# SI.com: "[Curry's] Troubling History"



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

This contains tons of revelations.

-- Pax claims that Curry had two heart-related episodes prior to the Charlotte game, including one during training camp last year (tests showed he was fine)

-- Pax says that the offer the Bulls had on the table if Curry passed the DNA test was for 4 years, 32 million dollars

-- Paxson acknowleges that Curry most likely doesn't have HCM (!)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/ian_thomsen/10/13/curry/index.html

Wow.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Sounds like Pax just didn't want to pay him...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Sounds like Pax just didn't want to pay him...


It sounds like he didn't want to overpay him, which is smart management for a guy who is as much of a risk as Curry is.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It sounds like he didn't want to overpay him, which is smart management for a guy who is as much of a risk as Curry is.


Overpaying is relative. All basketball players are overpayed in the context of saaaay a kindergarten teacher. But they are all underpaid with relation to the owners.

Then you factor in what percentage of the amount of money taken in would a player like Curry take in, and how does that compare to the rest of the league.

The Knicks didn't overpay him because they are made of money, they "overpay" everyone, because it doesn't matter.

Were the Bulls fearing overpaying Curry, or were they just being cheap? Given the size of the Chicago market and the fervent fan interests, I would say they were being cheap. The Bulls can afford far more than they act like.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

John Paxson said:


> In all likelihood Eddy doesn't have [hypertrophic cardiomyopathy].





John Paxson said:


> Like I say, he probably doesn't have [hypertrophic cardiomyopathy].


Wow.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> The Knicks didn't overpay him because they are made of money, they "overpay" everyone, because it doesn't matter.


And where has that landed them? The lottery with no options? I'd say it does matter. Larry Brown is the only thing that can save New York now, how much is he getting paid? 



futuristxen said:


> Were the Bulls fearing overpaying Curry, or were they just being cheap? Given the size of the Chicago market and the fervent fan interests, I would say they were being cheap. The Bulls can afford far more than they act like.


I'd say they were being smart. By the way, do you think paying Z whatever he wanted would have been a good idea?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I wish Pax would quit talking about it. The under market offers to Curry and the "first occurence" of the problem, which was identified as, apparently, nothing, don't do anything to make me feel better about it, and the repeated misleading valuation of the annuity makes my skin crawl. It's not that its a horrible offer, but it's presented so as to make it sound like it was the cat's *** when it was really nothing close.

But what I really don't want to hear about any more is how "hurt" Pax is. Get some perspective, man. No wonder you couldn't work anything out if you couldn't even begin to understand where the guy you're negotiating with is coming from. You don't have to agree with him, but revealing your complete inability to relate and appreciate the implications of what you're asking the guy combined with your financial relationship doesn't make me feel too good about where things are headed. 

I don't think Pax did this very well. Fortunately he's been very good, so far, at picking good basketball players to bring on board. Hopefully he'll be good enough to make up for what I think (and I believe he thinks, from a pure basketball perspective), was a mistake in this other area.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Overpaying is relative. All basketball players are overpayed in the context of saaaay a kindergarten teacher. But they are all underpaid with relation to the owners.
> 
> Then you factor in what percentage of the amount of money taken in would a player like Curry take in, and how does that compare to the rest of the league.
> 
> ...


For a team that has no possibility of landing a FA worth more than the MLE, then yes it doesn't matter.

For a team under the cap, overpaying can be very costly. Look what PHO gave up last year (Deng) in order to sign Nash and Q. Had they been able to sign both players for less than a #7 pick rookie contract value, they could have had a Deng themselves last year.

Point being, paying Curry big bucks is not as dangerous to New York as it is to Chicago because of their completely different financial situations and the salary cap rules.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

To quote scottmay 


Wow !

:biggrin: 

.

I can only imagine the way Eddy felt when youre employer decides hes gonna do whats best for you whether you like it or not.Pax cant seem to get where eddy is coming from at all.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Sorry but, I think we'll REGRET this trade, even as soon as THIS year. It looks REAL lonely in the middle with out E.C. and the part that hurts the WORST is, he's a KNICK, not a clipper or a warrior but a KNICK, the team CHICAGO hates more than ANYTHING. I woulda felt ALOT better if we traded him out west.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Let me get this right. Curry has had three episodes of a potential irregular heart beat. THREE times. And he has had several CT scans and each one shows an enlarged heart. But let me get this pax thinks he doesnt have HCM. I have this to say, if curry has a couple of more episodes there will be a lot of people on this page eatting crow.

david


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

giusd said:


> Let me get this right. Curry has had three episodes of a potential irregular heart beat. THREE times. And he has had several CT scans and each one shows an enlarged heart. But let me get this pax thinks he doesnt have HCM. I have this to say, if curry has a couple of more episodes there will be a lot of people on this page eatting crow.
> 
> david


i doubt ANYONE seriously though curry had HCM... Paxson just wanted to rule it out


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

giusd said:


> Let me get this right. Curry has had three episodes of a potential irregular heart beat. THREE times. And he has had several CT scans and each one shows an enlarged heart. But let me get this pax thinks he doesnt have HCM. I have this to say, if curry has a couple of more episodes there will be a lot of people on this page eatting crow.
> 
> david


Dude Monty Williams played like 10 years in the league with an irregular heartbeat.

I think thats why pax was so mad the press conference.Isiah,Rose, and Curry played him like a fiddle .

He knew JR wouldnt let Curry play without the dna test the doc recommended but Curry said no way and so pax is thinking Curry probably will just suffer from irregular heartbeats which can be monitored but he couldnt get his T's crossed and his I's dotted with Curry refusing to take the dna so now hes forced to giveway a player that will probably play the next 15 years in the league with no serious problems.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:



> And where has that landed them? The lottery with no options? I'd say it does matter. Larry Brown is the only thing that can save New York now, how much is he getting paid?
> 
> 
> > They paid Larry Brown a ton of money too. No options, huh? How does a team with no options seem to get every single player it wants? Isiah wanted Jamal and Eddy. He got them both. He wanted Marbury he got them. He got Jerome James, he wanted Jerome James. He got Frye, he got Ariza. I don't see any evidence of the Knicks spending getting in Isiah's way. If you're willing to eat bad contracts you can get pretty much anyone you want in this league. The only thing that will hurt is giving away too many draft picks.
> ...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> They paid Larry Brown a ton of money too. No options, huh? How does a team with no options seem to get every single player it wants? Isiah wanted Jamal and Eddy. He got them both. He wanted Marbury he got them. He got Jerome James, he wanted Jerome James. He got Frye, he got Ariza. I don't see any evidence of the Knicks spending getting in Isiah's way. If you're willing to eat bad contracts you can get pretty much anyone you want in this league. The only thing that will hurt is giving away too many draft picks.


Those are the players Isiah wanted? Why not go out and get Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Chris Webber, maybe even Dejaun Wagner while he is at it. If those are the guys he wanted, he isn't a very good general manager, and it's not because of the money. 



futuristxen said:


> The Cavs did pay Z basically whatever he wanted. They were really the only team seriously bidding for Z's services, but unlike the Bulls they decided it was too big of a loss to lose their starting center. The Cavs also went out of their way to make sure Z felt wanted, and because of that they got him to backload his contract so that they could still sign Hughes, Jones, and others.


So you agree with signing Z to 11 million a year for 5 years? And if the Cavs had a 7'2 backup who is one of the best rebounders and defenders in the NBA, would you still agree?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So you agree with signing Z to 11 million a year for 5 years? And if the Cavs had a 7'2 backup who is one of the best rebounders and defenders in the NBA, would you still agree?


The deal is worth up to 57 million over the next five years. So yeah, I do agree with it. It was the right move to make. You know what you have with Z, so you keep him, and continue to build your team.

They do have an up and coming front court behind Z. Verejao and Gooden could be the future frontcourt, and Ferry drafted a 7-4 guy who looks like he could be something.

You just can't replace good 7 footers that easily. If you have your frontcourt set, it's a big worry off your shoulders, game to game. 

It's not like the Bulls couldn't afford to do it. Why drag the guy's name through the mud? Just shut up and sign your guys.

Dan Gilbert is a real owner, unlike Jerry Reinsdorf. Gilbert will spend the money neccessary to make his team top flight.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

u cant really get anyone in u want in the NBA with just money. yeah u can get the "flawed" players. make no mistake, marbury, curry,jc are all "flawed" players. IT wants kobe, amare, duncan,LBJ, but is he going to get them? evenif he takes back all the back contracts of the other team? the answer is NO. why? because as of right now, those players are not"flawed" until they have the track record of becoming the proven loser, ballhog, risky health, IT isnt' get them anytime soon.

i dont think IT is that good of manager. all the trades he did might look good on paper with more talents coming to the knicks, but in reality he has no clues of how to build a team, he just wants as much talents as possible without regards to teams needs.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> You just can't replace good 7 footers that easily. If you have your frontcourt set, it's a big worry off your shoulders, game to game.


Finding a power forward isn't that hard though, is it? Chandler is going to be a center in this league. There is no such thing as a 7'2 power forward. Chandler is going to be a lot like Marcus Camby, and that is a center, without any doubt. There are probably 15 power forwards in the league better than Curry, and they come into the league every year. Power forward is 2nd only to small forward when it comes to finding good ones. 



futuristxen said:


> Dan Gilbert is a real owner, unlike Jerry Reinsdorf. Gilbert will spend the money neccessary to make his team top flight.


You have to be willing to spend money, but you also have to be calculated. Throwing out money is just as bad as being stingy with it, if not worse. 

And the Cavs becoming top flight will have little to do with the management and way more to do with lucking into LeBron James. Paxson doesn't have the luxury of building around a top 10, soon to be top 5 player. He has to build a team that's just as good as that team with the top 5 player, but without that player.


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

After reading this info re Curry's previous incidents regarding his heart, and his mother's heart incident, it makes Paxson's actions even more logical. If they had given Eddy the contract without the test, and Eddy died or was very seriously incapacitated as a result of some heart related issue while playing basketball, the Bulls would have been absolutely obliterated in any subsequent lawsuit. A plaintiff lawyer for Eddy or for his family would ask the simple question, "Knowing what they knew, did the Bulls do everything possible to verify and minimize the risk to Eddy re his heart problem?" And the answer would have to be "No", and the Bulls would then be held liable for negiligence. Failure to do the DNA test, even if if offered only a possibility of diagnosing the problem accurately, would be seen as negligence by a jury. You can argue all you want about how effective the test is, the fact remains that a jury would have little trouble answering this question, especially after very emotional testimony from the family, his wife and children. In situations like these in the courtroom having the law on your side doesn't necessarily guarrantee one even a 50% chance of prevailing. The jury approach would be that the Bulls have the deep pockets and that there is a family suffering, therefore the Bulls should pay. If you think this is unreasonable, then take a look a big personal injury case damge awards in the news. This is the reality, no matter what we think, or would like, or would hope for. The fact that the Bulls didn't exhaust every possible option to determine whether Eddy was at risk would be held against them. I think Pax had no option re the DNA test and in managing the Bull's risk in this situation. He had to do it to protect the Bulls in the event of the worst case scenario. I've no doubt the Bull's legal staff were advising him that this was the case.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

giusd said:


> Let me get this right. Curry has had three episodes of a potential irregular heart beat. THREE times. And he has had several CT scans and each one shows an enlarged heart. But let me get this pax thinks he doesnt have HCM. I have this to say, if curry has a couple of more episodes there will be a lot of people on this page eatting crow.
> 
> david


I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. 

But as far as the crow eating goes, aren't you due for a serving or three? According to you, Curry was done and would never play again, Curry definitely had HCM, Curry [insert medical half-truth or falsehood here].


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

KwaZulu said:


> After reading this info re Curry's previous incidents regarding his heart, and his mother's heart incident, it makes Paxson's actions even more logical.


Regardless of how many "incidents" there have been with Curry's heart, as of right now, his heart is completely normal and structurally sound. HCM doesn't come and go -- it is a permanent and irreversible condition. Paxson is aware of this.



> If they had given Eddy the contract without the test, and Eddy died or was very seriously incapacitated as a result of some heart related issue while playing basketball, the Bulls would have been absolutely obliterated in any subsequent lawsuit. A plaintiff lawyer for Eddy or for his family would ask the simple question, "Knowing what they knew, did the Bulls do everything possible to verify and minimize the risk to Eddy re his heart problem?" And the answer would have to be "No", and the Bulls would then be held liable for negiligence. Failure to do the DNA test, even if if offered only a possibility of diagnosing the problem accurately, would be seen as negligence by a jury. You can argue all you want about how effective the test is, the fact remains that a jury would have little trouble answering this question, especially after very emotional testimony from the family, his wife and children. In situations like these in the courtroom having the law on your side doesn't necessarily guarrantee one even a 50% chance of prevailing. The jury approach would be that the Bulls have the deep pockets and that there is a family suffering, therefore the Bulls should pay. If you think this is unreasonable, then take a look a big personal injury case damge awards in the news. This is the reality, no matter what we think, or would like, or would hope for. The fact that the Bulls didn't exhaust every possible option to determine whether Eddy was at risk would be held against them. I think Pax had no option re the DNA test and in managing the Bull's risk in this situation. He had to do it to protect the Bulls in the event of the worst case scenario.


The Bulls could put on a veritable parade of the top doctors in the field and have each and every one of them say that the DNA test is irrelevant and inaccurate in cases like Curry's. 

Dr. Maron, ironically, would probably be the witness who'd seal the deal -- for the Bulls defense. Here's how it would happen:

Q: Dr. Maron, does Eddy Curry have clinical HCM?

A: No.

Q: Does the American College of Cardiology suggest DNA testing for HCM in the absence of clinical disease?

A: No.

Q: As a matter of fact, the policy paper of the American College of Cardiology specifically states that DNA testing should NOT be done if there is no clinical evidence of HCM, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Dr. Maron, you wrote the American College of Cardiology's policy statement on DNA testing for HCM, correct?

A: Yes.



> I've no doubt the Bull's legal staff were advising him that this was the case.


If it helps you sleep at night to think that this was done for legal or medical reasons rather than purely financial ones, so be it.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> But what I really don't want to hear about any more is how "hurt" Pax is. Get some perspective, man. No wonder you couldn't work anything out if you couldn't even begin to understand where the guy you're negotiating with is coming from. You don't have to agree with him, but revealing your complete inability to relate and appreciate the implications of what you're asking the guy combined with your financial relationship doesn't make me feel too good about where things are headed.


I couldn't agree more. Is he really this clueless or is it all playing to the general public - i.e. the Ditka crowd via a dumb-downed media.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

From John Paxson 

"In all likelihood Eddy doesn't have [hypertrophic cardiomyopathy]"

"[DNA testing is] obviously in [the Bulls'] best interest." 

That just about covers it, doesn't it?


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

In a previous thread I took issue with the ad hominem arguments made over the Curry situation. I was rebuked by several posters on this board, and my post was latter removed. Now, at the end of ScottMay's response to my above post I get this gem: 

"If it helps you sleep at night to think that this was done for legal or medical reasons rather than purely financial ones, so be it."

The opinion I gave in my post comes from my own legal experience as an attorney, and the experience of my attorney friends. The scenario I laid out is not spin, it is reality in America's courtrooms every day. The plaintiff's attorney would destroy the line of questioning laid out by ScottMay very simply. He would ask whether it was possible that the DNA test could have detected the condition. The answer would have to be that it could, even though not assuredly. The next question would be that even if this were a possibility, and Illinois law doesn't exclude employers' asking for DNA tests, why did the Bulls then not do it? No matter how many experts you trot out, it would still be fairly easy to show that the Bulls didn't do everything they could have, and thus would be liable. That's the legal reality we have to deal with today.

As an aside, the Knicks do not appear to have the same vulnerability as the Bulls legally. Apparently New York law prohibits employers from asking for DNA tests. Defending them in the event of a worst case scenario would be easier, especially if you could show they took every possible precaution otherwise permissable in law.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> If it helps you sleep at night to think that this was done for legal or medical reasons rather than purely financial ones, so be it.


litigation would lead to a financial fiasco, correct? One and the same.

And what's so shocking about Paxson conceeding Curry probably doesn't have HCM? Because he used the "he may have HCM" angle as leverage for a smaller deal? All parties knew what the risks were. There was a small chance he had it, and even smaller that he would die from it. He just wanted to do everything possible to minimize the risk so that Pax can protect the ownership's investment. You're right kwazulu. The fact that a doctor recommended it, pretty much forced Pax to do what he did. 

If the NY doctors got all the medical records, they must have gotten the info on the 2 other episodes. It's on them if Curry dies but again he probably doesn't have HCM and even a smaller chance he'll die from it.

And that 32 million dollar deal had incentives.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

KwaZulu said:


> In a previous thread I took issue with the ad hominem arguments made over the Curry situation. I was rebuked by several posters on this board, and my post was latter removed. Now, at the end of ScottMay's response to my above post I get this gem:
> 
> "If it helps you sleep at night to think that this was done for legal or medical reasons rather than purely financial ones, so be it."
> 
> ...


I'm guessing the Bulls didn't give Eddy a colonoscopy, either. Or a mammogram. Or an AIDS test. Or a test to determine whether he's allergic to fuzzy, cute kittens.

In the absence of clinical HCM, all of the far-fetched tests I listed above are as relevant to Eddy's situation as the DNA test is. That's the medical reality we have to deal with today. The one doctor out of dozens who wanted the test has written as much for the prestigious body that shapes cardiological education and practice in this country.

The jury would hear from Maron's own lips that there are no studies of how effective the DNA test is in finding even a predisposition HCM in people without clinical symptoms. He would be forced to say "I have no idea" when asked percentages and probabilities of detection and the likelihood of an eventual manifestation of symptoms. He would be forced to disclose his vested research interests in DNA testing and his relationship with organizations like the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association. He would be forced to explain in great detail why his opinion varied so radically from a host of world-renowned experts.

Doesn't sound like an open-and-shut liability case to me at all. And that's before you get into the fact that the NBA's doctors cleared the guy (they would have needed to even if he'd remained a Bull) and that there's a pretty thick paper trail indicating that the Bulls repeatedly asked Curry to take the test.

I defer to your knowledge as a lawyer and I apologize if you're offended by anything I've said in previous posts, but I think you're missing a fundamental point about the unusualness of the DNA test in this context, and that it wouldn't have been the be-all, end-all of what the Bulls could have done for Curry.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

After reading this there is no doubt in my mind that Paxson did what was right. Eddy Curry really needs to start growing up quick. This is kind of a depressing article.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> litigation would lead to a financial fiasco, correct? One and the same.


Not when, as I believe, there'd be plenty of colitigators to minimize the damage. The various doctors who cleared Curry, the NBA's doctors, the NBA, etc. 

The plaintiffs would have to prove that the DNA test is useful and definitive. It may be somewhat useful but it is as far from definitive as a medical test can get.



> And what's so shocking about Paxson conceeding Curry probably doesn't have HCM?


:laugh:

It's interesting to note how far the center of the conversation has drifted. People were going nuts just a few days ago at even the slightest suggestion Pax didn't care for Eddy and was using his health as a wedge against him.



> And that 32 million dollar deal had incentives.


If there were incentives, I find it hard to believe that Pax wouldn't have mentioned them here. This is straight from the horse's mouth, remember.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I may be wrong, but aren't/weren't guys like Monty Williams and others who play/played with irregular heartbeats on medication to control their symptoms?

I was under the impression that a lot of the concerns about Eddy had to do with the fact that nobody ever found a solid reason for his multiple episodes, and without a cause Eddy could not take medication to control the irregular heartbeats.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

And in my own layman's opinion, "getting lightheaded" as Eddy described feeling could certainly have been because he had way too much caffeine in his system from diet supplements, as Dr. Cannom suggested.

I've taken ephedrine on many occasions (not to lose weight but to stay awake), and actually it sounds more like his heart was racing from taking the much stronger supplements with both caffeine and ephedrine, but I certainly don't want to make any accusations.

Of course, I would also imagine that with Eddy's weight loss last season that the doctors would have checked for ephedrine and unusually high caffeine levels at the time of the incidents.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

KwaZulu said:


> In a previous thread I took issue with the ad hominem arguments made over the Curry situation. I was rebuked by several posters on this board, and my post was latter removed. Now, at the end of ScottMay's response to my above post I get this gem:
> 
> "If it helps you sleep at night to think that this was done for legal or medical reasons rather than purely financial ones, so be it."
> 
> ...


I think this is about the strongest case that might be mustered, but I'm not very convinced. I'm no lawyer - I switched to economics, but I did when the book award in my first year Torts class 

First, how is Curry or his family going to win such a suit when Reggie Lewis' family couldn't? Does it seem likely they'd win even if the DNA test was not taken? Not to me. The dubious legality of the DNA test would still be a defense the Bulls could muster against the argument they should have asked for it, though it would obviously not be settled law and thus not so compelling as if they'd forced the issue. 

But more importantly, suppose Curry takes and passes the DNA test, which seems to be the Bulls belief about what would happen. Suppose Eddy still drops dead. Does the presence of the DNA test make it any less likely that Curry's heirs would sue? Doubtful; they'd still have little to lose since the DNA test was only one of many indicators. Does the presence of the DNA test make it any less likely that Curry's heirs would win? Doubtful; there's still plenty of evidence they might point to and convince a jury (if they're going to win) that passing the test didn't conclusively mean anything and thus the Bulls were foolish to rely on it. 

Its even possible the Bulls precipitated the whole issue by making the DNA test an issue in the first place. If they'd looked into how doctors diagnose and treat heart issues they could quite likely have navigated the whole situation getting Eddy cleared by double-digits of renowned doctors without even bringing up the DNA test. If something went wrong after the fact then, it would solely be on Eddy's heirs to make the case that a DNA test should have been explored. That case would be more difficult to make in that light (with the heirs bringing it up retrospectively without any evidence that it was considered by anyone at the time).

Respectfully, in my experience lawyers often miss the forest for the trees. Sometimes this is for perfectly legitimate reasons, but nonetheless its a systematic trend that much expense is incurred to protect against extremely unlikely potentialities. Believe me, I understand the perspective that often seems to lead to "any risk is too great", but from an economic and business perspective it's quite often not the case. 

Cutting through all of that, it still seems to me extremely unlikely that any of this would come into play. However, if it did, the presence of the DNA test wouldn't offer much protection from a lawsuit and wouldn't offer much protection from a loss in such a suit. You start multiplying out the probabilities and you end up with the odds of the DNA test being decisive as exceedingly small.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> First, how is Curry or his family going to win such a suit when Reggie Lewis' family couldn't?


That's the ultimate apples-and-oranges comparison from a legal standpoint. Lewis had dozens of doctors expressly forbidding him to play (even the ones who initially thought he might not have a damaged heart never cleared him to do even light activity), while Curry has multiple docs saying he's 100% healthy. I have no idea why the Lewis litigation dragged on for years and through multiple appeals. It does bear mentioning, though, that he never filed suit against the Celtics or the NBA.

I actually do agree that there could be a compelling liability case if Curry somehow ended up dying from HCM, but I think the various doctors/hospitals and the NBA would face much greater exposure than the Bulls.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It sounds like he didn't want to overpay him, which is smart management for a guy who is as much of a risk as Curry is.


He's just gonna end up overpaying for someone else, who probably won't be as good as curry was at what we need him to be good at.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> :laugh:
> 
> It's interesting to note how far the center of the conversation has drifted. People were going nuts just a few days ago at even the slightest suggestion Pax didn't care for Eddy and was using his health as a wedge against him.


It's silly to say Paxson never felt that Eddy probably does not have HCM. Almost everyone who knows about the situation conceeds that too. Pax's entire stance was "you probably don't have HCM, but just to make sure...." Of course he didn't say that to the press because he didn't want to damage the chance of him taking the test. I myself don't agree with the DNA test because he can pass that test but just may fail it, misdiagnosing him and putting this big scarlet A on his chest for all the other NBA teams to see. 

I don't have Paxson's direct words but parts of the details match : 




> The deal, the source said, would have paid Curry $32 million guaranteed over four years with $2 million per year in reasonably attainable incentives. If he remained healthy after the fourth year, the next two years would have become guaranteed, increasing the total value to $65 million.


Is it reasonable to assume that the two deals are the same ones we are talking about?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> And the Cavs becoming top flight will have little to do with the management and way more to do with lucking into LeBron James. Paxson doesn't have the luxury of building around a top 10, soon to be top 5 player. He has to build a team that's just as good as that team with the top 5 player, but without that player.



And trading Curry for Tim Thomas and Michael Sweetney accomplishes that? Trading Jamal Crawford for Othella Harrington accomplishes that?

You need talent to win at the end of the day, and the Bulls have been bleeding talent for years. How many lottery picks now have we lost? I think Tyson is the first lottery pick we've had since the dynasty that has actually made it to a second contract.

Is the organization trying to win a championship, or does it just not care?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> You need talent to win at the end of the day, and the Bulls have been bleeding talent for years. How many lottery picks now have we lost? I think Tyson is the first lottery pick we've had since the dynasty that has actually made it to a second contract.


It all comes down to who you think is good and who you don't. I hated losing Brand and Artest, but that was under different management, so that's not a strike against Paxson. 

So far, Paxson has let go of the minimal impact players who get overrated because of their scoring ability and were asking for too much money, and who I feel don't play the game with as much passion as the guys we have (Hinrich, Duhon, Chandler, Deng. Gordon, Nocioni), because quite simply, I don't think they love the game as much, and they just do it for fun and want to get paid for it. I haven't disagreed with one player he has let go, except for Antonio Davis. 

Honestly, I'd have the same stance as you if I thought we were losing big impact players, but I think we've kept all of our big impact players and now have more flexibility because Paxson didn't hand out 10+ million per year to an average center, when we already have a bigger impact center in Chandler inked for a long time. 

Simply put, I'd rather have flexibility to do something big, than have an average center who is a risk in more than one way, inked to a long term contract. 

If this was someone I felt was a great player, I'd be with you, and I understand you feel that Curry is a pretty good player, so I understand where you're coming from. It's the same place I'd be coming from if Chandler was let go. But I've just never seen Curry as being that good of a basketball player. Ben Gordon made him look ridiculous this offseason by working on his defense a great deal and become what Skiles calls average, which is a big improvement. It took Curry 4 offseasons to do half of what Ben Gordon did in one offseason. That's love for the game.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> If it helps you sleep at night to think that this was done for legal or medical reasons rather than purely financial ones, so be it.


The more I learn about this situation ScottMay, the more I realize what a complex mess it really is. I don't know why you still insist upon collecting facts from here and there in an attempt to pin down John Paxson as having some one-sided cartoon-like motivation in dealing Eddy. Why can't you and certain others accept that whereas the financial aspect was clearly an important factor, so was concern for Eddy's health, as was fear of litigation and potential but unlikely death on the court, as were (mostly likely) doubts about Eddy's makeup as a basketball player. 

Life is complicated, man.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

The one quote Paxson made that really irritated me in this article was: 

"Everybody tried to make this an ethical employer-employee issue, which we never thought about."

Wow. (See, I've got a "wow" too.)

One has to know that requiring a DNA test as a prerequisite for signing a contract of employment opens up a can of worms. If Paxson didn't think of the ethical ramifications of his course of action, he was being unbelievably short-sighted.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Life is complicated, man.


Not to John Paxson. He only knows "the right thing".

And this is what really bugs the **** out of me.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Not to John Paxson. He only knows "the right thing".
> 
> And this is what really bugs the **** out of me.


Sorry johnson797, that doesn't cut it with me. Trying to do the right thing in life can be extremely complicated. 

On the night the trade went through, Paxson said:

""This [situation] has been about as uncomfortable and unusual as I ever could have imagined regarding Eddy Curry."

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,5266161.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

It sounds like it took a lot of soul searching to determine what he thought was right to do in this case. I don't even agree with the decision he came to: I don't think he should have demanded a DNA test. But I respect the complexity of the situation, and I can still respect John Paxson after this imbroglio even if I didn't come to the same conclusions he did.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Sorry johnson797, that doesn't cut it with me. Trying to do the right thing in life can be extremely complicated.
> 
> On the night the trade went through, Paxson said:
> 
> ...


I can see where you are coming from. I just disagree. Pax has made this whole thing about Pax. Pax doing "the right thing". Pax "caring". Pax feeling uncomfortable (per your quote). 

Intelligent people can disagree. Pax is not just disagree with Eddy Curry. Pax is also disagreeing with world class doctors, another NBA team, the NBA's doctors. etc.

"We were trying to do the right thing for him, and for us, but more for him"

Give me a huge break. Pax and Reinsdorf were trying to structure the deal so they could live with the risk. It didn't work. They cut bait. End of story. Except for the media spin.

The best lie is told by the liar that has convinced himself.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Pax just cant stop talking to the press now can he? He needs to shut up and let bygones be bygones and to stop expecting that the world revolves around him and he should be thanked for everything he did. He needs to stop leaking or exposing Currys personal issues to the press. It makes him look very petty.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Doesnt Pax have to have permission to release information about Currys medical history ?telling people Curry went to the hospital last year and then what the results of tests he took were seems he would need permission to do that just as the doctors did .


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull141.html




> Paxson explained why he went national with this information via SI.com through a written statement Thursday.
> 
> _"I have felt a tremendous weight and responsibility to stand up for and protect the Chicago Bulls organization because of the many articles and opinions that have surfaced regarding this very difficult situation,'' he wrote.
> 
> ...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Sorry johnson797, that doesn't cut it with me. Trying to do the right thing in life can be extremely complicated.
> 
> On the night the trade went through, Paxson said:
> 
> ...


You saw "soul-searching"; I saw a guy who was pissed that Curry wouldn't give in and sign a low ball offer. I saw a guy who angry at having to give Curry away for a guy with a dormant thyroid and what'll likely amount to a mid-first-round pick. 

"Life is complicated" is a bit of a cop-out if you ask me. I don't see it as an acceptable defense for the lying, smearing, and misleading that Paxson did this summer.


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

The trade wasn't that great for us, and I wish Curry was still here. That being said, I also think Paxson did the right think and I dont fault him for that. If Curry did not have any issues with his heart or at the very least could get insurance he would've been paid. It is just plain nonsense to think that Paxson had some other motive behind this. Paxson seems like a striaght-up guy and he has turned the franchise around again with his trades and draft picks. Bottom line he was handcuffed and did what was best for the organization. I'm sure other GMs would have done the same thing. This is what I believe, and this is what I am sticking to. I strongly disagree with the members of this board that say Paxson had other motives or did not want to pay Curry. I would have done the same thing as Pax. The risk far outweighed the rewards here IMO.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> You saw "soul-searching"; I saw a guy who was pissed that Curry wouldn't give in and sign a low ball offer. I saw a guy who angry at having to give Curry away for a guy with a dormant thyroid and what'll likely amount to a mid-first-round pick.
> 
> "Life is complicated" is a bit of a cop-out if you ask me. I don't see it as an acceptable defense for the lying, smearing, and misleading that Paxson did this summer.


 8 million a year is lowballing? + 2 million a year in easily attainable incentives? and 2 year option to make the total contract potentially worth 65 million for 6 years?

That's more than fair IMO. What was unfair was the DNA clause. 

I agree a bit more with johnston about the "right way" crazy Pax vs. the pure evil Pax. I cannot see into Paxson's heart and what went on behind closed doors. If you think the "we want what's best for Eddy" is total bunk and that financial portion of it cannot go hand in hand that's fine.

Maybe Paxson's other mistake was not to get a PR person to speak for the organization.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Plain and simple, Pax needs to stop talking to the media, PERIOD. He looks petty doing this. He sounds like a guy who wants attention. If his motives were for Eddy, and I really think they were, then he ought to stop hogging the spotlight on this and disclosing personal info regarding Eddy. Eddy doesnt seem to jump in front of a camera every chance he gets, so why should Pax? In this case, the young Curry is handling himself more like an adult then the middle aged John Paxson.


----------



## SlimShaky (Jul 24, 2004)

i think the reason pax is talking to the media is to ease the minds of future free agents who might have just scratched chicago off their list of teams they'd play for. nobody wants to play for a team that might want to get into their genetic history in order to find them suitable for the bulls, so pax is trying to show that he is a human being who cares about his players' health and not just about the money. 

i think we'll find out more about curry's health when brown pushes him like skiles did or even more, and therefore pushing/pumping his heart even more. anytime you take a person who has never had to really push himself, and you take him to a new point of exertion, that person may just crash. curry never had to push himself in highschool, and never had an nba coach, until skiles, to really "trick" him into playing his hardest. so when brown gets curry to play both sides of the ball, all game, like he had his players do in detroit, then we'll see how healthy this man really is. i'll start saying my prayers now.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

SlimShaky said:


> i think the reason pax is talking to the media is to ease the minds of future free agents


That could be a problem.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

SlimShaky said:


> i think the reason pax is talking to the media is to ease the minds of future free agents who might have just scratched chicago off their list of teams they'd play for. nobody wants to play for a team that might want to get into their genetic history in order to find them suitable for the bulls, so pax is trying to show that he is a human being who cares about his players' health and not just about the money.
> 
> i think we'll find out more about curry's health when brown pushes him like skiles did or even more, and therefore pushing/pumping his heart even more. anytime you take a person who has never had to really push himself, and you take him to a new point of exertion, that person may just crash. curry never had to push himself in highschool, and never had an nba coach, until skiles, to really "trick" him into playing his hardest. so when brown gets curry to play both sides of the ball, all game, like he had his players do in detroit, then we'll see how healthy this man really is. i'll start saying my prayers now.


 great point!

and Curry was told not to talk to the media while Paxson was talking.

Maybe Paxson is a mouthpiece for JR since Curry's comments makes the Bulls org look bad.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

SlimShaky said:


> i think the reason pax is talking to the media is to ease the minds of future free agents who might have just scratched chicago off their list of teams they'd play for. nobody wants to play for a team that might want to get into their genetic history in order to find them suitable for the bulls, so pax is trying to show that he is a human being who cares about his players' health and not just about the money.
> 
> i think we'll find out more about curry's health when brown pushes him like skiles did or even more, and therefore pushing/pumping his heart even more. anytime you take a person who has never had to really push himself, and you take him to a new point of exertion, that person may just crash. curry never had to push himself in highschool, and never had an nba coach, until skiles, to really "trick" him into playing his hardest. so when brown gets curry to play both sides of the ball, all game, like he had his players do in detroit, then we'll see how healthy this man really is. i'll start saying my prayers now.


Good post. I think you're right. Whether of not it's the right thing to go to the press one more time, Paxson is trying to dispel the notion that Chicago is bad to their players. It's important for players around the league to know that Curry had health issues that were cause for serious concern from the Bulls' point of view. As I've said for months, it was an isolated situation that 99% of NBA players would never have to go through. It's simply not fair to hold this against Paxson when no other GM has been put in this awkward situation.


----------



## SlimShaky (Jul 24, 2004)

spongyfungy said:


> Maybe Paxson is a mouthpiece for JR since Curry's comments makes the Bulls org look bad.


yeah, i think that since pax was a former player, current players might listen more than if jr was trying to explain the bulls' stance. plus, jr's too busy with the sox to care about his side project, the bulls.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Paxsons request is actually somewhat close to being outlawed.



> "This is far bigger than just the sports world," Curry's lawyer, Alan Milstein, commented when the Bulls first demanded the DNA test, according to a report on ESPN.com.
> 
> How right he was. On October 10, IBM Chairman Sam Palmisano signed a revision of the company's equal opportunity policy specifying that IBM would not "use genetic information in its employment decisions." In doing so, Big Blue became the first major corporation to proactively take this position. "Business activities such as hiring, promotion and compensation of employees will be conducted without regard to a person's genetics," wrote Palmisano in a letter to employees announcing the change.
> 
> With advances in genome research continuing at a rapid pace, the long-feared implications of genetic testing are finally coming to the fore. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Act (H.R.1227), a bill that would make policies such as IBM's federal law, is currently in committee in the House of Representatives, after sailing through the Senate 98-0.


http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/10/wo/wo_101405hellweg.asp


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Does anyone find it sketchy that Pax and the Bulls have been disclosing what amounts to private medical information on Eddy all summer? I know Eddy was really pissed about that, and that probably fed into part of the reason why he didn't want to take the DNA test for the Bulls. Are the Bulls legally allowed to be leaking Eddy's personal medical information to the entire world? I know it's not costing Eddy money now, but it is still an invasion of privacy. I wouldn't want the world to know my medical information. I wouldn't want anyone in my family to have to have their medical information given to the world media.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Good post. I think you're right. Whether of not it's the right thing to go to the press one more time, Paxson is trying to dispel the notion that Chicago is bad to their players. It's important for players around the league to know that Curry had health issues that were cause for serious concern from the Bulls' point of view. As I've said for months, it was an isolated situation that 99% of NBA players would never have to go through. It's simply not fair to hold this against Paxson when no other GM has been put in this awkward situation.


Whether or not it's "The Right Thing" to do? You're gonna be off the Christmas card list with comments like that! 

At least one other GM was put in the situation - he actually went out and traded for it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Does anyone find it sketchy that Pax and the Bulls have been disclosing what amounts to private medical information on Eddy all summer? I know Eddy was really pissed about that, and that probably fed into part of the reason why he didn't want to take the DNA test for the Bulls. Are the Bulls legally allowed to be leaking Eddy's personal medical information to the entire world? I know it's not costing Eddy money now, but it is still an invasion of privacy. I wouldn't want the world to know my medical information. I wouldn't want anyone in my family to have to have their medical information given to the world media.



I dont know the law but I have been thinking for awhile that if Eddy wanted to SUE the Bulls for this he probably would have a case.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Does anyone find it sketchy that Pax and the Bulls have been disclosing what amounts to private medical information on Eddy all summer? I know Eddy was really pissed about that, and that probably fed into part of the reason why he didn't want to take the DNA test for the Bulls. Are the Bulls legally allowed to be leaking Eddy's personal medical information to the entire world? I know it's not costing Eddy money now, but it is still an invasion of privacy. I wouldn't want the world to know my medical information. I wouldn't want anyone in my family to have to have their medical information given to the world media.


With the things the Bulls have disclosed, how is it any different if a team discloses that player A has a broken ankle, a history of back spasms, or a torn ACL? They are ALL relevent to a player's ability to play the game of basketball. We're not talking about whether Eddy has HIV or herpes, or any other irrelevent matter. Professional athletes get paid millions to be in the public spotlight, and I think the fans of the NBA should know why a player if unable to return to the basketball court.

Edit: Of course, I'm no law expert...far from it actually, as I'm fairly naive when it comes to law. So as rlucas said, I'm not sure if the Bulls are doing the right thing on a legal basis. I simply feel that when professional athletes have physical issues that directly relate to their ability to play, the public has a right to know about it. We are, afterall, the ones buying tickets to NBA games and paying their salaries.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

yodurk said:


> With the things the Bulls have disclosed, how is it any different if a team discloses that player A has a broken ankle, a history of back spasms, or a torn ACL? They are ALL relevent to a player's ability to play the game of basketball. We're not talking about whether Eddy has HIV or herpes, or any other irrelevent matter. Professional athletes get paid millions to be in the public spotlight, and I think the fans of the NBA should know why a player if unable to return to the basketball court.
> 
> Edit: Of course, I'm no law expert...far from it actually, as I'm fairly naive when it comes to law. So as rlucas said, I'm not sure if the Bulls are doing the right thing on a legal basis. I simply feel that when professional athletes have physical issues that directly relate to their ability to play, the public has a right to know about it. We are, afterall, the ones buying tickets to NBA games and paying their salaries.



I just dont think he can disclose personal info about Eddy AND Eddys MOTHER to the press without Eddys consent. Whether its legal or not, I have no idea. But it is "NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO". Pax ought to shut his Frickin Pie Hole and be an adult about it. Eddy has moved on, why cant he?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

yodurk said:


> With the things the Bulls have disclosed, how is it any different if a team discloses that player A has a broken ankle, a history of back spasms, or a torn ACL? They are ALL relevent to a player's ability to play the game of basketball. We're not talking about whether Eddy has HIV or herpes, or any other irrelevent matter. Professional athletes get paid millions to be in the public spotlight, and I think the fans of the NBA should know why a player if unable to return to the basketball court.


Injury information is disclosed so other teams (and bookies) understand the ramifications.

I have never heard of an ACL injury or any other injury disclosed 11 months later. Is this a first?

Pax has been leaking information like this and wildly speculating about other medical hypothticals ("DNA test might have saved Reggie Lewis") to make himself and his hard line stance look good.

Not the prefered approach by my GM.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You saw "soul-searching"; I saw a guy who was pissed that Curry wouldn't give in and sign a low ball offer. I saw a guy who angry at having to give Curry away for a guy with a dormant thyroid and what'll likely amount to a mid-first-round pick.
> 
> "Life is complicated" is a bit of a cop-out if you ask me. I don't see it as an acceptable defense for the lying, smearing, and misleading that Paxson did this summer.


First off, I again want to commend you on some extremely dilligent detective work this summer. You cleared up a lot of issues for me, such as what the DNA test can and cannot accomplish, which I wasn't clear on at first.

I agree with you that there was some misleading going on through the press this summer. The Reggie Lewis reference may have reminded people of the type of death on the court that any team would want to avoid, but it seems like they had very different situations with their hearts. Paxson's recent pleas for public acceptance don't bother me so much, although he needs to move on soon. It does startle me that he didn't see this kind of a backlash coming though. To any of us, it was inevitable that he was going to be questioned for requiring a DNA test.

"Life is complicated" referred to Paxson's motivations in trading Curry, not his behavior this summer. There are some things you can find out with your detective work, ScottMay, but there are some I don't think you can. Boiling the whole thing down to economics seems way to oversimplified to me, though in reality I suppose I don't really know what he's thinking. We certainly can't take every comment uttered in a press conference as fact. I do believe Paxson cared for Eddy's well being, but as I listed above, I believe that was only one of several factors that fed into how things played out this summer. I suppose I can't prove what those factors were in Paxson's mind, but to me there seem to be several obvious ones that must have played into his decision as opposed to one overriding one.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Injury information is disclosed so other teams (and bookies) understand the ramifications.
> 
> I have never heard of an ACL injury or any other injury disclosed 11 months later. Is this a first?
> 
> ...


The seriousness of ERob's injuries weren't really known until well after he was released. I think there's at least one precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am reasonably sure that public figures (and Eddy qualifies as one) are probably seen as both "sophisticated" and with less of certain kinds of rights to remedies in the courts. Information about injuries to pro athletes would probably be deemed more important than the privacy rights of the athletes. DNA information is a whole different beast; it raises all kinds of red flags on moral and ethical (and even religious) grounds.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I'm not a lawyer, but I am reasonably sure that public figures (and Eddy qualifies as one) are probably seen as both "sophisticated" and with less of certain kinds of rights to remedies in the courts.


That applies to defamation claims. It would not apply to an unlawful release of medical information.



> Information about injuries to pro athletes would probably be deemed more important than the privacy rights of the athletes.


No, not with medical information. If the Bulls improperly released medical information regarding Eddy Curry, he would have a lawsuit regardless of his status as a "public" figure.

The thing is, he can sign away that right to confidentiality. If Eddy Curry signed a release or waiver regarding the team's ability to release medical information, then the team can disclose the information. 

I'm only guessing here, but it wouldn't surprise me if most teams have written agreements with their players that allow them to release medical information that impacts decisions as to whether or not they can play basketball. 

If no such agreement exists, and the Bulls were just releasing Eddy's medical information willy-nilly without his consent, then he would be able to sue them I would think.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Pax isn't doing himself any good at all by talking about it now.

The deed is done, and nobody is going to change their mind about whether or not he did the right thing. The only way he is going to be proven "right" is if Eddy collapses on the court, so Pax might as well just shut up and hope he is proven "wrong", for Eddy's sake.


----------



## SlimShaky (Jul 24, 2004)

the other way he is going to be proven "right" is if curry can't match the intensity that coach brown expects out of him, and he ends up riding the bench in times when the team who plays the hardest on both sides of the ball wins. i think that pax knows that curry and/or his heart can't match the intensity that skiles requires of his players. skiles wants a consistent effort on every play of every game, and management probably doesn't believe that curry and/or his heart is able to provide that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That applies to defamation claims. It would not apply to an unlawful release of medical information.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Robert Downey Jr. checked into drug rehab. It's been in the news when he did.

I don't see that anyone released any of Curry's medical information, even if Pax went on TV and said "Curry's got heart issues." It's no different than saying "ERob has turf toe." It's just not unreasonable for a team to let the public know why its players aren't able to play - and it's a LONG standing tradition.

If Pax handed Curry's doctors' reports to someone in the press to be printed, that'd be a VERY different story.

I wouldn't be surprised if the standard player contract has a clause that allows this kind of medical information to be given to the press.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Robert Downey Jr. checked into drug rehab. It's been in the news when he did.


That was court-ordered rehab and, even if it wasn't, that information was probably either generated by his own press agent or by the media hounds following him around or getting the scoop. I suspect that information was not released by the clinic itself. If so, it would have been subjected to a lawsuit.



> I don't see that anyone released any of Curry's medical information, even if Pax went on TV and said "Curry's got heart issues." It's no different than saying "ERob has turf toe." It's just not unreasonable for a team to let the public know why its players aren't able to play - and it's a LONG standing tradition.


I couldn't agree more. 



> If Pax handed Curry's doctors' reports to someone in the press to be printed, that'd be a VERY different story.


Absolutely.



> I wouldn't be surprised if the standard player contract has a clause that allows this kind of medical information to be given to the press.


Indeed, that is precisely what I speculate as well. 

I don't think Curry has a lawsuit. In fact, a few weeks ago I had to convince you that Eddy didn't have a claim for defamation against the team.

I'm only saying that *if * the Bulls did release confidential medical information, which would include physician diagnosis and recommendations, *without Curry's prior approval or waiver*, they could be subject to a lawsuit. 

Several people were speculating about the potential for litigation arising from the release of medical information while stating they weren't sure because they aren't lawyers. I am a lawyer. This is my professional analysis of the situation solely as it relates to the release of medical information. Take it or leave it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That was court-ordered rehab and, even if it wasn't, that information was probably either generated by his own press agent or by the media hounds following him around or getting the scoop. I suspect that information was not released by the clinic itself. If so, it would have been subjected to a lawsuit.


So far, I haven't seen doctors (or Pax) publicly releasing medical records. Though any reporter could follow Downey Jr. to the rehab clinic and report he went there. Or Curry to some medical building with a heart specialist in it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> So far, I haven't seen doctors (or Pax) publicly releasing medical records. Though any reporter could follow Downey Jr. to the rehab clinic and report he went there. Or Curry to some medical building with a heart specialist in it.


Thats right.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

KwaZulu said:


> After reading this info re Curry's previous incidents regarding his heart, and his mother's heart incident, it makes Paxson's actions even more logical. If they had given Eddy the contract without the test, and Eddy died or was very seriously incapacitated as a result of some heart related issue while playing basketball, the Bulls would have been absolutely obliterated in any subsequent lawsuit. A plaintiff lawyer for Eddy or for his family would ask the simple question, "Knowing what they knew, did the Bulls do everything possible to verify and minimize the risk to Eddy re his heart problem?" And the answer would have to be "No", and the Bulls would then be held liable for negiligence. Failure to do the DNA test, even if if offered only a possibility of diagnosing the problem accurately, would be seen as negligence by a jury. You can argue all you want about how effective the test is, the fact remains that a jury would have little trouble answering this question, especially after very emotional testimony from the family, his wife and children. In situations like these in the courtroom having the law on your side doesn't necessarily guarrantee one even a 50% chance of prevailing. The jury approach would be that the Bulls have the deep pockets and that there is a family suffering, therefore the Bulls should pay. If you think this is unreasonable, then take a look a big personal injury case damge awards in the news. This is the reality, no matter what we think, or would like, or would hope for. The fact that the Bulls didn't exhaust every possible option to determine whether Eddy was at risk would be held against them. I think Pax had no option re the DNA test and in managing the Bull's risk in this situation. He had to do it to protect the Bulls in the event of the worst case scenario. I've no doubt the Bull's legal staff were advising him that this was the case.


Word.

This was always where I was coming from and where I think the risk management issue came into play

I would prefer Eddy still be here ..but realistically there is no one player worth risking your franchise for with the types of big end of town ramifications that could have come into play


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

KwaZulu said:


> In a previous thread I took issue with the ad hominem arguments made over the Curry situation. I was rebuked by several posters on this board, and my post was latter removed. Now, at the end of ScottMay's response to my above post I get this gem:
> 
> "If it helps you sleep at night to think that this was done for legal or medical reasons rather than purely financial ones, so be it."
> 
> ...



A person that deals in real life issues with perfectly sane and rational explanation of real world circumstance

Fancy that

Double Word Zulu


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> The best lie is told by the liar that has convinced himself.


OMFG

Cracker!

I love this saying

Oh so bloody true too.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

And yes..the droopy bottom lip of Pax the Injured...is a bit embarassing

Even if there were elements of trying to do the right thing that morphed into other conflicting areas...the piousness and steadfastness of this projection by Pax , in part , may bear some relation to that pearler of Johnston's ( nothing like a lie from a liar that has convinced himself )


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Eddy reponds !!!!!




> GREENBURGH, N.Y. -- The day before playing his first game in a Knicks uniform, Eddy Curry confirmed a report that he suffered a previously undisclosed spell of "shortness of breath" in Bulls training camp last year.
> 
> "I had something last year, but it was not heart-related at all," Curry said Friday. "I went to the doctors and everything was fine . . . It was nothing. I was running sprints, and it felt like I had asthma. But they checked it out and it wasn't heart-related at all."
> 
> ...


link


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Eddy reponds !!!!!
> 
> 
> link



Curry acting like an adult, Pax acting like a child. Who would have thought?


----------



## SDBullsFan (Oct 4, 2005)

> Paxson acknowleges that Curry most likely doesn't have HCM


I thought this was obvious from the beginning...

Curry went through a battery of tests to test his heart and nothing came up. HOWEVER, even if there was the slightest hint of a chance that Eddy had a bum ticker, Pax didn't want to put him out on the court.

Let's say the odds were as low as 5 percent, would you put Eddy on the court knowing this? I probably would, but to be honest, I don't care about Eddy as much as Pax does. If he were say, my cson, there's absolutely no way I'd want him playing basketball.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Eddy Curry said:


> "It's kind of mind-boggling. I don't know why he is still mentioning me," Curry said. "The deal is over with. I'm here in New York and he should get over it. He should try to move on like I did."
> 
> link


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Eddy Curry again.
<!-- / main error message -->


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Is Paxson violating the CBA?



CBA said:


> ARTICLE XXII: Medical treatment of players and release of medical information
> 
> Section 3. Disclosure of Medical or Health Information.
> 
> ...


Curry is no longer an employee of the Chicago Bulls and is surely not rendering any services to the Bulls.

I wonder if David Stern is going to call Paxson into his office and read him the riot add.

p.s. http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=424195&start=24&sid=867271a0f319c62da87f68a6c0fe491a

A smart NYK poster over on RealGm made this catch.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Is Paxson violating the CBA?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good freaking grief. Will he shut the **** up now? Pretty please.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=106845

same quotes in the daily herald article. 



> “I don’t understand why he (Paxson) is still mentioning me,” Curry said. “I feel like it’s over with, the deal is done, I’m here in New York and he should get over it. He should try to move on, as I did.
> 
> “I don’t talk about him. I would rather him not talk about me. But if he has something to say, that’s fine. I dealt with it for four years in Chicago, so I can deal with it.”


yes, eddy, it is mind-boggling why he is doing this, but paxley do-right just won't let it be. 

he really must stop talking to the press about this. the whole "eddy hurt my feelings" thing is a bit pathetic verging on embarassing. buck up pax, geez, walk it off man. it's over. like da grinch said: there is no crying in basketball. let's all move on.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Im sure part of the reason for the comments are that after the tight wads hear about Curry in NY getting cleared by a huge team of doctors as well as a LEAGUE APPOINTED cardioligist they are starting to panic .With the way we have looked during the preseason the managment will look like a bunch of fools unless something happens to Curry which is starting to look as though that will very much be the case.

Pax in a sense mishandled the situation by not assembling at team of doctors in the first place and having them all pow wow on the best course of action instead of going to just one doctor and trying to force that guys decisions on Eddy .The NY medical staff in the course of one week made the Bulls look like amateur hour and Im sure the suits want some answers.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Curry hot at Bulls' Paxson 

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/355937p-303370c.html

BY FRANK ISOLA
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER 


> Eddy Curry called it "mind-boggling" and a "shame" that Bulls GM John Paxson would reveal that Curry had a previously unreported heart scare five months before he was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat. ...
> 
> The Knicks officially declined to comment on Paxson's statement or whether they were aware that Curry was taken to a Chicago-area hospital last October after complaining of chest pain and lightheadedness. *Privately, the organization is upset that Paxson is now speaking out about a player the Bulls no longer have under contract, saying Paxson may be violating federal pricacy rules by talking about Curry's medical history.*


Nice job, Pax. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> Curry hot at Bulls' Paxson
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/355937p-303370c.html
> 
> ...


I assume they are referring to HIPAA. I don't know that this would apply to HIPAA. Is anyone familiar with the breadth of this statute? My familiarity with it applies only to what health care providers can and cannot disclose.

I think the more likely violation, if there is one, is that he is violating the CBA. Although, the cited portion of the CBA is subject to more than one intepretation - i.e., the restrictions apply only to players on the team and not to players on other teams. I realize this might sound strained, but the cited terms apply only to what an employer-team may or may not do. It does not place any restrictions on what another team may or may not do. 

The absence of such restrictions would mean that laws and rules, like HIPAA, or state common law or statutory schemes would apply by default as to what a former employer may or may not say about a former employee's medical information. In short, its complicated. For example, notwithstanding all of this, we fall back to the unknown answer to the question: 

Do the Bulls have a signed waiver from Curry regarding the release of medical information obtained during his employ? If so, this is all moot.

I understand the interpretation of the cited CBA language that a team can ONLY comment on its own players, and I agree that this is the better reading. But its subject to the former interpretation I mentioned as well.

Frankly, the more text I read of the CBA, the more surprised I become at how poorly and loosely some portions have been drafted. It is certainly not as concrete a product as I would have expected from the no-doubt high quality attorneys employed by the league and the NBAPA. Of course, the ambiguities we've seen could simply be the necessary bi-product of labor negotiations.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't see a HIPPA violation there, but the CBA issue looks about as clear cut as anything in the CBA looks to me.

No matter what, I don't see any good from public speculation about a player on another team having heart trouble based on an incident where no doctor found anything to suggest it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I don't see a HIPPA violation there, *but the CBA issue looks about as clear cut as anything in the CBA looks to me.*


Well, its not. Not the cited portion anyway. It actually says nothing at all about what a team who does not employ a player can or cannot say. So, yes, in that sense its very clear - its silent.

But admittedly we are only reading extracted portions. Perhaps a reading of the whole thing would make it more clear, as is often the case with a collective bargaining agreement. There may very well be provisions expressly governing what teams can say about players on other teams. There may also be a catch-all at the beginning of the cited section that says somethin along the lines of: "The following are the only conditions upon which any team may comment on the health or medical information of any player."

Just so this doesn't get lost in a war of words: I said before and I still say that the reading you suggest is the better one. But its not the only legally supportable one. I'm simply providing that contrary analysis. The CBA is loose where it should be tight.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> No matter what, I don't see any good from public speculation about a player on another team having heart trouble based on an incident where no doctor found anything to suggest it.


He didn't say there was a heart problem. 



> "It was during a conditioning drill, and Eddy complained of *chest pain and lightheadedness*," says Bulls GM John Paxson. "We took him to the hospital."
> 
> Paxson says that a thorough examination at that time yielded *no explanation for Curry's symptoms*.


He did, however, note it as part of the team's concern along with Curry's own inconsistent stories about his mother's medical history. Plus the Charlotte incident, which appears to have been the second arhythmia following the one he appears to have suffered shortly beforehand in Memphis.

That being said, I want Paxson to stop talking about it too and I'm tired of reading about how "painful" this is for him (though I do not doubt that it is paining him). Although a lot of folks jumped on him for making statements like that at all, I didn't see anything wrong with him defending himself against the comments from Milstein and Eddy himself. But I do think the repeated expression of how "hurtful" this is for Paxson is getting old. 

Hopefully this is the end of it. I simply don't want to read about Eddy Curry at all anymore. Its not summer anymore. The Bulls are actually playing games now. I'm hopeful that everyone will shift focus, including the primaries (Paxson) and the media (the Chicago media anyway).


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, its not. Not the cited portion anyway. It actually says nothing at all about what a team who does not employ a player can or cannot say


This seems like tortured and twisted reasoning to me. The CBA indicates who can disclose medical information and when. By inference, no one else and in no other circumstances should medical information be disclosed.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> This seems like tortured and twisted reasoning to me. The CBA indicates who can disclose medical information and when. By inference, no one else and in no other circumstances should medical information be disclosed.


I agree that this is the better reading. But silence is not a mandate. It just doesn't work like that. This is where statutory common law would fall into place, assuming there aren't other portions of the CBA that could clarify this.

Also, as strange as this might sound, the headings of a section of a contract, in the eyes of the law, are not controlling or significant to its interpretation. In other words, the heading of a section cannot be used to imply into the contract language that is absent. 

I'm just giving the contrarian viewpoint here.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

at what point does Pax get that its time to shut his cake hole about this and move on?

I realize at this point he is getting eaten alive on his moves although indirectly , on this board alone you can find threads mocking all 3 of his aquistions for curry "if Jermaine jackson gets cut i am pretty sure someone will be metioning the other jermaine jackson's song "Dont take it Personal" because he is brought up alot anyway...in addition Timmy Thomas has baby momma drama and sweetney ...well we've all seen him and the threads dedicated to his girth.

no one is really bashing pax directly for what he got , moreso bashing him for the situation and taking it out on those we recieved.

it just looks like a guy who is very defensive from the moment the trade was made. and keeps chirping to make himself feel good about it.

i'd be a happy guy if i never heard the name eddy curry from his lips again.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/sports/basketball/16knicks.html



_Thomas acknowledged that the Knicks were aware of an incident last year in which Curry had to be taken to the hospital after experiencing chest pains and light-headedness during a practice with the Bulls. John Paxson, the Bulls' general manager, recently revealed the incident in interviews with The New York Times and Sports Illustrated.

Thomas said he did not resent Paxson for revealing that incident.

"I think John is doing the best job that he possibly can do," Thomas said. "I have great respect for him. I wish them the best."_


and with that, let's hope pax just stops talking about it.


----------



## benfica (Jul 17, 2002)

"Overpaying is relative. All basketball players are overpayed in the context of saaaay a kindergarten teacher. But they are all underpaid with relation to the owners."

These athletes are way over paid for what they bring to the table.

The owners could get a much better return on their money with other business. Heck they can do better by putting the money in CD instead of losing NBA franchise. Most of these guys have other business that 
support the running of these teams.

Any good businessmen would never bad a NBA team, it is bad business done only for ego purposes.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/sports/basketball/16knicks.html



_Isiah Thomas, the Knicks' president, said Collier's death did not initially cause him to worry about Curry.

"When we heard it this morning, I think we were all shocked and saddened," Thomas said before Saturday night's game. "If there's any player that should feel safe and secure about his heart right now, it's Eddy.

"We should be extremely careful not to give him something he doesn't have.""_


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

benfica said:


> Any good businessmen would never bad a NBA team, it is bad business done only for ego purposes.


This is just not true. Reinsdorf makes a ton of money on the Bulls. ScottMay can provide more details.


----------

