look really really dumb.
> 
> getting back to the title of the thread. its impossible to debate eddy curry on this board. even when you come with numbers like he scores 16pts a game with an excellent percentage, people will come back at you with arguments that are not tangible at all. he's fat. he's lazy. etc. etc. the fact of the matter is that his weaknesses were covered up well by the 24 year old playing next to him in tyson chandler. tyson chandler if not now, will be an excellent rebounder and good defender. what's more is that curry showed improvement in his conditioning, rebounding effort, and defense. (but again, my eyeballing is good as career curry detractors eyeballing him)
> 
> ...


The flaw in the argument is that Chandler and Curry did not play very many minutes together while they were here. You could say that they should of, but it didn't seem to work out at the time.

Curry's departure had more to do with DNA-gate then I think most people realize. Pair Curry with Wallace and I think you have a very good and capable frontcourt tandem. Pair him with Chandler and it doesn't work out so well. The main reason being is that neither player is a very good man-to-man defender. This is why Curry played the majority of his minutes next to AD after the rotations were worked out.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> The flaw in the argument is that Chandler and Curry did not play very many minutes together while they were here. You could say that they should of, but it didn't seem to work out at the time.
> 
> Curry's departure had more to do with DNA-gate then I think most people realize. Pair Curry with Wallace and I think you have a very good and capable frontcourt tandem. Pair him with Chandler and it doesn't work out so well. The main reason being is that neither player is a very good man-to-man defender. This is why Curry played the majority of his minutes next to AD after the rotations were worked out.


i'd buy the argument that DNA-gate had more to do than people think. and i'll also buy that right now a wallace/curry backcourt would be nice in the very very short term. but you've got to create space for development, and i think both chandler and curry have lots of space to be good man defenders especially chandler. plus, while having great man defense is certainly a plus, but chandler off the ball defense and rebounding along with curry presence inside offensively certainly would make them a better than average backcourt in the now and even better in the future.

but the fact that skiles choice not to play them together doesn't mean that they couldn't play together then or now. what's more the curry/chandler rotation may have more to do with AD being a better player, or skiles having more confidence with a AD included lineup.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

theyoungsrm said:


> but the fact that skiles choice not to play them together doesn't mean that they couldn't play together then or now. what's more the curry/chandler rotation may have more to do with AD being a better player, or skiles having more confidence with a AD included lineup.


the reason they didn't play much together, from my recollection, is that occasionally Skiles or Cartwright before him would try it out and it just didn't work that well. They didn't feed off each other that well, they both blew defensive assignments, and other than Chandler occasionally making decent entry passes to Curry from the high post, they weren't a good pair offensively because Chandler wasn't comfortable away from the basket. 

Granted, they could have improved over time, but considering how poor of a combination it was, I don't blame the coaches for finding things that worked better.


----------

