# Trib: Knicks Want Curry in S&T; Lots of Other Explosive Stuff



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...7bulls,1,3426565.story?coll=cs-home-headlines



> Eddy Curry's agent said Saturday he has found a team that is a willing buyer in a sign-and-trade for the Bulls' center. The agent, Leon Rose, declined to name the team, but sources familiar with the negotiations said it was the Knicks.
> 
> Bulls general manager John Paxson said he would not pursue the proposal, which Rose said he made about a week ago.
> 
> ...





> Eddy Curry's agent said Saturday he has found a team that is a willing buyer in a sign-and-trade for the Bulls' center. The agent, Leon Rose, declined to name the team, but sources familiar with the negotiations said it was the Knicks.
> 
> Bulls general manager John Paxson said he would not pursue the proposal, which Rose said he made about a week ago.
> 
> ...





> But Paxson isn't impressed. He stands by a leading heart specialist who declined to give Curry clearance months ago and instead asked Curry to undergo DNA testing to determine if he is predisposed to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which can be fatal. Curry declined to take the test but sought the opinion of another respected specialist, Dr. David Cannom, in Los Angeles.
> 
> Paxson said one supporting opinion that Rose offered came from a doctor based in the same medical group as Cannom. He said an opinion from another doctor suggested Curry undergo genetic testing.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Well, this is officially rock bottom, I hope.

miz, I owe you an apology -- apparently Pax DID flat-out pull the Sam Smith deal and put the QO in its place. Unfathomable.



> "I don't think it's my obligation to cold-call teams," [John Paxson] said.


Um, it's not, John? 



> "Eddy is willing to share the risk," Rose said. "He would get nowhere near the total amount of the contract."
> 
> That won't work for the Bulls. Even with insurance, *Curry's contract still would count against the salary cap and luxury tax if an injury ends his career, Paxson said.*


A complete and utter falsehood on several levels.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#51



> 51.* How do retired players count against the cap?
> 
> Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player has retired.* For example, James Worthy retired in 1994, two years before his contract ended.* He continued to receive his salary for the 94-95 and 95-96 seasons, so his salary was included in the Lakers' team salary in those seasons. *It is at the team's discretion (or as the result of an agreement between the team and player) whether to continue to pay the player after he has retired.
> 
> ...


Very, very, very discouraging. Unless you're Mark Bartlestein, because it looks like we are going to insanely overpay for a couple of his clients next summer (no other impact free agent is going to want to get involved in this dysfunctional mess).

EDIT: I've reread this piece, and my mind is even more boggled. Paxson is telling the world in the same breath that he will not part with Eddy unless it's for a really, really good player/situation, but that Eddy's health is really, really questionable. I mean, he could die. Lots of (unnamed) doctors say so.

What in the world is this supposed to accomplish (besides making other GMs picture Paxson wearing a clown suit when he gives them a call)?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Integrity check coming. If he really thinks Curry could die, then he shouldn't let him play regardless of the contract.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Well, this is officially rock bottom, I hope.
> 
> miz, I owe you an apology -- apparently Pax DID flat-out pull the Sam Smith deal and put the QO in its place. Unfathomable.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure I understand your disapproval of the way Paxson has handled the situation. Please explain.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

HINrichPolice said:


> I'm not sure I understand your disapproval of the way Paxson has handled the situation. Please explain.


I'm not sure how you could not understand my disapproval.

Bottom line: the buck stops with John Paxson. The future of the Chicago Bulls is his responsibility, not Eddy Curry's. It's time for Paxson to quit shifting blame, to start making phone calls, and to resolve this situation one way or another.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'm not sure how you could not understand my disapproval.
> 
> Bottom line: the buck stops with John Paxson. The future of the Chicago Bulls is his responsibility, not Eddy Curry's. It's time for Paxson to quit shifting blame, to start making phone calls, and to resolve this situation one way or another.


Listening back the Paxson Score interview in tandem with this article, which is indeed quite explosive, I am of the opinion that Paxson would probably put a multi year deal back on the table and even improve it if he received the result of a negative DNA test from Eddy. If Eddy doesn't take the test, it looks like the QO. Both sides are hardlining. 

Damn.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Wow I just aid earlier today that it seemed as though the Bullls were trying to play both sides of the fence with Curry and bam !! Pax spills the beans .

#1 If he didnt buy what Currys doctors was saying why did he give the impression that he did ?

It seems like Paxs ploy to get Eddy on the cheap is blowing up in his face lets hope he can bounce back and grab control again .



> "I'm not going to give Eddy Curry away."



Does he realize that in 14 days he loses all flexibility ? 

I wonder that since Eddy wouldnt sign, will the Bulls now say that their doctors have refused to clear him and make him sit out the year 
?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Listening back the Paxson Score interview in tandem with this article, which is indeed quite explosive, I am of the opinion that Paxson would probably put a multi year deal back on the table and even improve it if he received the result of a negative DNA test from Eddy. If Eddy doesn't take the test, it looks like the QO. Both sides are hardlining.
> 
> Damn.


Listening to the Score interview in tandem with this article, I think the DNA test is a big 










It's a test that Paxson believes will differentiate between a benign (even favorable) adaptive thickening of the heart muscle vs. a condition that could kill Eddy if he walks too quickly to the mailbox or puts a new bottle on the water cooler. 

If Paxson's stance on the medical issues is genuine, then how in the world could he possibly offer Eddy ANY contract without insisting on the result of the DNA test? It doesn't seem rational to me.

In other words, 

No DNA test = we'll let you play, but just for one year, or for three years at a rate far below what you'd reasonably expect to be paid once you establish that you're not a health risk. I mean, yeah, I guess we'd have the same medical questions, but as long as it wouldn't cost us too much when you croak, it's cool.

Pass DNA test = . . . 

(Paxson hasn't said what's on the table if Eddy took and passed a DNA test . . . )

I think Rose's current contract proposal is eminently reasonable -- he is letting the all-knowing, never-failing insurance companies determine when Eddy will get a fully guaranteed payday -- and that Paxson looks erratic here, not firm.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

There is nothing really "new" to report here. Paxson still wants Curry to take the DNA test, and isn't willing to make a better offer unless Curry has one done. These new Paxson quotes just confirm what we've already known for a long time now.

The most interesting part of the article to me is Paxson sending out feelers towards Memphis and Denver. He said he wouldn't do a S&T without getting what he wants in return... he obviously has someone in mind on both those teams.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I think Paxson is handling this the right way, the way you must do if you are G.M. and your arse is on the line.

C'mon, people. You want to pony up for a guy with loads of question marks on his health who isn't that good anyway?? Throw away the cap space for years? Pax is sounding the professional. Curry and the agent are sounding like the amateurs. And, oh boy, that moron Isiah Thomas is interested? Right there that should tell you something.

Give Eddy "Benoit Benjamin" Curry the QO, let him walk and sign with some other team next year, then take that 10 plus million a year and go after players who will actually contribute to winning games. Every summer people tend to forget exactly what Curry does on the court and see only his potential. 10 mil a year on potential is stupid. 10 mil a year on potential plus significant risk of heart condition leads us to the bottom of the NBA again for many years to come. He can score a bit in the post, yes. His defense stinks, yes. His rebounding is sickening, yes. He is a huge positive on the court for the team and worth 10 million a year, absolutely not....

Curry is not worth the huge risk. I feel bad for the kid, but then again he is going to get a minimum of 5 million dollars this year to play a game. Sounds like a good gig to me.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Salvaged Ship said:


> I think Paxson is handling this the right way, the way you must do if you are G.M. and your arse is on the line.
> 
> C'mon, people. You want to pony up for a guy with loads of question marks on his health who isn't that good anyway?? Throw away the cap space for years? Pax is sounding the professional. Curry and the agent are sounding like the amateurs. And, oh boy, that moron Isiah Thomas is interested? Right there that should tell you something.
> 
> ...



Was Chandler worth 60+million ?I mean since its stupid to pay 10 million for potential 

IF Isiah is a moron for being interested in Curry what does that make Pax for saying hes not going to give Curry away ? I mean who would want to hold on to Benoit benjamin right ?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

link

More from the suntimes 



> "There are multiple teams that have shown interest, and there is a team that is willing to do a deal, in terms of a sign-and-trade, that Eddy would accept,'' Rose, who declined to specify the team, said Saturday night. "That puts the ball back in Chicago's court. But that's just a fact -- that there is a team willing to do something significant. The Bulls have been aware of that since last weekend. And to the best of my knowledge, they have not spoken to the team that's willing to do something.''





> "Here it is a couple of weeks before training camp, and he's trying to create leverage for Eddy Curry,'' said Paxson, who confirmed it was the New York Knicks that were interested in the sign-and-trade deal. "And [the Knicks] have no money under the salary cap, *so the only way they could get an Eddy Curry  is through a sign-and-trade*. There is no market in terms of teams that have any money to spend, and *I'm not going to give Eddy away*.''


there are more quotes as well but Im just confused now because pax is talking as though Curry has no health problems until he gets to the contract issues and then its a process.Its like they are trying to get eddy to sign without assuming ANY risk whatsoever.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

You Anti=Pax people are quite dense

Eddy has a health condition that Paxson isnt comfortable giving a long term deal to. He offered a short term deal in which Eddy turned down. That is Eddy's choice. Paxson has a choice: Give a long-term deal to a guy w/ a suspect heart or let him play for the QO?

Pax is sticking to his guns that he wont give a longterm big money deal to a guy w/a bum ticker who chooses not to give in doctor's and bulls requests to get a DNA test.

Let us continue to slam Paxson for thinking of the Bulls organization as a whole and not trying to placate to Eddy Curry!!


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Was Chandler worth 60+million ?I mean since its stupid to pay 10 million for potential
> 
> IF Isiah is a moron for being interested in Curry what does that make Pax for saying hes not going to give Curry away ? I mean who would want to hold on to Benoit benjamin right ?


I never said Chandler was worth that. He is worth more than Curry, however. Chandler contributes more to the win column than Curry. And just because we have invested 10 million a year on potential with Chandler, it doesn't mean we should now invest an additional 10 mil a year with Curry and his heart issues.

Pax shouldn't just give him away this year, no matter what. A sign and trade is possible next year, as we can sign him to much more money than other clubs. He would have more value next year. I know you risk losing him for nothing next year, but the risk of all that cap space now is not worth it.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> "It's negligent not to take the test,'' Paxson said. "*Though it cannot rule anything out absolutely*, it is something we all could use to help figure this out.''


WTF???? So why are you insisting on him taking a test that can't rule anything out. Oh, forgot...you need the hammer of inconclusiveness to bash in your negotiations.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

according to NY daily News Zeke includes Sweets in the offer



> Chicago is entertaining sign-and-trade offers from Memphis and Denver but turned down the Knicks' most recent proposal last week, a deal that is believed to have included Michael Sweetney


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/347460p-296567c.html


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Among other things, why does Paxson have any business being *angry* that Curry found a sign-and-trade partner? Paxson said go ahead and find the best deal you can!

Between that and his counterintuitive we won't give him away for nothing but we're not even sure we want him posture, and I don't see the Bulls as having a very well thought out position.

I pretty much agree with Scott May, although I think Curry would continue to count on the cap and against the luxury tax for one year were he to be forced to stop playing in the middle of his contract. Thus, if something happened this year, we'd lose some of our cap space in 2006. However, we'd still have something like $12-18M available. We would, also, receive a salary cap exception we could use to sign another player, good for (I think) half of Curry's due salary. In short, we'd still be in great shape for next summer even if the worst happened.

I think the rest of Scott's analysis is right on point though. I think (some combination) of the following things are happening:
1) The Bulls don't understand the medical issues as well as they should
2) The Bulls aren't making an offer Curry can reasonably accept.
3) The Bulls are continuing to push for a test that in addition to being quite probably useless, they have dubious legal standing to push for.

4) And he're something I find pretty interesting. For all the complaining and assumptions that Curry's somehow the "bad seed" in this negotiation, they seem to be conducting their side of the negotiation quite politely. Rose didn't even say which team was willing to do a trade, just that there was one - which is something Paxson said they were free to look for on the radio. The Bulls, on the other hand, are continue to hammer on the test publically and say things that look pretty shady to me.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> WTF???? So why are you insisting on him taking a test that can't rule anything out. Oh, forgot...you need the hammer of inconclusiveness to bash in your negotiations.


First let me start out by saying I @#&$*#* hate agents..

Curry's agent is *100% wrong* regarding the DNA test....People,this matter is not about $$$$$ and contracts.It is about a young mans life,which may or not be at stake.His health and welfare should be everyones first priority.No medical test regarding the heart is 100% conclusive,but Eddy should have all available information before he steps on the court...

Eddys sleazbag agent should get that DNA test...NOW.....Its clear that Rose wants to nail down the contract first,get Eddy set up for life,get his 30% and not have to worry about the financial ramifications of a risky DNA test.The fact is having Eddy step on the court to practice without having run every test is morally and ethically wrong... with one caveat.If Eddie said playing ball and $$$ is worth dying for and he fully accepts it(think Evander Holyfield),then Rose is doing the right thing

As for Pax,he is doing his job...Hes posturing,just like everyone else and knows full well Zeke will ante up,unless Brown manages to get ahold of Dolan first.Somehow,I cant imagine Coach Brown getting out of bed and looking foward to coaching a 14 foott,600 pound twin head monster that grabs 9 rebounds...Yes,i am talking about the combo of Jerome James and Edward Curry

Memphis???Denver???

I doubt Jerry West would make a trade for Curry,and NO WAY does Heinsly offer a long term contract

Denver??? Curry for Nene?? Aint happening..

Eddy is damaged goods..In fact,he was damaged goods before the heart ailment.Until Eddy takes that DNA test,a one year offer is all Eddy should expect.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

truth said:


> First let me start out by saying I @#&$*#* hate agents..
> 
> Curry's agent is *100% wrong* regarding the DNA test....People,this matter is not about $$$$$ and contracts.It is about a young mans life,which may or not be at stake.His health and welfare should be everyones first priority.No medical test regarding the heart is 100% conclusive,but Eddy should have all available information before he steps on the court....


This has pretty much been discussed to death here (and you never bothered to pipe in then), so I'll just point out that there are multiple reasons this is simply not the case, or at least that there is a lot of room for discussion on it.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> I think the rest of Scott's analysis is right on point though. I think (some combination) of the following things are happening:
> 1) The Bulls don't understand the medical issues as well as they should
> 2) The Bulls aren't making an offer Curry can reasonably accept.
> 3) The Bulls are continuing to push for a test that in addition to being quite probably useless, they have dubious legal standing to push for.


Wow,there isnt one point i remotely agree on,other than the obvious one..(2)

You dont think the Bulls understand the medical issue,yet they are the ones pushing for the DNA test?? You dont think insurance providers dropping Eddy came with some sort of diagnosis?? And you contest the legality of requiring the DNA test??? 

You are completely contradicting yourself..I think they fully understand the medical issues,have been advised that a DNA test,while not 100% conclusive could offer much greater insight.Team Curry knows full well that a DNA test can do more harm than good at this point,so why take it?? If Zeke is truly offering a package that compenstes Curry 7-9 mil long term without the DNA test,than Team Curry should push for that and NOT take the test...(this is strictly from a $$$$$$$ perspective,not moral)


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

WHY WON'T EDDY TAKE THE DNA TEST????????


Seems to me this would solve everything. I believe EC is not bargaining in good faith. Prove that you're healthy and Pax will give you the money.

Is it such a bad thing for him to play for QO? It would force him to produce to get paid next year, protect the Bulls from his death, and they could still offer him the big money next year.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Among other things, why does Paxson have any business being *angry* that Curry found a sign-and-trade partner? Paxson said go ahead and find the best deal you can!


Agreed! 

Paxson is really handling this like a *******. Curry's decided he is playing now matter what. Why should some inconclusive DNA test matter in this case?

And Paxson is sure quite happy to spout his side in the news. How the heck could he be angry at Rose and Curry.

I was supporting Pax to this point. But with the details now fully out, that is no longer the case.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

What does Paxson do if Eddy starts talking to the Hornets and the Hawks, or the Bobcats even. I'm sure he could fetch near Tyson Chandler money from one of them still, at least 3-4 years. I think its time for Leon Rose to start talking stuff like that with those other teams. Paxson really has his nuts caught in a bear trap here. Why doesn't he put the 3 year deal back on the table? I think its time for Reindsorf to get involved, because Paxson has had more free agent fumbles than anyone GM in recent times. Most GM's get it done fast. He almost lost Scott Skiles over a million or two, he is probaly going to let Eddy go over one more garuanteed year, this guy just doesn't know what he is doing. Time to find a new GM. Wish BJ didn't leave, then we could just promote him up since he has the brains to do the job.


----------



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

sloth said:


> What does Paxson do if Eddy starts talking to the Hornets and the Hawks, or the Bobcats even. I'm sure he could fetch near Tyson Chandler money from one of them still, at least 3-4 years. I think its time for Leon Rose to start talking stuff like that with those other teams. Paxson really has his nuts caught in a bear trap here. Why doesn't he put the 3 year deal back on the table? I think its time for Reindsorf to get involved, because Paxson has had more free agent fumbles than anyone GM in recent times. Most GM's get it done fast. He almost lost Scott Skiles over a million or two, he is probaly going to let Eddy go over one more garuanteed year, this guy just doesn't know what he is doing. Time to find a new GM. Wish BJ didn't leave, then we could just promote him up since he has the brains to do the job.


Sloth,

What are those free agents fumbles? BTW your boo Curry already blew his chance w/ Atlanta when he left them holding flowers, candy and the key to the city for the sake of having his wife attend a baby shower. Curry didn't even put in the effort to stay in Atlanta for 2 days and they lost interest. Charlotte and the Hornets are free to make an offer at anytime but they haven't. 

Pax doesn't know what he's doing? That's laughable, it looks like he knows what he's doing by putting the team before one player. Then again he put Curry's health before the team last season. I am sure when Paxson held Curry out of the playoffs last season he was thinking it would really help in low balling Eddy in the up coming off season.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

This is a part of negotiating: Eddy trying to find the best deal for him (especially guaranteed $), and for Pax keeping the future of the Bulls flexible. 

My gut feeling is, that if Eddy goes QO, he will not be back. This is not because of bad blood that could develop between the Bulls and Eddy. Chicago is his home town, and we can offer more money than anyone else. But, after one year, and w/o a DNA test, Pax will still be unsure if Eddy can have serious heart injuries after this upcoming season.

As much as I love Eddy Curry, and I keep hoping he will blow up (play like he did the two weeks prior to illness consistantly), but I'm open for a sign and trade. The few teams mentioned are NY, Memphis, and Denver. 

I am not for wanting anyone in NY, unless it be Fyre and expiring contracts. 

Memphis: They don't have anyone I want. Gasol is a good player, but not a star. He juts seems "soft" inside. Now if Ben and Luol can become the stars/scorers of this team, then maybe this will work for us. 

Denver: Nene would be great. I like KMart's toughness, but I bet he is untouchable.

I do not want to lose a #4 draft pick for nothing. And, Nene has been mentioned a lot on this board, but can we get him? He is a RFA next year. I do not want to heavily overpay him to get him here.


----------



## BullsFan4Ever (Oct 8, 2004)

My question is why would Curry not want to take the test and placate Pax unless he is also concerned that there may be some thing to worry about and if that is the case should the guy be playing basketball at all. If Eddy wants Pax to show him the money show Pax a DNA test. Several doctors have said he should be cleared but a few warrant the test and I am sure if it had been done to begin with and had good results none of this would be happening, he may have even been able to get insurance. Pax has got to do what is best for the team and IMO paying a man that could have career threatening not to mention *LIFE* threatening heart issues with out exploring all variables would be foolish.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

first off, apology accepted from scottmay, even though i'm not sure why the need for it.

second, why should pax cold call teams? he is absolutely under NO obligation to do that. please. 

third, of course it's the knicks! lol. i'm sorry but, eddy and larry brown? um, why can't i picture that? eddy does realize larry coaches the knicks now right? that he's probably more of a hard-*** than skiles!? and that's saying something! 

and with all due respect to dabullz, but THIS is "negotiating through the press" courtesy of "bad bad leon brown, snarkiest agent in the whole damn town" - and pax should be angry. smacks of amateur hour to me. desperation writ large. 

and finally, i think LOB said it best, pax is putting the team before eddy and i think that is the right thing to do. sorry eddy lovers, we said it. i don't think the way pax has handled this situation will bode ill in the future vis a vis other free agents wanting to come to chicago. just because they weren't willing to give eddy, a questionable investment, a huge guaranteed contract. 

what fantasy land is eddy living in? "if not for his heart condition"? but there is a condition. it exists. so where does this "premise" stem from? fantasy land. 



> According to sources, Rose's counteroffer to Paxson is based on the premise that Curry would ask for $70 million over six years *if not for his heart condition.* While Curry is not insurable this season, Rose wants guaranteed money, in line with the aforementioned dollar figure, if an insurance company drops the heart exclusion later.




_as an aside, as we go forward in this debate on this thread and on the board, please remain respectful of each others opinions. in other words, flame away, but a person's beliefs are theirs and i for one respect that even if i don't agree. carry on. ~ miz _


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Sloth,
> 
> What are those free agents fumbles? BTW your boo Curry already blew his chance w/ Atlanta when he left them holding flowers, candy and the key to the city for the sake of having his wife attend a baby shower. Curry didn't even put in the effort to stay in Atlanta for 2 days and they lost interest. Charlotte and the Hornets are free to make an offer at anytime but they haven't.
> 
> Pax doesn't know what he's doing? That's laughable, it looks like he knows what he's doing by putting the team before one player. Then again he put Curry's health before the team last season. I am sure when Paxson held Curry out of the playoffs last season he was thinking it would really help in low balling Eddy in the up coming off season.


My opinion exactly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

If Pax's comments in the Trib and on the Score made me upset, his thoughts as recorded by the Sun-Times today made me laugh:



> "*Here it is a couple of weeks before training camp, and he's trying to create leverage for Eddy Curry,'' *said Paxson, who confirmed it was the New York Knicks that were interested in the sign-and-trade deal.


:laugh:

Oh, the humanity.



> The Bulls did complete a sign-and-trade deal before last season that sent Jamal Crawford to the Knicks.
> 
> "We did that for two reasons -- *to get rid of a bad contract* and to change the direction of our team,'' Paxson said.


You mean the contract you signed Jamal to expressly to trade him to the Knicks?

This comment and the one about how any contract he signs Eddy to would for its duration count against the salary cap and the luxury tax threshhold if Eddy had to retire are flat-out worrisome.



> "And the only way we're only going to do this [sign-and-trade] is if we get something we really like in return. But right now, it's not my obligation [to contact the Knicks]. I'm not interested, so why would I make a telephone call.''


Reminder, John: the make-up of the Chicago Bulls' roster is your responsibility, not Eddy Curry's. You should make some calls.



> "It's negligent not to take the test,'' Paxson said. "Though it cannot rule anything out absolutely, it is something we all could use to help figure this out.''


Negligent? Did Pax really mean to use a word that strong, or did it just slip out by accident, like his Reggie Lewis comparison in the Score interview? The various doctors with whom Paxson's comfortable using their diagnosis as the basis for offering Eddy a contract don't want Eddy to take the DNA test -- are they negligent?



> "If that's the case, so be it,'' Rose said. "Eddy's prepared to play for the one year and proceed accordingly. It's been frustrating for Eddy, but I'm hopeful a deal can be worked out.''


The view that Eddy might take the QO and later re-up with the Bulls is pure pie-in-the-sky fantasy. If Pax doesn't get a multi-year deal or a sign-and-trade done, it's Eddy for one year with tons of distractions, then lose him for bupkus.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

scott, the bad contract pax was referring to in the sun-times article was that of JYD's. and the change the direction of the team comment was about jamal.


----------



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

Scott I think that bad contract that Pax was referring to was JYD's not Jamal's. 

In reference to Paxson improving the team, how does trading Curry for crap and bad contracts(Knicks) improve the team? Pax is pretty much stuck w/ letting the season play out. If Curry can play and improves his stock a trade latter in the season could net alot more than Curry does at the current time.

At this time, I think Paxson is doing the right thing. I don't see how signing Curry to a 3 deal at 10 million per is a smart move. If Curry can't play because of medical reasons, the Bulls don't get salary cap relief until two seasons after the year of his retirement. 

For those who see Paxson as an ogre, just think how far the 5 million Curry will make w/ QO would go with your budget.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Scott I think that bad contract that Pax was referring to was JYD's not Jamal's.
> 
> In reference to Paxson improving the team, how does trading Curry for crap and bad contracts(Knicks) improve the team? Pax is pretty much stuck w/ letting the season play out. If Curry can play and improves his stock a trade latter in the season could net alot more than Curry does at the current time.
> 
> ...



Seems like short-sighted thinking to me.

We're not going to contend this year. But Curry (or what Curry could net in a trade) should help us contend in 2-4 years if our guys continue to develop. Having him for 1 year @ a discount, if it means losing him for nothing at the end of the season, is a failure. Also, the QO limits Paxson's ability to trade Curry as I understand it.


LOL… I love the shift in attitude from Paxson. Going from the fatherly “we want what is best for Eddy” to the semi-shrewd hard-liner. Trying to play both sides of that fence in the Score interview was an amazing attempt on his part. Now he claims Eddy is being negligent. LOL. Unreal. Every doctor that we know of has cleared him to play. Even supposedly the 1 doctor out of the group of prominent doctors that wants to see the DNA test. And Eddy is being negligent? LOL. I guess if you keep saying DNA Test over and over again, that’s what people will talk about. The doctors have cleared him Paxson. Stop the smear.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> first off, apology accepted from scottmay, even though i'm not sure why the need for it.


You had expressed dismay in Eddy's having turned down the rumored Sam Smith deal (3 years, more than one years' worth guaranteed) and I said that given the latest development which said only the QO was on the table, it was highly doubtful that the Smith deal was ever offered. But we have it straight from the horse's mouth (Pax) that the three-year deal was in fact offered, turned down, and angrily rescinded, not used as a starting point for negotiation (as would be the case in most normal, non-dysfunctional places).



> and with all due respect to dabullz, but THIS is "negotiating through the press" courtesy of "bad bad leon brown, snarkiest agent in the whole damn town" - and pax should be angry. smacks of amateur hour to me. desperation writ large.


Wow . . . I couldn't disagree more. Maybe the mental image of Pax's stammering "you know" 50+ times in his Score interview is skewing my opinion, but in the Sun-Times piece in particular, Rose seems a lot more calm and coherent to me.



> and finally, i think LOB said it best, pax is putting the team before eddy and i think that is the right thing to do. sorry eddy lovers, we said it. i don't think the way pax has handled this situation will bode ill in the future vis a vis other free agents wanting to come to chicago. just because they weren't willing to give eddy, a questionable investment, a huge guaranteed contract.


Where is Curry shown asking for a huge guaranteed contract?

The Rose proposal is almost perfectly fair. We just don't know which percentage of the total dollar amount Rose wants guaranteed until the insurance carriers drop their exclusion of Eddy's heart. I'm sure Rose would have been willing to negotiate that figure, at least until Pax angrily and petulantly refused to negotiate and offered Eddy just the QO.

At some point Pax's "putting the team before Eddy" is going to be harmful to the team. He'll either need to withdraw the QO, leaving the team with a huge hole in the middle for 2006 and no easy way to replace him, or Eddy will play for the QO, be a giant distraction in the short term with no payoff -- he'll be bolting for the exits as soon as the year's up.

Can't say it strongly enough or too many times -- where the Bulls are going as an organization is Paxson's bailiwick, not Eddy Curry's or Leon Rose's. Pax needs to either arrive at a comfortable place where he can guarantee multiple years for Eddy, or he's got to pick up the phone -- the horror! -- and get a S&T going (a bad basketball decision, but better than losing Eddy for zilch).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

My bad for forgetting about JYD -- of course, it'd be real interesting to go back and see what Paxson said about that contract when it came in from Toronto, but I guess that's mean of me to say.


----------



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

kukoc4ever said:


> Seems like short-sighted thinking to me.
> 
> We're not going to contend this year. But Curry (or what Curry could net in a trade) should help us contend in 2-4 years if our guys continue to develop. Having him for 1 year @ a discount, if it means losing him for nothing at the end of the season, is a failure. Also, the QO limits Paxson's ability to trade Curry as I understand it.


 At this time what do you think the Bulls can get in return from Curry that will really help? I would also like to see how the QO restricts him from being traded. 

Short sighted would be a multi year contract to a player that has never shown huge amounts of desire with health issues and a history for doing as little as possible to improve his game. The fact that Curry isn't playing full court basketball this off season to protect himself from injury, tells me that playing ball isn't as important to Curry as making money. Ballers play. Curry has never been accused of being a gym rat. I have always questioned Curry's desire, the health issues are just another red flag. But it's just my opinion.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Do people here understand business practices at all?

Eddy Curry had an entire summer to find an offer that suited his appetite from one of the several teams with cap space including one whose star player wanted him on board. Yet no contract offer ever arrived. Pax is playing this the right way. Why pony up for Curry now when if he is healthy? He'll play like he did this past year because its a new contract year. This boils down to two things...

1)nobody else has made a play for Eddy Curry so why continously outbid yourself
2)there is no other G.M. that felt comfortable giving Eddy Curry a long-term deal 

Why outbid yourself? Why offer a contract to a guy who may never be able to fulfill that contract? Why not ask for the DNA test? It's ridiculous to blame Pax in this situation and sometimes I'm under the impression that people here really just like to ***** at the front office (who have made their share of mistakes).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> I would also like to see how the QO restricts him from being traded.


EDIT: See kukoc4ever's following post.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> At this time what do you think the Bulls can get in return from Curry that will really help? I would also like to see how the QO restricts him from being traded.


Here's where I'm getting the QO stuff from. Please correct me if I'm off.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#84



> In addition, teams cannot trade players under the following circumstances:
> 
> * When the player is playing under a one-year contract and will have Larry Bird or Early Bird rights at the end of the contract. Note: This includes first round draft picks following their fourth (option) season, who accept their team's qualifying offer for their fifth season.


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#36



> Most teams won't even bother signing first round picks coming off their fourth season to offer sheets, because it is often a given that the offer will be matched by the original team. So if the player really wants to leave, he can accept his original team's qualifying offer, which constitutes a one-year contract at a scale salary. *The player must play with his original team for one more season, but following that season he will be an unrestricted free agent, and can then sign with any other team.* For example, Michael Olowokandi accepted the LA Clippers' qualifying offer prior to the 02-03 season. He was then an unrestricted free agent in 2003, and signed with Minnesota


This may have changed in the new CBA though.

As for what we could get. I'd take Sweetney over nothing, which it seems like what we're heading towards. But, what I'd like to see is Paxson beating the bushes and trying to get a trade done if he's not going to sign him. He's not calling anyone? "I won't trade Eddy Curry?" What the hell is that? That's just not doing your job, IMO. 




L.O.B said:


> Short sighted would be a multi year contract to a player that has never shown huge amounts of desire with health issues and a history for doing as little as possible to improve his game. The fact that Curry isn't playing full court basketball this off season to protect himself from injury, tells me that playing ball isn't as important to Curry as making money. Ballers play. Curry has never been accused of being a gym rat. I have always questioned Curry's desire, the health issues are just another red flag. But it's just my opinion.


1.) Players that are going into FA usually don't play full court basketball to prevent injury. Chandler was not playing either.

2.) The offer that Curry's agent is proposing seems fair. The Bulls are covered if Eddy can't get an insurance policy for his situation. Eddy gets a nice payday if he can get this insurance. The percentage needs to be negotiated, but it seems like a reasonable starting point. 

3.) And yah, I don't think Curry is a gym rat either. But he's effective when he plays, and difficult to replace. That's what counts.


----------



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

Scott

If Curry gets the deal that he wants and health doesn't allow him to play, would you be a little pissed that we have 10 million invested in a non playing Curry that would restrict us from picking up a quality player, Peja for example?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

L.O.B said:


> Scott
> 
> If Curry gets the deal that he wants and health doesn't allow him to play, would you be a little pissed that we have 10 million invested in a non playing Curry that would restrict us from picking up a quality player, Peja for example?


If Curry cant play due to his heart he will only get a percentage of that .Im thinking Eddy would be willing to accept maybe 50% or less of whatever deal he signs if he cant play due to heat related issues but the Bulls seems to want him to fork over everything which I think is the actual root of the problem .


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

I think Pax is doing the right thing. Eddy was even inconsistent last year although overall he was improving. Watching last year's team, it was obvious that Eddy is only a key part of a team and certainly not indispensable. He provides excellent low post offense on a fairly consistent basis. He has below average basketball instincts and will always struggle with defensive positioning and rebounding ( except in spurts). The big danger with Eddy is locking up too much of the salary cap long term because he does not have a strong work ethic. Having said that, I believe this group of teammates and coaches could get enough out of Eddy that , if healthy, he can be an asset on a championship contender. No longer, though, is the Bulls future dependent on Curry. Deng and Gordon are more important as is the missing piece that salry cap room hopefully ewill provide in the next couple of years. 

Also just because Eddy will be a free agent at the end of the year doesn't mean the Bulls won't be able to sign him. Money talks and if Eddy and the Bulls play well this year then Eddy may get the contract he wants. Keep in mind that unless a team has salary cap room then Eddy would still need a sign and trade. Just because a franchise has cap room doesn't mean they will go after Eddy. Look at Atlanta. Teams are smarter these days as they have seen the impact of signing bad free agents. Until Eddy shows more consistency, his value will be less than he thinks it should be. GM's don't want to sign the next Candy man or even Rasho.

Pax still has leverage and he is using it to the Bulls best advantage. Curry is replaceable.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i'm not sure i understand those who are taking the position that pax should be the one to facilitate a trade for eddy. huh? pax should pick up the phone? beat the bushes? take on another team's garbage? why? there was an offer on the table, with incentives and eddy dismissed it. next option is the QO, OR getting a team with PLAYERS WE ACTUALLY WANT (preferably in the WC) to come up with a S&T scenario.

sorry, but i just don't see how that last option falls on pax. i really don't. 

so instead, pax is vilified cause he won't trade eddy, yet he was perfectly willing to sign him to a deal that had incentives that, if met, could have meant more $$$ for "camp curry". weren't sign and trade scenarios explored last season before the deadline but nobody either bit or offered up anything with equivalent value? 

meanwhile, i did just get my tickets to see the bulls @ knicks on november 30th! :biggrin: :greatjob:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Scott
> 
> If Curry gets the deal that he wants and health doesn't allow him to play, would you be a little pissed that we have 10 million invested in a non playing Curry that would restrict us from picking up a quality player, Peja for example?


If my understanding of the Bulls' salary cap position is accurate, and the scenario you describe unfolds, we would still have enough money to pay a single player something pretty close to a max contract and room enough to execute a sign-and-trade for a similarly compensated player. If they let Curry walk, they'll basically have a salary cap vacuum that'll need to be filled by wildly overpaying marginal players. And it's our misfortune that we'll have loads of cap space to spend on a mediocre free agent class (kind of like having 6 picks in the 2000 draft).

FWIW, I would consider bringing in Peja at anything even close to a max contract to be a disastrous decision. His best years are behind him, he'd be old/highly paid/untradeable for the last 2-3 years of the contract, he's embarrassingly un-clutch, and he plays the exact same position as the player on our team who I believe has the highest upside and star quality, Luol Deng.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Among other things, why does Paxson have any business being *angry* that Curry found a sign-and-trade partner? Paxson said go ahead and find the best deal you can!


Pax is angry, there's no doubt about that. But Mike, I think you're completely off here. He's angry that Curry's camp (most notably Leon Rose) has gone public with the negotiations so openly, NOT the fact that they went out and found a S&T partner (btw, LOL that it's Zeke...again!). Rose has come out with comments about "trading Eddy now or losing him for nothing" as a way to gain leverage through the press. Contrary to what DaBullz likes to say around here, Pax likes keeping negotations as low-key as possible. Firsthand evidence is how the Chandler negotiations happened with very little noise; same goes with Duhon (and probably would've happened w/ Skiles if not for his agent venting on the radio). And just listen to Pax's radio interviews; he's constantly using vague language to describe his contract discussions and rarely goes into any detail.


----------



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

TRUTHHURTS said:


> If Curry cant play due to his heart he will only get a percentage of that .Im thinking Eddy would be willing to accept maybe 50% or less of whatever deal he signs if he cant play due to heat related issues but the Bulls seems to want him to fork over everything which I think is the actual root of the problem .


Truth does the salary cap acknowledge a buy out? I don't remember the Bulls getting salary cap relief from the Erobbery buyout.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i'm not sure i understand those who are taking the position that pax should be the one to facilitate a trade for eddy. huh? pax should pick up the phone? beat the bushes? take on another team's garbage? why? there was an offer on the table, with incentives and eddy dismissed it. next option is the QO, OR getting a team with PLAYERS WE ACTUALLY WANT (preferably in the WC) to come up with a S&T scenario.
> 
> sorry, but i just don't see how that last option falls on pax. i really don't.
> 
> ...


I completely agree w/ everything you've said in this thread, mizenkay. Mucho gracias for saving me the time to type it. :biggrin:

Given Eddy's circumstances, I would think it's the agent's job to find a S&T partner which he apparently did in Zeke (*chuckles softly*). Now the ball is in Zeke's court to make us an offer that's worth our while.

Then again, maybe Pax would just rather have Eddy as the Bulls center. So much for that talk of Pax never wanting Eddy.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

L.O.B said:


> Truth does the salary cap acknowledge a buy out? I don't remember the Bulls getting salary cap relief from the Erobbery buyout.


Yes it would it would very similar to haveing a partially guaranteed contract in that certain requirments would have to be met if they are not the Bulls could exercise their option to void and Curry gets instead of 9 million he gets 4 million.But it seems to me that the Bulls are saying eddy if u have anymore heart troubles we dont want to have to pay anything but we would like to rent u for the next couple of years at a discount rate until we find something better .


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Do people here understand business practices at all?
> 
> Eddy Curry had an entire summer to find an offer that suited his appetite from one of the several teams with cap space including one whose star player wanted him on board. Yet no contract offer ever arrived. Pax is playing this the right way. Why pony up for Curry now when if he is healthy? He'll play like he did this past year because its a new contract year. This boils down to two things...
> 
> ...


Why did we outbid ourselves on Chandler than? We should have just offered Chandler QO money over 6 years, and tell him to take it, or take the QO. Why a change? Eddy's been cleared to play by quite a few doctors. Why didn't Paxson tell us about the doctor clearing him in Boston? How come we sucked so badly in the playoffs? How come the 3-year deal can't be a possible deal anymore? Most teams sign their free agents within the first 2 weeks, how come you seem to be itching your butt and flinging your fecies at your coworked instead of doing business? If Eddy Curry is such a threat to die, how come he hasn't croaked in one of his intense daily workouts with Tim Grover? How come you won't plan a meeting with Eddy and Leon Rose and actually sit down with Eddy, isn't that standard practice? Is Malik Allen a suitable replacement? How does signing scrubs and Songaila while either losing or getting back a disgruntled center make the team better? Does this prove that a color commentator doesn't belong as a pro sports GM? How come its not your job to makeup the team, and make phone calls? Did BJ Armstrong do your job for you last year? If Eddy and Leon Rose are in charge of the make up of the team, than how come they can't sign Eddy to a max contract?

So many unanswered questions.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Pax is angry, there's no doubt about that. But Mike, I think you're completely off here. He's angry that Curry's camp (most notably Leon Rose) has gone public with the negotiations so openly, NOT the fact that they went out and found a S&T partner (btw, LOL that it's Zeke...again!).


Pax was going public with negotiations himself. Talking up the DNA test, pooh-poohing the expertise of the doctors that cleared Eddy. Saying maybe it was best for Eddy to take the QO. Talking all kinds of nonsense in that SCORE interview the other day.

Then he's all pissy when the other side does the same thing? That's naive and hypocritical.



> Rose has come out with comments about "trading Eddy now or losing him for nothing" as a way to gain leverage through the press.


Could you explain how this is somehow worse than the Bulls using the restricted free agency process to gain leverage in signing their players? Or how Paxson's comments that they will "match all offers" and that other teams are "wasting their time" with sign and trade offers and that they "won't make a deal unless they get something good back" aren't ways to get leverage through the press?

Of course they are. They're all means of discouraging other teams from going after Eddy (and the other Bulls FAs). And they are done through statements to the press.



> Contrary to what DaBullz likes to say around here, Pax likes keeping negotations as low-key as possible. Firsthand evidence is how the Chandler negotiations happened with very little noise; same goes with Duhon (and probably would've happened w/ Skiles if not for his agent venting on the radio). And just listen to Pax's radio interviews; he's constantly using vague language to describe his contract discussions and rarely goes into any detail.


Pax likes keeping negotiations as favorable to him as possible. That means putting out information that gets him all the leverage he can get. And in that I can hardly fault him, but the moral outrage card when the other side does the same thing is silly.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

truth said:


> First let me start out by saying I @#&$*#* hate agents..
> 
> Curry's agent is *100% wrong* regarding the DNA test....People,this matter is not about $$$$$ and contracts.It is about a young mans life,which may or not be at stake.His health and welfare should be everyones first priority.No medical test regarding the heart is 100% conclusive,but Eddy should have all available information before he steps on the court...


Paxson doesn't feel his life is in danger. If he did, his stance would be/have been that Eddy Curry must take the DNA test to play for the Bulls again. That is not his stance so either (a) he does not think Curry is a significant health risk, or (b) doesn't give a rat's tail about Curry's health.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> If Pax's comments in the Trib and on the Score made me upset, his thoughts as recorded by the Sun-Times today made me laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This has already been pointed out. While it was Pax who got the JYD contract in the first place, it got rid of the even uglier Rose contract. So, it took two moves to fully purge a bad financial situation. Okey Dokee. 




ScottMay said:


> This comment and the one about how any contract he signs Eddy to would for its duration count against the salary cap and the luxury tax threshhold if Eddy had to retire are flat-out worrisome.


It doesn't appear to the the duration, but there are valid salary cap concerns it seems.



ScottMay said:


> Reminder, John: the make-up of the Chicago Bulls' roster is your responsibility, not Eddy Curry's. You should make some calls.


If he knows he doesn't want to do the Knicks deal, then it seems silly to say that he should make calls anyway. Perhaps he knows he wants to hang on to Eddy or does not want to seem willing/eager to move him. Making calls could be damaging. Pax is not a telemarketer by trade.



ScottMay said:


> Negligent? Did Pax really mean to use a word that strong, or did it just slip out by accident, like his Reggie Lewis comparison in the Score interview? The various doctors with whom Paxson's comfortable using their diagnosis as the basis for offering Eddy a contract don't want Eddy to take the DNA test -- are they negligent?


If he believes that the DNA test could potentially save Eddy's life, then I don't see any problem with him saying it's negligent to not take it. 




ScottMay said:


> The view that Eddy might take the QO and later re-up with the Bulls is pure pie-in-the-sky fantasy. If Pax doesn't get a multi-year deal or a sign-and-trade done, it's Eddy for one year with tons of distractions, then lose him for bupkus.


I do agree that it is unlikely that Eddy would re-up with the Bulls after taking the QO unless he can't get good offers from other teams. However, the Bulls may have some control over this based on how large an offer they're willing to make after that year. Generally speaking, players go where they can make the most money.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

It's the persistence of Rose of trying to get the same sign and trade proposal through Paxson even though he has rejected it before, that's pissing him off. I have no doubt in my mind that he's getting lowballed and subsequent trade proposals offered only improved slightly all including Sweetney and junk.

A GM's job is to hear all offers so he can't just cut off the rest of the NBA and say "no S&T offers anymore for Curry" no matter how annoying it gets.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Pax was going public with negotiations himself. Talking up the DNA test, pooh-poohing the expertise of the doctors that cleared Eddy. Saying maybe it was best for Eddy to take the QO. Talking all kinds of nonsense in that SCORE interview the other day.
> 
> Then he's all pissy when the other side does the same thing? That's naive and hypocritical.


When Pax is talking about the medical stuff, I don't take that as him going public with negotiations. In a way, you're right because it's tied in with the contract stuff. But for him to come out and say "we'd like Eddy to take the DNA test since it might aid in hammering out a deal"...I don't know, I just don't see much wrong with that. He's in no way referencing things that are going on behind closed doors to make Eddy look like the bad guy, while I feel like agents try to do that to Pax (as well as GM's in general). 




> Could you explain how this is somehow worse than the Bulls using the restricted free agency process to gain leverage in signing their players? Or how Paxson's comments that they will "match all offers" and that other teams are "wasting their time" with sign and trade offers and that they "won't make a deal unless they get something good back" aren't ways to get leverage through the press?
> 
> Of course they are. They're all means of discouraging other teams from going after Eddy (and the other Bulls FAs). And they are done through statements to the press.


Again, I don't see what's the big deal about Pax saying, "we plan on matching all offers". I took that to me that he likes our free agents and really wants them to be back here. Besides, I highly doubt it was Paxson's statements of matching all offers that scared potential suitors away. I think it had alot more to do that very few teams had the cap room to sign Tyson & Eddy outright (hence why Duhon got an offer, while neither of them did). The restricted free agent process, by nature, gives the team leverage in signing their own free agents; it's up to the GM's to take advantage of it since it's luxury allotted to them. Venting to the press, however, is not "the right way" to gain leverage. 




> Pax likes keeping negotiations as favorable to him as possible. That means putting out information that gets him all the leverage he can get. And in that I can hardly fault him, but the moral outrage card when the other side does the same thing is silly.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The view that Eddy might take the QO and later re-up with the Bulls is pure pie-in-the-sky fantasy. If Pax doesn't get a multi-year deal or a sign-and-trade done, it's Eddy for one year with tons of distractions, then lose him for bupkus.


I stand by my comments yesterday. If (and only if) the Bulls provide Eddy Curry with the most money next summer when he's an unrestricted FA, I think it's highly unlikely he jets for somewhere else. The kid wants to get paid. He won't let principles get in the way of that, methinks.

And if Eddy is in as poor physical condition as I speculate he will be come training camp, then a sub-par season for him could really scare off suitors next summer. This reeks of Michael Olowokandi's situation of several years ago.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I stand by my comments yesterday. If (and only if) the Bulls provide Eddy Curry with the most money next summer when he's an unrestricted FA, I think it's highly unlikely he jets for somewhere else. The kid wants to get paid. He won't let principles get in the way of that, methinks.
> 
> And if Eddy is in as poor physical condition as I speculate he will be come training camp, then a sub-par season for him could really scare off suitors next summer. This reeks of Michael Olowokandi's situation of several years ago.



Eddy's been working out with Tim Grover for nearly 3 months, why would he come to camp out of shape?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Among other things, why does Paxson have any business being *angry* that Curry found a sign-and-trade partner? Paxson said go ahead and find the best deal you can!


You are taking significant liberties with what has been reported. Both the Trib and the Sun Times stated that Paxson was angry that Rose made the offer public. Not that Paxson was angry that an offer may have been made by the Knicks. 

As for your list of 4 conclusions, I think you are leaving one very distinct possibility out. 

Perhaps Dr. Maron has firmly advised the Bulls that Eddy needs the DNA test before he can be cleared to play. Indeed, this is precisely what the Tribune reported in this very article and it would go a long way to explaining the logic of the Bulls position. Further, the Sun Times article quotes Paxson as saying one of Curry's own physicians has recommended, twice, that he submit to the DNA test.

As I stated in the other thread, there are significant inconsistencies in what is being reported at this time as to the medical issues, the physicians' clearance or denial thereof, and the nature of the contracts that have been offered/rejected.

Based on that, I think a significant number of posts in this thread, *on both sides of the argument*, are jumping the gun.

Let me give one example of the recent inconsistencies:

The Trib has Paxson saying:



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


In this context, the suggestion is that Paxson doesn't think part of his job is initiating contact to explore deals which, as Scott May pointed out, is idiotic. Of course its part of Paxson's job. Its a huge part of his job.

Now, lets look at the Sun Times:



> "But right now, it's not my obligation [to contact the Knicks]. I'm not interested, so why would I make a telephone call.''


This report (which includes a larger portion, and therefore better context, for the quote) suggests that Paxson made the statement only in response to the Knicks' offer that was relayed to him by Rose. I.e., Rose told me the Knicks' offer, I thought it was garbage, so why would I follow up with a call? Presented this way, the statement is nothing but reasonable.

Let me say it another way; you guys ever read "Rashomon"? :biggrin:


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

i like this deal,what do you guys think?

Davis,Pike and curry(resigned to Nocioni type money)

for

Penny,Sweetney and Frye

everyone agrees davis isnt going to play much this year,nither will pike,and the bulls just want to cut ties with curry.

from what i can tell penny isnt going to play much this year for NY,they already offerd Sweetney from the reports,and frye takes the place of the 1st rd pick but also give us more value for curry now.so really its curry and pike for Sweetney and Frye with davis being swaped for penny so we dont have to many bigs yet wont leave NY with to few..

KH,DH,Pargo
BG,Penny,EB
Deng,Nocioni,Griffin?
Sweetney,Songaila,OH,Allen
TC,Frye

i think thats a very nice roster,very deep with all base's coverd,all of our bigs "COULD" play either PF or C.i think this deal gives us good value for curry,wouldnt lose to much in the way of cap space in 06.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> A complete and utter falsehood on several levels.
> 
> http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#51


Am I misreading this? I read this to mean that Curry's salary *would count against the Bulls capspace for two years* if he has a career ending injury. Is that right?

Because if it is, then this paraphrased statement of Paxson's that you express such concern with is actually right on the money. 

Lets say the Bulls guaranty Eddy for 2-3 years. In January, he goes down for good due to heart problems. The guaranteed portion of his contract does count against the Bulls in both 2006 and 2007 in seeking free agents. *These are the only two summers (and probably on 2006) in which the Bulls will have any capspace.* Subsequent years mean nothing to the team, which very well could be what Paxson is referring to. The paraphrased statement is not particular to duration. 

So, its not a falsehood at all by my reading. The only perplexing thing about this is your declaration that Paxson is lying when, based on your own quoted material, he is not. Unless, of course, I am misreading the rule you cite, which is possible. If you have a different interpretation, please share it.

Also, I think this is all contingent on the player agreeing to "retire". I recall Orlando tried this several times with Hill but he wouldn't do it because he believed he could come back and play in the future. Based on Curry's conduct so far, I think its very likely that he would resist declaring himself unable to play in the future.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

If Eddy is only worth the QO to Pax, then a deal with Sweetney in it is more than enough to satisfy that value. How can you get anything for Eddy on the open market, when everyone knows that you don't value the player?

Pax literally seems to be talking out both sides of his *** on every issue.

And as far as the DNA test, if the Bulls are really demanding that, then the NBA player's Union should get involved, because the slippery slope of allowing any team to make a player take a DNA test, to determine the future, is on some Gattaca, Brave New World ****, and definitely does not need to be happening.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> If Eddy is only worth the QO to Pax, then a deal with Sweetney in it is more than enough to satisfy that value. How can you get anything for Eddy on the open market, when everyone knows that you don't value the player?
> 
> Pax literally seems to be talking out both sides of his *** on every issue.


this is exactly what I was thinking as well . Hes worth no more than a one year guaranteed deal around the Mle for pax but youre not gonna give him away in a trade so youre seeking a player worth more than the Mle in return while telling curry hes too much of a risk to be paid the amount of his actual value ?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> this is exactly what I was thinking as well . Hes worth no more than a one year guaranteed deal around the Mle for pax but youre not gonna give him away in a trade so youre seeking a player worth more than the Mle in return while telling curry hes too much of a risk to be paid the amount of his actual value ?


 This is known to many here on the board as the "Paxson Rules"


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> And as far as the DNA test, if the Bulls are really demanding that, then the NBA player's Union should get involved, because the slippery slope of allowing any team to make a player take a DNA test, to determine the future, is on some Gattaca, Brave New World ****, and definitely does not need to be happening.


It will be interesting to see if the NBA Players's Association gets involved....


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> It will be interesting to see if the NBA Players's Association gets involved....


Unless the CBA has a provision that would govern this circumstance, which it might, the NBAPA has no standing to object.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Unless the CBA has a provision that would govern this circumstance, which it might, the NBAPA has no standing to object.


IMHO, that's not true. Odd issues have come up and go to arbitration.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

spongyfungy said:


> This is known to many here on the board as the "Paxson Rules"


The existence of the sweet deal Chandler got with no competing offer sheet from any other team makes these shots at Paxson laughably baseless.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The existence of the sweet deal Chandler got with no competing offer sheet from any other team makes these shots at Paxson laughably baseless.


So you are comfortable about our GM going on radio and being so inprecise, at best, about Curry's situation and "getting mad" about the other side, whom have been above board, IMHO, during negotiations.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Re : _Paxson's non obligation to cold call teams _

Its not if you accept the context 

And the context is is that he doesn't want to deal him for crap and crap is all Eddy will return right now .

Fact.

The only thing you can get for Eddy right now is Mike Sweetney ( as I reported 2 weeks ago and got scoffed at ) or Chris Mihm

Both these guys have been standing principals in Eddy Curry sign and trades and Pax is not interested in contacting these other teams to make it happen

His view.. which I can't confirm as fact , is that the QO is the best route and where he still likes his chances of retention next summer given that the only teams he will be competing against with outright cap space will be 

1. Atlanta
2.New Orleans 
3. Charlotte

Given the commitments that Atlanta have given Zaza, will likely give Jason Collier , with another high draft pick where they will likely go for a big , and the recent summer experience with Eddy Curry.. it would be unlikely that Atlanta will come back hard with big dough if Eddy can provide comfort re insurance and health

New Orleans won't be committing any big money to free agents for sometime..at least they won't next summer given the economic structure of the city is basically destroyed

Charlotte ...building franchise with lower salary caps and building through draft picks and lower priced veteran free agents..so no

The real liklihood ..is outside all of the insults,slights,hand wringing and teeth gnashing.. Pax can afford to be patient and outmuscle the other side in the battle of wills in what is being insisted upon in how he deems he wants to play it

He's hardlining and nut squeezing..and he can , because he knows that outside the current storm in a tea cup he is still best positioned to give the money up next season if he can be satisfied with what and how he wants to be satisfied to

And if Camp Curry want to be immature and see red next summer when they were looking for blue sky this summer and all there is green that the Bulls may be prepared to offer if they can be satisfied.... then if they still have sign and trade offers knocking down their door that are of beter quality than what if on offer now ... guess what ?

Pax still won't be obligated to cold call teams to make it happen in this context if he wants to keep Eddy Curry and Atlanta,Charlotte and New Orleans aren't paying



Re : _ Falsities and misreps on cap impacts _

I personally would classify 2 years of dead wood at $7M - $8M per as _significant_

Paxson hasn't mis'repped anything

It is (IMO) an incorrect "stick the slipper in" type accusation made by an animated and angry ScottMay

There are no half measures (and nor should there be) isn saying " hey its still OK we can still afford $12M in a crap free agency class if Eddy has to retire"

Fact is we could retain a lot more and be operating or have the capacity to operate the business *optimally* and if you did not like your options in free agency then you still remain open for receipt of quality you may be seeking in trades. Given that you have kept optimum capacity you still leave some pretty significant options open that would be denuded if Eddy Curry had to retire and sucked up a maximum of 2 years worth of space that encumbered optimal capacity in your dealings

Pax is right on on this and hasn't falsified or misrepped anything across "multiple levels of wrong doingness"

Re : _The ethical/legal issue of we'll let you play for short and cheap without the DNA test ..its just that we insist upon it if we sign you for more money and for longer _

I will point out that the QO is part of a legally enforceable current contract that Paxson cannot withdraw without agreement from Eddy Curry

Paxson can't condition that contract that he is legally obliged to make available now on further medical testing he wants Eddy Curry to have 

He can ( or at least he can try ) to condition such testing ( the DNA ) on a new contract he proposes to offer 

Big difference 

Have any of you actually considered that perhaps Camp Curry wouldn't agree to the withdrawal of the Qualifying Offer of $5.1M because its the only guaranteed money that Eddy Curry has on the table

If Paxson were agree to its withdrawal Camp Curry would need to get a full MLE offer from somebody for 1 season to at least break even and would need to get a long term deal at the MLE to break ahead

Guess what ?

The only team that wants to guarantee him long term is the Knicks who have already spent their MLE on Jerome James 

The Lakers allegedly were prepared to guarantee around 16M to $20M over 2 seasons. Given their term of gtee is important , they could now only offer $11M over 2 years if they had their whole MLE available 

So..Pax is under no obligation to withdraw the current remaining leg of Eddy's contract and can't anyway without Camp Curry's agreeance if he was torn on "the moral / ethical issue". And I bet you London to a brick that this is the last thing Camp Curry wants and would never agree to a rescinded QO making Eddy UFA right now which would leave them up shyte creek without a paddle

The real test of John Paxson's ethical mettle will be next summer and I don't believe he will budge on his insistence on what he wants to be satisfied 

Re : _ Negligence_

Paxson is completely within his rights to bring this word out into the open and I applaud him for having the stones to put it out there

How do any of you know that notwithstanding various medical opinion that the reports are disclaimed from liability ?

If it were your job ..your money .. would you be prepared to put your business at risk from a lawsuit from the estate of the deceased ( worse case scenario ).. these are the financial/legal ramifications seperate from the moral/ethical considerations as I outlined above on the previous point

I mean is your total business worth this totality of risk for one small part of it.. a part one could argue is not even "the heart" of your business ( pardon the pun )

I mean maybe a person charged with these responsibilities could be satisfied if you had recourse on the professional indemnity insurance of the various specialist opinion providers if they haven't disclaimed the crap out of their reports 

But if you have to think in those terms in making your decisions do you really want to go there in that type of reliance ?

And on top of that would Camp Curry and all the beneficiaries in Eddy Curry's will be prepared to sign a blanket waiver against the organisation if they signed him to a contract without further medical testing that _may or may not..but may_ be helpful in providing further information on the health of Eddy Curry in the context of him engaging in this type of physical activity long term ?

I mean we've heard the "hey it doesn't matter" opinion . Cool. What do the beneficiaries of Eddy Curry's last will and testament have to say about that? Would they be cool and provide waiver of possible claim against the employer, that , in theory would be worth tons of millions more than the nominal face value of a contract 

And if your faced with that to protect yourself as well so you really want to go there as well as PI recourse coverage to protect yourself

I brought up this negligence issue a couple of weeks ago and received no debate/opinion back on the issue on this board

I'm glad that Paxson has had the balls to put it out there and it has piqued some debate on what should be a very real issue in the considerations of "what to do with Eddy Curry"

Maybe its boredom..nothing to talk about in the offseason of whatever as to why this has basically been the only thing to talk about all summer..but I do think that the hyperbolic overreaction and wrongful (IMO) analysis/comment on Pax is way off base

He's doing exactly as he should


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Wow. Nice post! SKOC!!


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

I was under the impression Eddy would rather take a DNA test, risk a max offer to Atlanta, than sign a QO.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

A+++ post, Sausage King! In particular, you echo my position on the Bulls having the upperhand next summer if Eddy proves he's worth re-signing. Health issues aside, Eddy's entering his 5th NBA season; yet another year of inconsistency, poor rebounding, and massive turnovers will make teams really question his ability to be a reliable player. That means very few [good] offers for Eddy to consider next summer.


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

If Paxson offers 3 years, Lakers are out. Curry wants to play in either New York, L.A. or Chicago.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> A+++ post, Sausage King! In particular, you echo my position on the Bulls having the upperhand next summer if Eddy proves he's worth re-signing. Health issues aside, Eddy's entering his 5th NBA season; yet another year of inconsistency, poor rebounding, and massive turnovers will make teams really question his ability to be a reliable player. That means very few [good] offers for Eddy to consider next summer.


 Actually, it seems like the cap environment and the teams that have space will have a lot more to do with it than Curry's play, IMO. He's the #2 PER guy on our team, #3 in EFF and the team does well with him playing. 

I wonder if the Atlantas and New Orleans and Charlottes of the world would be more interested in Chandler? Does not seem to be the case, IMO, given the lack of offers Chandler received and the stages of development/economic situations of the teams that Sausage mentioned. Seems like the same argument that King made could be made for Chandler as well. 

Could Paxson have saved the team even more money by going hardline with Chandler?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, it seems like the cap environment and the teams that have space will have a lot more to do with it than Curry's play, IMO. He's the #2 PER guy on our team, #3 in EFF and the team does well with him playing.


That was all with Curry being in the best shape of his life. To also answer sloth's question a few posts back, I think it's very noteworthy that Eddy's 2-3 months of complete and utter inactivity from April-July will really hurt him this season. It's also been reported that Eddy still isn't playing full court basketball since he doesn't have a contract. When you also consider any mental setbacks due to the heart stuff, my gut tells me Eddy won't have an all too stellar season. Only way to know though is to wait and see.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, it seems like the cap environment and the teams that have space will have a lot more to do with it than Curry's play, IMO. He's the #2 PER guy on our team, #3 in EFF and the team does well with him playing.
> 
> I wonder if the Atlantas and New Orleans and Charlottes of the world would be more interested in Chandler? Does not seem to be the case, IMO, given the lack of offers Chandler received and the stages of development/economic situations of the teams that Sausage mentioned. Seems like the same argument that King made could be made for Chandler as well.
> 
> Could Paxson have saved the team even more money by going hardline with Chandler?


Wasn't an issue and was never going to be an issue with Chandler 

Once he proved durability over the season with his back .. even though he didn't receive offers , Chandler was always going to get his 

And if Eddy Curry's heart didn't flare up as an issue I am pretty confident that Eddy Curry would have got the same money all guaranteed 

What you are saying about Pax in how he could have played the Chandler situation similarly with Curry implies that Pax is dealing in bad faith and on a commercially unfair platform - designed to screw the player 

No evidence of that in the Chandler situation as he doesn't have the same question marks / issues hovering over him as Curry does 

For the fact that teams didn't offer for Chandler had nothing to do with it .. they soughted our a deal at market value which was what they wanted and what he was prepared to pay.. that , in the circumstances wass the making of a "a market"

Therefore with both teams being happy there was no need to string your guy along to next summer because you still have the upper hand . Just get it done which is what happended. End of story 

Your also not acknowledging that in the absence of this rather significant bunch of issues surrounding Eddy Curry and all the various implications that John Paxson never intended to deal with him on a comparable level to Tyson Chandler 

I think its fair to speculate that that intention was there is everything was equal

But its not


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> Wasn't an issue and was never going to be an issue with Chandler
> 
> Once he proved durability over the season with his back .. even though he didn't receive offers , Chandler was always going to get his
> 
> ...


I agree with what you write here.

I'm just asking a hypothetical. Would the technique you describe, banking on those teams not wanting to pay for a big man, then dealing from a position of power, let them find a S+T if they want... would it be equally effective with Chandler? If the only teams were Atl, NO and Char, then the answer would probably be yes I would think. Atl can't be that interested in Chandler... since they seemingly didn't persue him this summer. NO and Char would be out of the race for the same reasons you mention above. It would seem to work for the same reasons and save the Bulls potentially even more money than employing it with Curry.

I'm ignoring the human feelings cost... and yah... Chandler is a more valuable commidity at this point and perhaps that makes the risk of using the above technique not worth it... I was just wondering if you thought it would work for the same reasons... assuming of course both players are healthy and have seasons like they had last year.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

yodurk said:


> A+++ post, Sausage King! In particular, you echo my position on the Bulls having the upperhand next summer if Eddy proves he's worth re-signing. Health issues aside, Eddy's entering his 5th NBA season; yet another year of inconsistency, poor rebounding, and massive turnovers will make teams really question his ability to be a reliable player. That means very few [good] offers for Eddy to consider next summer.



Yeah teams are always thinking hard about big man's faults during free agency. :rollseyes:
If Jerome James can get the full MLE, and Kwame Brown can get a decent deal after being kicked off of his team in the playoffs and not showing one iota of what Eddy has shown...then I don't think Eddy has much to worry about next year. All he has to do is not die, and he will make more money next year than what Paxson is offering.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree with what you write here.
> 
> I'm just asking a hypothetical. Would the technique you describe, banking on those teams not wanting to pay for a big man, then dealing from a position of power, let them find a S+T if they want.


But they didn't want to S and T Chandler nor Curry ( before the heart issues crept up )

Pax still doesn't want to S and T Curry 

He was on record all through the course of last year saying that other teams would be wasting their time because it was his intention to retain them 

I repeat it was never his intention to develop these two guys as assets for the purposes of S and T .. and the actuality of what happened with Chandler confirms this

And it would have been exactly the same thing with Eddy Curry if all things were equal 

All the pointers are that he wants to retain him if he can get comfortable as to his health issues

What I was saying originally was that S and T options next summer with Eddy are likely to be rebuffed as well if Pax still wants to keep him and he get comfortable with his health issues to a level that he requires .. meaning he is under no obligation to S and T Eddy now .. nor will he be next summer either for a capped out team that wants him and can't pay him what he might demand due to their own salary cap restrictions


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> So, its not a falsehood at all by my reading. The only perplexing thing about this is your declaration that Paxson is lying when, based on your own quoted material, he is not. Unless, of course, I am misreading the rule you cite, which is possible. If you have a different interpretation, please share it.


This may be as much sloppy reporting as anything else, but after hearing Pax squirm, evade, and triangulate on the Score interview, I'm not sure. But I am aware of the two-year rule, although I seem to remember hearing that it might be getting tweaked in the new agreement.



> According to sources, Rose's counteroffer to Paxson is based on the premise that Curry would ask for $70 million over *six years *if not for his heart condition. While Curry is not insurable this season, Rose wants guaranteed money, in line with the aforementioned dollar figure, if an insurance company drops the heart exclusion later.
> 
> At a minimum, he wants Curry to receive a percentage of $70 million if the heart condition ends his career prematurely.
> 
> ...


That -- the six-year contract -- won't work for the Bulls, because even with insurance, the entirety of the six-year contract will count against the salary cap and luxury tax (which the Bulls have a very low probability of breaching). 

That's how I read it. I mean, he couldn't have been talking about the one-year deal, because while that would still count against the cap if Eddy had to retire, it wouldn't have any effect on Cap Space 2006. And the three-year deal is off the table. So I took this to mean that Pax was commenting on the six-year deal that Curry is seeking.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> All the pointers are that he wants to retain him if he can get comfortable as to his health issues


To the contrary -- all the pointers are that Paxson will forget about the health issues if Eddy gets comfortable with signing a low-ball contract.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> But they didn't want to S and T Chandler nor Curry ( before the heart issues crept up )
> 
> Pax still doesn't want to S and T Curry


Yah, I didn't write that clearly. I agree that Pax does not want to S+T and has no reason to accept one he does not like. The players can attempt to find one... but Pax is under no obligation to take it... nor is that what he wants to do, I agree. 

Having the history of signing Chandler without the offer does enhace Paxson's credibility on this front, although I think Chandler is more of a right way guy that Curry in paxson's mind.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Wow, a defense of the PaxDorf way that is as passionate as it is unexpected. Who knew? 



> His view.. which I can't confirm as fact , is that the QO is the best route and where he still likes his chances of retention next summer given that the only teams he will be competing against with outright cap space will be
> 
> 1. Atlanta
> 2.New Orleans
> 3. Charlotte


My view, which I can confirm as my view, is that Eddy will be content to leave for a max-MLE deal, that there will be 12+ teams willing to offer him that if he's healthy, and that he'd happily leave lots on the table in Chicago to get away from an organization that's spent the better part of the summer smearing him (my view). 



> Re : _ Falsities and misreps on cap impacts _
> 
> I personally would classify 2 years of dead wood at $7M - $8M per as _significant_
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing its insignificance. Pax wants the fans to believe that the entirety of a six-year deal would count against the cap, and that's simply not true.



> Re : _The ethical/legal issue of we'll let you play for short and cheap without the DNA test ..its just that we insist upon it if we sign you for more money and for longer _


This is the issue that everyone keeps dancing around (including you). From Paxson's public statements, we know that

1. Paxson believes that the DNA test is the closest thing we have to an iron-clad differential diagnosis between a benign, or even favorable, thickening of Eddy's heart muscle (athlete's heart) and a deadly (for a competitive athlete), irreversible heart mutation (HCM).

2. Paxson is willing to forego the DNA test if Eddy signs a one-year deal, or a three-year deal loaded with strings and short on guaranteed money.

How are those two statements even remotely morally and ethically reconcilable? If Paxson's concerns about Eddy's health are genuine -- and the difference between athlete's heart and HCM is overwhelmingly one of life and death -- how can he propose to get Eddy's name on even a TEN-DAY contract, let alone one lasting one or three years? 



> Re : _ Negligence_
> 
> Paxson is completely within his rights to bring this word out into the open and I applaud him for having the stones to put it out there
> 
> ...


All great points -- and it seems to me, again, that if Paxson is truly concerned about the results of a DNA test, he wouldn't let Eddy play without seeing them. He's a smart guy, and he knows that his liability would be in no way lessened because he signed off on a one-year deal for Eddy rather than a six-year, and so on.

However, it also bears mentioning that "neglience" is a rather strong and shrill word coming from Pax considering that there are more world-class doctors who have unqualifiedly cleared Curry than there are who have not, or who have provisionally cleared him -- like Maron, who hasn't diagnosed HCM, but who wants Eddy to take the DNA test before he'll give him the go-ahead (even though the test only turns up genetic evidence in 50-70% of people who have clinical HCM, which Eddy doesn't). Pax is a little out of his depth thumbing his nose at doctors like Mark Estes, the first expert cardiologist the Bulls sought out back in March.



> He's doing exactly as he should


In your opinion, of course. I think between Skilesgate and this, one would have to be delusional to think there won't be an added negative effect on our ability to attract free agents to our cold-weather, high-tax city.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> 2. Paxson is willing to forego the DNA test if Eddy signs a one-year deal, or a three-year deal loaded with strings and short on guaranteed money.


Are we really sure that the Bulls going to allow Curry to play even if he's signed a one year qualifying offer? Paxson made an ambiguous comment in the Score interview that was difficult to interpret, but it might suggest the team wouldn't play him without him taking the test. I can't say for sure what Pax was getting at though. 

Could he rescind the qualifying offer? Would he?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> In your opinion, of course. I think between Skilesgate and this, one would have to be delusional to think there won't be an added negative effect on our ability to attract free agents to our cold-weather, high-tax city.


Yes, but at least no one can say that we're not willing to resign one of our own anymore, and to a big deal taboot.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Yes, but at least no one can say that we're not willing to resign one of our own anymore, and to a big deal taboot.


Cheers to that! As far as I can tell, before Chandler the last of the Bulls' own draft picks to re-up after his initial deal was B.J. Armstrong.

Still, if the best use of cap space is signing other team's free agents outright, we are fighting a huge uphill battle in terms of how this organization is perceived around the league, no matter how many bouquets Mark Bartlestein is willing to throw us.

We can poo-poo how stuff looks in the media and say it doesn't matter, but all it took was press like this and a few sweet nothings from Michael Jordan to give Kevin Garnett an irrational, almost savage hatred of our team. I follow the league pretty closely, and this stuff just doesn't seem to happen in most other NBA cities. At least not on such a consistent basis.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> We can poo-poo how stuff looks in the media and say it doesn't matter, but all it took was press like this and a few sweet nothings from Michael Jordan to give Kevin Garnett an irrational, almost savage hatred of our team.


What about KG's hatred towards Chicago mgmt (i.e. Krause) was proven irrational? We ended up having the worst 5 year run in basketball history.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Are we really sure that the Bulls going to allow Curry to play even if he's signed a one year qualifying offer? Paxson made an ambiguous comment in the Score interview that was difficult to interpret, but it might suggest the team wouldn't play him without him taking the test. I can't say for sure what Pax was getting at though.
> 
> Could he rescind the qualifying offer? Would he?


Yeah, he did say something like "Well, come October 1, we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it." I suppose it's possible that Eddy could be held out of action if he plays for the QO, but remember, Paxson was anxious to have Eddy sign a three-year deal. It seems improbable that Pax would have inked such a deal and then used the DNA hammer as a prerequisite for Eddy to play.

Paxson can rescind the QO, and at this point, if he's not going to find a sign-and-trade and if he's just so uncomfortable about the DNA that he can't commit to Eddy for the long haul, frankly that would be the morally and ethically correct action for him to take. It would suck balls for the basketball team, but it'd be the "right way" move as a GM, and I mean that honestly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> What about KG's hatred towards Chicago mgmt (i.e. Krause) was proven irrational? We ended up having the worst 5 year run in basketball history.


Bad syntax on my part -- I didn't mean that KG didn't have a good reason to dislike the Bulls, but that his expression of his dislike just seemed disproportionately intense. I mean, he'd get visibly angry when discussing the Bulls and delighted in inflicting some of those 30, 40, 50-point blowouts.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I'm getting visbly angry right now. I'm disappointed in the way this situation has played itself out.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Are we really sure that the Bulls going to allow Curry to play even if he's signed a one year qualifying offer? Paxson made an ambiguous comment in the Score interview that was difficult to interpret, but it might suggest the team wouldn't play him without him taking the test. I can't say for sure what Pax was getting at though.
> 
> Could he rescind the qualifying offer? Would he?


Can you do that? Remember when the Heat put Wesley Person on the injured list when Person contended he wasn't injured? He basically got out his contract there and then. If Eddy has doctors that say he can play, and the only thing holding him out is that the Bulls want him to take an invasive uneccessary test, then I would think Eddy would have a case with the NBA--and could he not sue the NBA for the amount of wages he will lose by sitting out another year?

It seems like this has the possibility to get even messier. If Pax doesn't intend to clear Eddy, then he should have to renounce Eddy's rights, because that is unfair on every level to the player, and I think a gross abuse of the CBA.

Not to mention the psychological effect it would have on the team. How would you feel about having to deal with this every single day for the rest of the year, and have it to do with someone who is most likely one of your close friends? Something like that could tear a team apart. Especially a young one.

Pax is definitely playing with fire.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I follow the league pretty closely, and this stuff just doesn't seem to happen in most other NBA cities. At least not on such a consistent basis.


No kidding. It has always been like pulling teeth to get Reinsdorf to sign anyone for this team. I wish Reinsdorf would just sell. I hate having to go through this. Yes we did sign Chandler, but even that took all summer, and much consternation on both sides. I guess Donald Sterling is probably the other owner who has situations like this develop. Though even he has opened his purse strings the last few years.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> remember, Paxson was anxious to have Eddy sign a three-year deal.


If he was anxious to have Curry sign, why did he pull the deal instead of responding to Camp Curry's counteroffer? 

IMHO, something is going on behind the sceens that is not making the papers. Or Pax has been spinning, spinning, spinning stories all summer while really hoping that Curry goes QO. Well, Pax may get his wish but there may be too much collateral damage to hope Curry stays if he is healthy.

p.s. re-reading the Trib's article, it's not clear that Pax pulled the multi-year deal.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Yeah teams are always thinking hard about big man's faults during free agency. :rollseyes:
> If Jerome James can get the full MLE, and Kwame Brown can get a decent deal after being kicked off of his team in the playoffs and not showing one iota of what Eddy has shown...then I don't think Eddy has much to worry about next year. All he has to do is not die, and he will make more money next year than what Paxson is offering.


Most teams are more than happy to offer exception money to big men. Jerome James is a prime example of that. But Eddy Curry will require more than the MLE, which means only the very few teams under the cap can offer him anything worthwhile. Seeing how those are bottom-feeders who won't overpay for players (unless they're a sure thing, as Atlanta did for JJ this summer), it seems to me that Eddy's only route out of town is if a team wants to do a sign-and-trade (which is how Kwame Brown got his new deal). I'd be fine with that since that could net us something nice in return. But mark my words, he will NOT accept the MLE just to play in the city of his choice; he wants his money first and foremost.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Can you do that? Remember when the Heat put Wesley Person on the injured list when Person contended he wasn't injured? He basically got out his contract there and then. If Eddy has doctors that say he can play, and the only thing holding him out is that the Bulls want him to take an invasive uneccessary test, then I would think Eddy would have a case with the NBA--and could he not sue the NBA for the amount of wages he will lose by sitting out another year?
> 
> It seems like this has the possibility to get even messier. If Pax doesn't intend to clear Eddy, then he should have to renounce Eddy's rights, because that is unfair on every level to the player, and I think a gross abuse of the CBA.
> 
> ...


To play devil's advocate, Pax is also playing with fire if he lets Eddy play if he still believes that he could drop dead on the court. And for a moment, imagine in your head some of the tragedies of the past...Hank Gathers, etc, but with Eddy himself on the United Center floor. (Shudder). Imagine the psychological effect THAT would have on the team, and let alone the ultimate consequence, loss of life.

Of course, you may not share the opinion that the above is possible depending on how you interpret the medical results, which is difficult for us to do based on how information gets filtered down to us.

But looking at things from that angle, letting him play is playing with fire too, isn't it?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Wow, a defense of the PaxDorf way that is as passionate as it is unexpected. Who knew?


For yay .. a traitor in your midst 

Double yay.. for he who is a swinger on issues of financial pragmatism





> My view, which I can confirm as my view, is that Eddy will be content to leave for a max-MLE deal, that there will be 12+ teams willing to offer him that if he's healthy, and that he'd happily leave lots on the table in Chicago to get away from an organization that's spent the better part of the summer smearing him (my view).


How glib.. and pious... and easy to straddle that high horse and proclaim righteousness for the sake of millions when its not your money that is left behind 

You might have to ask Eddy and his agent if, faced with the scenario , they would be prepared to leave oooh say possibly $20M + $30M on the table for the sake of principle 

That's some dollars to Eddy's agent's commission too. Mmmmmm.



> I'm not arguing its insignificance. Pax wants the fans to believe that the entirety of a six-year deal would count against the cap, and that's simply not true.


Must have actually missed that inference 

Maybe my reading between the lines and speculative connectivity is not as developed as yours 

If you could give me a pointer to how one can rationally deduce this from the text I would be appreciative 





> This is the issue that everyone keeps dancing around (including you)


By everyone I suppose you include yourself in that group that is speculating on this 



> From Paxson's public statements, we know that
> 
> 1. Paxson believes that the DNA test is the closest thing we have to an iron-clad differential diagnosis between a benign, or even favorable, thickening of Eddy's heart muscle (athlete's heart) and a deadly (for a competitive athlete), irreversible heart mutation (HCM).


Whilst he hasn't come straight out and said that directly I think its is probably fair to assume this



> 2. Paxson is willing to forego the DNA test if Eddy signs a one-year deal, or a three-year deal loaded with strings and short on guaranteed money


No proof 

How do you know that Pax didn't want to :

A. Keep him short on guaranteed dough 

and 

B. Still have a further testing that as part of that process also include a DNA test as part of a lower guaranteed money deal 

How do you know that the guarantee of further riches came into play after both testing had been carried out and he had proven himself as an insurable risk over time ?

I don't think you do know 

But hey neither do I 

No one does ...outside of your summer of research you, nor I , nor any of us are inside what's happening 



> If Paxson's concerns about Eddy's health are genuine -- and the difference between athlete's heart and HCM is overwhelmingly one of life and death -- how can he propose to get Eddy's name on even a TEN-DAY contract, let alone one lasting one or three years?


Again .. he is legally obliged to extend Eddy the qualifying offer. That is part of his existing contract he can't rescind 

The moral and ethical high ground would be to sit him on the injury list until these issues are resolved satisfactorily

I don't know if Paxson would be prepared to do this , but if they were , it would be interesting to see if Pax were agreeable to rescinding the QO if Eddy Curry requested he do so so that he could go UFA right now and sign on with someone else ( if someone else will have him within their MLE or what's left of it ) 

And if it got to that then trade him for Mike Sweetney and a first round pick and get it over with 

If Camp Curry had some stones and truly believe their the Bulls position is commercially and morally indefensible then this is the call they should make now to force a sign and trade with the Knicks 

And if Paxson won't do it then they should absolutely let the world know that they are are prepared to agree to a rescinding of the QO *right now*

Pretty ballsy huh ?

Except .. Camp Curry and their supporters don't want to put their balls on the line 

All care and no risk is the order of the day in this neck of the woods

Long term liability issues ? Bah. The bosses problem

Salary cap inflexibility that can effect the operational capacity of a team ? Bah. The bosses problem.

Long term investment without disclosure ? Bah. The bosses problem





> All great points -- and it seems to me, again, that if Paxson is truly concerned about the results of a DNA test, he wouldn't let Eddy play without seeing them. He's a smart guy, and he knows that his liability would be in no way lessened because he signed off on a one-year deal for Eddy rather than a six-year, and so on.


This is not entirely correct 

In that he may not be able to force the issue on an existing contract .._but if it is an issue .. he can direct his Coach to sit him on the IL until its properly resolved _

And I would be prepared to give your views greater support Scott if this was not done ... which to me would be definitive proof of Pax's integrity on this issue 

I also refer back to the point made above that perhaps any new contract irrespective of length and gteed element of money also requires further testing inclusive of DNA .. I would expect that it does 





> However, it also bears mentioning that "neglience" is a rather strong and shrill word coming from Pax considering that there are more world-class doctors who have unqualifiedly cleared Curry than there are who have not, or who have provisionally cleared him -- like Maron, who hasn't diagnosed HCM, but who wants Eddy to take the DNA test before he'll give him the go-ahead (even though the test only turns up genetic evidence in 50-70% of people who have clinical HCM, which Eddy doesn't). Pax is a little out of his depth thumbing his nose at doctors like Mark Estes, the first expert cardiologist the Bulls sought out back in March.


I don't think so 

I think he is just covering his arse , which in the circumstances , he is commercially entitled to do 

With respect you don't know what types of disclaimers and PI liability recourse limitations may be involved with any of these advices and who they may be directed to in reliance of advice ( if at all ) 





> In your opinion, of course.


Of course



> I think between Skilesgate and this, one would have to be delusional to think there won't be an added negative effect on our ability to attract free agents to our cold-weather, high-tax city.


Hey what does it matter ?

Free agency by your own admission is going to suck into the foreseable future anyway right ?

At least we have Tyson and Duhon ( for term ) Deng, Gordon and Hinrich on rookie contracts ?

Although I guess they will bolt the evil empire..leave millions on the table in support of Eddy and their own shabby treatment and go and sign for MLE contracts when they go to free agency as well


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> Again .. he is legally obliged to extend Eddy the qualifying offer. That is part of his existing contract he can't rescind


Nobody is "legally obliged" to extend a player the QO. Paxson did it to keep eddy from becoming an UFA. That is all.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> Nobody is "legally obliged" to extend a player the QO. Paxson did it to keep eddy from becoming an UFA. That is all.


Actually he is very much legally obliged seeing as though he past the cut off date of when he had that as an option ( June 30 I think )

He is very much legally obliged now to extend that to Eddy at a minimum


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

The more I think about it ... if Camp Curry have the guts they should request Pax rescind the QO so they can go to UFA right now and turn the heat up 

That basically takes Pax's leverage away and likely forces a sign and trade rather than lose him as a UFA right now

Because .. my gut feel is that further testing that includes a DNA test that Camp Curry for their own reasons clearly don't want to do is still going to be a requirement of Pax's terms irrespective of what type of gteed money deal is on offer 

There is the moral / ethical issue which to me can only be proved by sitting Eddy on the IL on a QO in his contract year ( not ideal for Eddy or the Bulls ) 

Then there is the albatross issue of salary cap inflexibility in how long term gteed money may hamstring the Bulls future dealings 

At this point I disagree with ScottMay that these two issues go hand in hand.. IE that Pax has no care so long as he can screw Eddy for cheap

I actually believe at this point that they are two seperate issues 

Will Pax show his integrity as to the moral / ethical issue and stick to his guns if he is concerned about Eddy's health and long term liability issues and sit him on the IL on the QO in a contract year until he can get satisfied as to the further tests he wants Eddy to have ?

Will Leon Rose have the balls to ask Pax to rescind the QO and go UFA now .. I mean if your slighted and your going to go you may as well go now right ? If it's all about principle and not money for someone that is screwing you and holding you down and doesn't give a f'k about your health and is only motivated to keep you for cheap -Why wait ? Go now

Would Pax agree to rescind it if it were requested ?

This last question is a doozy.... as if he refuses he is clearly hardlining on his terms to force contractual negotiations on a level of testing that clearly the other party is not comfortable with for whatever reasons

The right thing to do for a right way guy ?

Well that's probably different strokes for different folks ... I would probably press my rights , refuse and still hold the chips ..for the time being 

Others... may think the best thing would be to let my Cameron go if he didn't do it the way you wanted him to do it rather than force him to deal in a way he is not comfortable with .. in which case S and T and at least get a player for a year and a low 1st round draft pick.. rather than get squat now if he were to go UFA


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

What don't you understand? 

Eddy wants the most "guaranteed" money he can get. The most he can get is through sign and trade.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Eddy Curry will not be a Bull come October IMO.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> and with all due respect to dabullz, but THIS is "negotiating through the press" courtesy of "bad bad leon brown, snarkiest agent in the whole damn town" - and pax should be angry. smacks of amateur hour to me. desperation writ large.


Almost every player paxson's dealt with has been through the press.

Paxson not only talks on the score and is quoted in the newspapers, but he is even well known to have told the players to go out and seek the best offers they can.

I respectfully disagree with you that Paxson shouldn't be *proactively* making phone calls. Seems to me that's a rather huge part of the job description.

Unfortunately, if you do go and make phone calls, you should NOT talk to the press about what was discussed. Some other team might say they want Hinrich, and it gets out that the "bulls discussed trading hinrich" and that can't be a good thing for the relationship between the team and kirk.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I'm not arguing its insignificance. Pax wants the fans to believe that the entirety of a six-year deal would count against the cap, and that's simply not true.


Thats just a huge pile of crap. You are taking significant liberties with a *paraphrased* statement from Paxson (which does not even address which or how many years of the contract Paxson is referring to) and declaring it false when, by your own cited material, it is true. And its true for the only two years that capspace matter for the Bulls - the next two seasons. 

You think he's making a poor decision with Curry, fine. I disagree, but its certainly a fair difference of opinion. 

The *paraphrased* statement of Paxson is not false. If the Bulls give Curry a multi-year guaranteed deal and he goes down, the deal does count against the Bulls capspace. And it counts during the only two years that matter. Paxson's *paraphrased* statement does not say that it counts against the Bulls for the entirety of the deal, nor does he state that it is limited to two years. Garcia simply reports that Paxson says the proposed deal will count against the team's cap if Curry goes down. And it does. Erego the statement is true. End of story.

You make a lot of solid points, Scott, but many of them are masked by this campaign of yours. Your efforts to paint the organization as a bunch of cackling puppet-masters greedily toying with the lives of others detracts from the other more legitimately debeatable points you raise. I just don't understand it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Someone care to explain to me why *this* is *not* negotiating through the press?



> http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull311.html
> 
> *Paxson meets with Curry's agent*
> 
> ...


It's specifically about the Chandler negotiations.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Are we really sure that the Bulls going to allow Curry to play even if he's signed a one year qualifying offer? Paxson made an ambiguous comment in the Score interview that was difficult to interpret, but it might suggest the team wouldn't play him without him taking the test. I can't say for sure what Pax was getting at though.
> 
> Could he rescind the qualifying offer? Would he?


I'm glad you mentioned this. I agree with the possible moral/ethical inconsistency raised by Scott May and others. The only problem is, I'm not sure we have a concrete foundation to establish a real inconsistency.

I remember the Paxson comment you are referring to, DMD. It was something along the lines of (trying to paraphrase from memory) "If after October 1st, Eddy still hasn't taken the DNA test, we'll just have to see what we'll do." I vividly remember several posters in here interpreting that to mean the Bulls wouldn't even let Curry on the court without the test (if they can legally do so under the CBA).

Given the vagueness of the comment, I don't know if that is the right interpretation or not, but it certainly leaves questions on the table as to whether the Bulls plan to let Curry even play if he doesn't submit to the test.

Also, taking it further, as Sausage King so rightly pointed out, the Bulls CAN'T rescind the QO at this point without Eddy's approval and I don't know if, under the CBA, the Bulls have the authority to sit Curry if he refuses the DNA test. If the Bulls don't have that legal authority, and Eddy demands to play, then there is no moral ambiguity because the course is predetermined.

In short, we don't know enough yet.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Thats just a huge pile of crap.


Sorry, Ron, the whole "words and nuance matter" line of argument cuts both ways.

I am inclined to give Paxson zero slack with his words after his pitiful performance on the Score.

"You know, guys, you know, I mean, you know, Reggie Lewis died because they didn't have this DNA testing technology . . . "

F that. If some of the stuff I'm throwing turns out later on not to have stuck, that's the breaks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My interpretation of ****'s faq is that Curry's contract would count against the cap for 1 or 2 years, depending.

If the date of "injury" is when the bulls first sat him out, then it'd be 1 year. If the date of injury *must* occur after signing the new contract (which isn't clear from the FAQ), then it'd be two years.

I don't see that Paxson said the *entire* contract would count against the cap, but from what he said, it might be he's suggesting the entire contract would.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Based on that, I think a significant number of posts in this thread, *on both sides of the argument*, are jumping the gun.


I think you're right. After looking back through the mess of the last week, there's a lot of stuff being reported that can't all be true. 

I think Sausage King's final analysis is right from the bigger picture. From everything I've read, this DNA test is not what Paxson. But given the way he's presenting it, it would be negligent for him to offer a deal or let Curry play without it.

Given the information I have though, it simply doesn't make a lot of sense to be basing things off this DNA test. If I were the Bulls, seeing a positive test wouldn't make me think Curry has HCM, or is very likely to have HCM in the next few years. If I were the Bulls, seeing a negative test wouldn't make me think Curry has no heart condition, and I would still fear it may recurr and cause him to be unable to play, or even die.

So maybe there's something unreported going on here.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Where does it say that Paxson has to have Eddy's approval to rescind the qualifying offer? Paxson would have to have Eddy's permission to tear up a signed offer sheet for a new deal, but not the QO, at least not from what I can find.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#34



> Teams can rescind their qualifying offer to a restricted free agent, in which case the player becomes unrestricted. This happened with Toronto and Keon Clark in 2002.


http://www.detnews.com/2002/pistons/0208/19/sports-562285.htm



> When Keon Clark was cut loose by Toronto three weeks ago, he could have gone almost anywhere in the NBA -- so he decided to go with a winner.
> 
> Clark, the 6-foot-11 forward whose acrobatic blocks and dunks have made him a staple of NBA highlight reels, signed a one-year contract with the Sacramento Kings on Wednesday for the $4.5 million mid-level salary cap exception.
> 
> ...


Am I missing something?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Almost every player paxson's dealt with has been through the press.
> 
> Paxson not only talks on the score and is quoted in the newspapers, but he is even well known to have told the players to go out and seek the best offers they can.
> 
> ...


did pax negotiate with chandler and his agent directly through the press? or duhon? 

neither of those players agents have thrown down the gauntlet, as it were, like leon rose has done in this case. in the respective cases of duhon and chandler, it was always, "we are confident this will be worked out, blah blah" but nothing smacking of the direct threat of "trade eddy now or he will walk regardless of what you offer in the future (even if it's the most money!)". talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

to me there is a difference in the way this is being handled - for example, with regards to skiles, it was keith glass who took it upon himself to take his tale of woe to the press not skiles, not paxson or anybody with the team. it was the agent who initiated what some refer to as "skilesgate". memory is a tricky thing. 

i guess i just don't like agents. i mean i understand they are there to get the best deal possible for their client. and general managers should be trying to get the best deal for the team. 

i also think in the context of this particular situation that pax is under no obligation to converse with a team he has no interest in dealing with. what's the point of that? he wants nothing that the knicks would offer.

and i don't consider the sun-times piece you quoted as truly "negotiation through the press" - it contains blanket statements, no ultimatums from schwartz ala rose (or even goodwin last summer). pax was just commenting on the process, not the actual terms being discussed. you know, the bit where it says he wouldn't discuss the specifics except to say what was being reported was not the correct information but he didn't discuss it further.

but whatever, i am sure you will find flaw with something i have written here cause you don't agree. and that's cool. differences of opinion is what makes our little world here go around and i don't really care if you agree with me!


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> You make a lot of solid points, Scott, but many of them are masked by this campaign of yours. Your efforts to paint the organization as a bunch of cackling puppet-masters greedily toying with the lives of others detracts from the other more legitimately debeatable points you raise. I just don't understand it.


Exactly my thought. His obsession over Bulls Conspiracy theory is more outrageous than Oliver Stone's obsession over Kennedy. Scott certainly posted a lot of good stuff but his continuing negative portrayal of Bulls organization is getting really old and border line lunacy.

It seems to me like no matter what Bulls or Paxon did, Scott will find a fault or two in them.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Sorry, Ron, the whole "words and nuance matter" line of argument cuts both ways.
> 
> I am inclined to give Paxson zero slack with his words after his pitiful performance on the Score.
> 
> ...


You never gave him a slack, period. Not after the Score. From the day one of Paxon era, you were absolutely against whatever he did.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Sorry, Ron, the whole "words and nuance matter" line of argument cuts both ways.
> 
> I am inclined to give Paxson zero slack with his words after his pitiful performance on the Score.
> 
> ...


What a crock. Paxson used the lingual crutch "you know" too many times to your liking in a live radio interview so you feel justified in deliberately misrepresenting truthful statements as false? 

Thats what I call integrity. (edited out to be nice.)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> did pax negotiate with chandler and his agent directly through the press? or duhon?
> 
> neither of those players agents have thrown down the gauntlet, as it were, like leon rose has done in this case. in the respective cases of duhon and chandler, it was always, "we are confident this will be worked out, blah blah" but nothing smacking of the direct threat of "trade eddy now or he will walk regardless of what you offer in the future (even if it's the most money!)". talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
> 
> ...


I'm not looking for flaws, just the truth.

He doesn't have to talk specific terms for it to be "negotiating through the press."

When Paxson says in the press "the deal is closer than what's being reported," it is as plain as the nose on your face that he's telling Chandler's people that, and through the press. 

With Duhon, it was through the press, too. Everyone who gives a damn knew Paxson offered Du the LLE and why. The "why" appeal was made through the press. Kismet nicely worded it in the subject of a thread he started "will duhon take one for the team?"



> i also think in the context of this particular situation that pax is under no obligation to converse with a team he has no interest in dealing with. what's the point of that? he wants nothing that the knicks would offer.


This part of what you wrote just makes no sense. Who cares if the bulls want nothing the knicks would offer? What if the bulls wanted, say, Shaq, and the only way we could get him is if the Heat could get something the knicks had?

There's no excuse to be like an ostrich here.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> My interpretation of ****'s faq is that Curry's contract would count against the cap for 1 or 2 years, depending.
> 
> If the date of "injury" is when the bulls first sat him out, then it'd be 1 year. If the date of injury *must* occur after signing the new contract (which isn't clear from the FAQ), then it'd be two years.
> 
> I don't see that Paxson said the *entire* contract would count against the cap, but from what he said, it might be he's suggesting the entire contract would.


The rule under the new CBA is that cap relief comes after 1 year.

The salary cap and luxury tax exceptions for players who are deemed ‘permanently injured’ will begin after one year rather than two, but can only be applied by the team on which the player played at the time of injury.

Under the old CBA, I recall discussions of Grant Hill potentially falling under this rule, and the time period would start two years from when he last played.

I don't know about the ramifications of signing a new contract in the middle of this period. My guess is that the CBA doesn't specify what happens in that case, given that it's an unusual and situation that I don't think has ever come up before. Perhaps the Bulls and Curry could seek a pre-emptive ruling on it?

If the contract didn't matter, my guess would be that Curry could sign a new contract, but if he didn't play, he could come off the cap at the end of the year. 

However, if he plays in even one game, then the one year countdown starts over again, and he's on the cap for next summer.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I think you're right. After looking back through the mess of the last week, there's a lot of stuff being reported that can't all be true.
> 
> I think Sausage King's final analysis is right from the bigger picture. From everything I've read, this DNA test is not what Paxson. But given the way he's presenting it, it would be negligent for him to offer a deal or let Curry play without it.
> 
> ...


Pax isn't basing things off the DNA test. He stated that it was a tool. Something to aid him in making a decision. I don't get where folks are reading so much into this. Pax will play Curry if he takes the QO because, as far as his boss (reinsdorf) is concerned, they're covered. A doc has given him clearance to play - and that's good enough for Pax. The Bulls aren't assuming the financial risk at this point and it doesn't look like they want to. The DNA test was/is simply another piece of information with which to make an educated decision on Curry. Pax has never stated that the DNA test was the end-all-be-all for his decision making. He's acknowledged that the test isn't definative and that it only show a propensity for HCM. _He know's all this._ If the test were to come back unfavorable for Curry, Pax might even pull the QO. If the test came back looking good for Curry, Pax might be more inclined to guarantee more years and more dollars. As it stands right now, given the info that Pax has, he's doing what he's comfortable with and I'm sure what he's been directed to do.
In the best case for Curry, I just can't see him getting more than three years guaranteed. He is simply too much of a risk.

It's really bad timing for the kid and I feel sorry for him. Bottom line is he's going to have to prove, not only to the Bulls, but to the entire league that he's good to go. Play the one year and he's free to do as he pleases. If he wants to thumb his nose at the team for his "shoddy treatement", he's free to do so. If he's all about money (my position) then he'll go to the highest bidder - even it that's the Bulls. Everything else is window dressing.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> The rule under the new CBA is that cap relief comes after 1 year.
> 
> The salary cap and luxury tax exceptions for players who are deemed ‘permanently injured’ will begin after one year rather than two, but can only be applied by the team on which the player played at the time of injury.
> 
> ...


Most excellent find, DC, and from a pretty good source, too!

The deal with Hill was particularly tough on the magic because the league doctors would *not* give the team the waiver it applied for, and kinda forced him and the team to get him to play again...

That aside, there's a whole different perspective on these negotiations that I don't think anyone has posted yet.

The bulls are at or over the cap, no doubt. If they sign Curry to a big contract, do they go into luxury tax land? If so, that's a reason to lowball him for a year, though I have little sympathy with the team having to pay a little luxury tax (even at $2 for every $1 over) for just one season if it means having a happy team.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What a crock. Paxson used the lingual crutch "you know" too many times to your liking in a live radio interview so you feel justified in deliberately misrepresenting truthful statements as false?


There is nothing at all in my interpretation of Paxson's comment about Curry's desired six-year contract counting against the cap and luxury tax that is false.

The "you know" tic is interesting in that Paxson is usually so seamlessly articulate and smooth-speaking. Maybe somewhere deep down he was ashamed of sensationally and inaccurately bringing up Reggie Lewis again in a discussion of Curry's health?

The ironic thing is that I always used to like Paxson as a human being; I just seriously wondered about his qualifications to be an NBA general manager. I truly do believe there's a right way to conduct oneself as a professional and as a person. 

Now that Paxson has proven himself to be an good GM, I like him a lot less as a human being. And yes, the Score interview was the clincher. Equating Lewis and Curry was and is a horrible thing to do, and Paxson absolutely knows better.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Bulls wasted a high draft pick and got almost a zero contributions from Eddy, while paying his “NBA academy “tuition, since 2001. Bulls also lost B Miller and E. Brand because of Eddy’s potential s…t and promises. At this point I care less what Eddy wants.

IMO, Pax should not cave in, for the S &T options, if there are no a decent Big Man or potentially high first round pick on the trading plate. If Eddy wants a fat contract, he got one more to prove that to everybody, including Pax. 

QO is only one good option left. 

Please excuse my language.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> This part of what you wrote just makes no sense. Who cares if the bulls want nothing the knicks would offer? What if the bulls wanted, say, Shaq, and the only way we could get him is if the Heat could get something the knicks had?
> 
> There's no excuse to be like an ostrich here.


makes no sense to you but makes perfect sense to me. it is plainly not SHAQ we are talking about here, so why make that analogy? 

and if it is true that he is inquiring to teams like denver and memphis, then he's not being an ostrich. he just doesn't want to deal with the knicks and the knicks are who leon has on the line.

we obviously have different interpretations of this issue.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> There is nothing at all in my interpretation of Paxson's comment about Curry's desired six-year contract counting against the cap and luxury tax that is false.


Come on, Scott. I don't want to bog this thread down, but I've got to respond to this.

The following is Paxson's paraphrased statement:



> Even with insurance, Curry's contract still would count against the salary cap and luxury tax if an injury ends his career, Paxson said.


To which you boldly responded with the following:



> A complete and utter falsehood on several levels.


As I have described above, it is your characterization that is false, not the paraphrased statement of Paxson. Curry's contract would "still count against the salary cap and luxury tax if an injury ends his career." This is inarguably true as proven by your own cited material and that recently cited by MikeDC.

I'll drop this now since I know it irritates a lot of posters when I get this specific. I just happen to think its important when people are calling someone a liar based on a paraphrased statement that, as paraphrased, is proveably true.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What a crock. Paxson used the lingual crutch "you know" too many times to your liking in a live radio interview so you feel justified in deliberately misrepresenting truthful statements as false?
> 
> Thats what I call integrity. I hope most of the fans who read this board can see through the consistently intellectually dishonest methods you employ in debating a point.


I think you should step back from that rhetoric, because what you're defending here looks VERY intellectually dishonest to me.

Paxson did liken Curry's situation to that of Reggie Lewis (again). Even bringing up Reggie Lewis at all appears to be misdirection and dishonesty since Lewis' condition was dramatically different from Curry's.

Even in the context of saying it's important to do what the doctors are telling us, the situations are dramatically different. *Every* doctor Lewis spoke with told him he couldn't play basketball and that he shouldn't be working out. *No* doctor has told Curry that, as far as we can gather, though (there's conflicting reports about what Maron has asked for, but it seems even he said there was no problem in Curry just working out without taking the test).

Most obviously, one of the leading doctors - Dr. Estes - who told Lewis he was in grave danger - gave Curry an ok.

I also don't think there's any disputing Paxson's pooh-poohing of the several doctors that cleared Curry is rather hard to reconcile with an honest stance. He could have just as easily disagreed with them without talking up Maron as *THE* expert and dismissively saying "Eddy's found himself a couple of doctors who've cleared him", like he pulled Dr. Nick out of a back alley abortion clinic or something.

It wouldn't have been difficult, at all, to say simply that although there are several prominant experts who feel the DNA test isn't necessary or warranted, we're relying on the one who is because we want to be extra sure. That would have been the honest, non-inflamatory thing to say. What was said gave a connotation negative connotation both to Curry and the doctors who cleared him.

Whether it's technically a "lie" or not, it seems both unnecessary and below the belt to me.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Come on, Scott. I don't want to bog this thread down, but I've got to respond to this.
> 
> The following is Paxson's paraphrased statement:
> 
> ...


I'm not a lawyer. I score errors of omission the same way I do errors of commission. Allowing for the possibility that what was actually said wasn't faithfully transcribed by Garcia (which I have done), my belief is that Paxson was more than comfortable in putting forth the impression that all six years of Curry's desired contract would count against the cap/tax.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'm not a lawyer. I score errors of omission the same way I do errors of commission. Allowing for the possibility that what was actually said wasn't faithfully transcribed by Garcia (which I have done), my belief is that Paxson was more than comfortable in putting forth the impression that all six years of Curry's desired contract would count against the cap/tax.


Where are you getting this supposed six year contract from? It doesn't exist. Pax simply, and accurately, stated that his contract would count against the cap. The only two contracts that I know to exist on Curry are the QO and the supposed three-year incentive-laden deal. There is no six year deal and Pax never stated that Curry's six year contract would count fully against the cap for all six years if Curry should be medically unable to play. What Curry wants and what Curry is going to get are two completely different things. No team is going to give Eddy six years and seventy million guaranteed. None.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> makes no sense to you but makes perfect sense to me. it is plainly not SHAQ we are talking about here, so why make that analogy?
> 
> and if it is true that he is inquiring to teams like denver and memphis, then he's not being an ostrich. he just doesn't want to deal with the knicks and the knicks are who leon has on the line.
> 
> we obviously have different interpretations of this issue.


Who cares if it's Shaq or ANY OTHER PLAYER that Pax might actually want?

You've argued that Paxson shouldn't be proactive and make phone calls. If it's Kobe (who Pax talked to when he was a FA) or Peja or _anyone_ Pax might actually want, he isn't going to get him without calling and asking for him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I think you should step back from that rhetoric, because what you're defending here looks VERY intellectually dishonest to me.
> 
> Paxson did liken Curry's situation to that of Reggie Lewis (again). Even bringing up Reggie Lewis at all appears to be misdirection and dishonesty since Lewis' condition was dramatically different from Curry's.
> 
> ...


None of that is what I was referring to, but thanks for chiming in. 

If you look at the chain of posts between Scott and I, they are referring to his characterization of Paxson's statement regarding cap impact as "false" when, in fact, that statement is proveably true. He cited the Reggie Lewis statement and the "you knows" that surrounded it as a justification for him to declare the cap statement false.

And, so you know, long before you wrote this post I edited out that last sentence regarding "intellectual dishonesty" because I regretted it as being too harsh and inflammatory (this time).


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Who cares if it's Shaq or ANY OTHER PLAYER that Pax might actually want?
> 
> You've argued that Paxson shouldn't be proactive and make phone calls. If it's Kobe (who Pax talked to when he was a FA) or Peja or _anyone_ Pax might actually want, he isn't going to get him without calling and asking for him.


???


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> ???


You have a MUCH better chance of getting what you want if you ask for what you want. Is it that hard to fathom?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Where are you getting this supposed six year contract from? It doesn't exist. Pax simply, and accurately, stated that his contract would count against the cap. The only two contracts that I know to exist on Curry are the QO and the supposed three-year incentive-laden deal.


The only actual contract on the table when Paxson had that conversation with Garcia was the QO -- Paxson pulled the 3-year deal when it wasn't accepted. Paxson raised the issue of retirement as a defense of why he couldn't accept the deal Rose was proposing, which is a six-year deal.



> No team is going to give Eddy six years and seventy million guaranteed. None.


That's fortunate, because Rose hasn't asked for a six-year, seventy million dollar fully guaranteed contract.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Who cares if it's Shaq or ANY OTHER PLAYER that Pax might actually want?
> 
> You've argued that Paxson shouldn't be proactive and make phone calls. If it's Kobe (who Pax talked to when he was a FA) or Peja or _anyone_ Pax might actually want, he isn't going to get him without calling and asking for him.


If it's Curry and his agent making the demands, then no Pax shouldn't be proactive. If they want out, let them find a deal that gets them out. That's what agents do. Pax starts calling other GMs to unload Curry and that's like sharks sensing blood in water. There's no way in hell that Pax gets anything even close to value by doing that. Leon Rose supposedly came back to Pax with a deal from the Knicks. Supposedly Pax didn't like it and told Rose to keep trying. Again, if Curry want's out, it isn't Pax's job to get him out but it's Currys' agents job to find a deal that gets him out. If Curry wants to play on the QO for a year and sulk. That's fine. If he plays for a year and kicks *** - great. If he has a coronary while actually trying for a rebound, well, that sucks. 

This isn't the same situation as a Vince Carter or T-Mac. Guys who could threaten ( or who did) dog it for the teams they wanted to leave. Those two were under contract for multiple years and big dollars. It was in their GM's interest to get them out of there. Pax doesn't have to do that. Get Curry in on the QO. If he pissess his year away he's just hurting his long-term financial earnings. I fully believe that Pax and Skiles would be fine with parking Curry's behind on the bench if he doesn't come to play every night.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> If it's Curry and his agent making the demands, then no Pax shouldn't be proactive. If they want out, let them find a deal that gets them out. That's what agents do. Pax starts calling other GMs to unload Curry and that's like sharks sensing blood in water. There's no way in hell that Pax gets anything even close to value by doing that. Leon Rose supposedly came back to Pax with a deal from the Knicks. Supposedly Pax didn't like it and told Rose to keep trying. Again, if Curry want's out, it isn't Pax's job to get him out but it's Currys' agents job to find a deal that gets him out. If Curry wants to play on the QO for a year and sulk. That's fine. If he plays for a year and kicks *** - great. If he has a coronary while actually trying for a rebound, well, that sucks.
> 
> This isn't the same situation as a Vince Carter or T-Mac. Guys who could threaten ( or who did) dog it for the teams they wanted to leave. Those two were under contract for multiple years and big dollars. It was in their GM's interest to get them out of there. Pax doesn't have to do that. Get Curry in on the QO. If he pissess his year away he's just hurting his long-term financial earnings. I fully believe that Pax and Skiles would be fine with parking Curry's behind on the bench if he doesn't come to play every night.



*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fl_flash again.*


exactly.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> None of that is what I was referring to, but thanks for chiming in.
> 
> If you look at the chain of posts between Scott and I, they are referring to his characterization of Paxson's statement regarding cap impact as "false" when, in fact, that statement is proveably true. He cited the Reggie Lewis statement and the "you knows" that surrounded it as a justification for him to declare the cap statement false.


That wasn't evident to me, since he had previously complained about Reggie Lewis being brought up by Paxson and because that's all he talked about in the post you were responding to (the one he made at 10:27). 

I guess it's unclear, but since he was posting seperately at around the same time about the cap issue, it seems to me bringing up the Reggie Lewis stuff was a seperate point.

I actually don't see how it matters. I agree the Reggie Lewis statement doesn't tell me whether the cap statement was technically false, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the merit of the Reggie Lewis statement in the first place, and as I addressed, I find that to be very questionable.

For the record, I think Paxson's somewhat misleading on the cap issue, but I don't think it's an issue of any importance. Even if the Bulls maxed out Curry and he quit on them, they'd still have lots of cap room. Insofar as Paxson's statement makes it sound like they wouldn't, it's misleading. But it's also perfectly legitimate to want more cap room, and its perfectly understandable not to go into the vagueries of the cap rules in a short interview directed at the common public.

But the Reggie Lewis statement and the aspersions made towards Estes and Cannom, and toward Curry regarding his handling of his health; those appear to support the overall point Scott was trying to make.



> And, so you know, long before you wrote this post I edited out that last sentence regarding "intellectual dishonesty" because I regretted it as being too harsh and inflammatory (this time).


OK... I know now


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The only actual contract on the table when Paxson had that conversation with Garcia was the QO -- Paxson pulled the 3-year deal when it wasn't accepted. Paxson raised the issue of retirement as a defense of why he couldn't accept the deal Rose was proposing, which is a six-year deal.
> 
> 
> 
> That's fortunate, because Rose hasn't asked for a six-year, seventy million dollar fully guaranteed contract.


Then why the hell are you bashing Paxson for "inferring" that all six years of a contract would be guaranteed? You, yourself just stated that in the first paragraph above that Pax wasn't going to accept the deal Rose was proposing which was a six year deal. The next sentance you write is that Rose hasn't asked for a six year deal? Which is it Scott? 

If it was only a QO deal, which is a fully guranteed deal, then Pax statement that it would count against the cap and the luxury tax is completely and unequivocably true. Even if Curry should keel over on the first day of training camp. Can't have it both ways buddy. Which one is it? This mythical six year deal or the QO?


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

How about this

Sixers Send:

C-Samuel Dalembert

2 future picks (1 first round) And 1 (second round)\


For 

C-Eddy Curry

3.1 million in salary

Dealo?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> That wasn't evident to me, since he had previously complained about Reggie Lewis being brought up by Paxson and because that's all he talked about in the post you were responding to (the one he made at 10:27).


I figured that is what happened and its understandable. Its hard to keep track of an entire thread. If you look at the back and forth regarding truth and falsity, it all focuses on a dispute over whether Paxson's statement regarding cap ramifications was true. That is the only thing I was taking issue with in the post you spotted.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> If it's Curry and his agent making the demands, then no Pax shouldn't be proactive. If they want out, let them find a deal that gets them out. That's what agents do. Pax starts calling other GMs to unload Curry and that's like sharks sensing blood in water. There's no way in hell that Pax gets anything even close to value by doing that. Leon Rose supposedly came back to Pax with a deal from the Knicks. Supposedly Pax didn't like it and told Rose to keep trying. Again, if Curry want's out, it isn't Pax's job to get him out but it's Currys' agents job to find a deal that gets him out. If Curry wants to play on the QO for a year and sulk. That's fine. If he plays for a year and kicks *** - great. If he has a coronary while actually trying for a rebound, well, that sucks.
> 
> This isn't the same situation as a Vince Carter or T-Mac. Guys who could threaten ( or who did) dog it for the teams they wanted to leave. Those two were under contract for multiple years and big dollars. It was in their GM's interest to get them out of there. Pax doesn't have to do that. Get Curry in on the QO. If he pissess his year away he's just hurting his long-term financial earnings. I fully believe that Pax and Skiles would be fine with parking Curry's behind on the bench if he doesn't come to play every night.


I guess I need to go to Monster.com and read up on the job responsibilities of an NBA general manager. 

I think it's more important for Paxson to make moves that benefit the basketball team than it is for him to prove a point to Eddy Curry and his agent.

Having Eddy play for the QO this year will be a considerable distraction for a young team that will have to play at a very high level just to tread water in a hypercompetitive division and conference.

Skiles bench Curry? That's a laugh. If Eddy's healthy, Skiles'll trot him out there for ~30 a night, just like last year.

Paxson needs to either sign-and-trade Eddy or sign him to a multi-year deal. Anything else will not be in the best interests of the Chicago Bulls, even inasmuch as it might give Eddy something he wants (the horror!).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> If it's Curry and his agent making the demands, then no Pax shouldn't be proactive. If they want out, let them find a deal that gets them out. That's what agents do. Pax starts calling other GMs to unload Curry and that's like sharks sensing blood in water. There's no way in hell that Pax gets anything even close to value by doing that. Leon Rose supposedly came back to Pax with a deal from the Knicks. Supposedly Pax didn't like it and told Rose to keep trying. Again, if Curry want's out, it isn't Pax's job to get him out but it's Currys' agents job to find a deal that gets him out. If Curry wants to play on the QO for a year and sulk. That's fine. If he plays for a year and kicks *** - great. If he has a coronary while actually trying for a rebound, well, that sucks.
> 
> This isn't the same situation as a Vince Carter or T-Mac. Guys who could threaten ( or who did) dog it for the teams they wanted to leave. Those two were under contract for multiple years and big dollars. It was in their GM's interest to get them out of there. Pax doesn't have to do that. Get Curry in on the QO. If he pissess his year away he's just hurting his long-term financial earnings. I fully believe that Pax and Skiles would be fine with parking Curry's behind on the bench if he doesn't come to play every night.


So Pax should stick his head in the sand, like an ostrich. So you say.

It IS in Curry's best interest for his agent to find a deal.

It IS in Paxson's best interest to find the best deal he can. He's a FOOL if he expects Curry's agent to find a deal that does more than make his client (Curry) happy.

Didn't Pax just say he doesn't want to lose Curry for nothing? He's cruising toward exactly that.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> If it's Curry and his agent making the demands, then no Pax shouldn't be proactive. If they want out, let them find a deal that gets them out. That's what agents do. Pax starts calling other GMs to unload Curry and that's like sharks sensing blood in water. There's no way in hell that Pax gets anything even close to value by doing that. Leon Rose supposedly came back to Pax with a deal from the Knicks. Supposedly Pax didn't like it and told Rose to keep trying. Again, if Curry want's out, it isn't Pax's job to get him out but it's Currys' agents job to find a deal that gets him out. If Curry wants to play on the QO for a year and sulk. That's fine. If he plays for a year and kicks *** - great. If he has a coronary while actually trying for a rebound, well, that sucks.
> 
> This isn't the same situation as a Vince Carter or T-Mac. Guys who could threaten ( or who did) dog it for the teams they wanted to leave. Those two were under contract for multiple years and big dollars. It was in their GM's interest to get them out of there. Pax doesn't have to do that. Get Curry in on the QO. If he pissess his year away he's just hurting his long-term financial earnings. I fully believe that Pax and Skiles would be fine with parking Curry's behind on the bench if he doesn't come to play every night.


Actually it is a bad situation for the Bulls regardless because this is not happening in a vacuum and the Bulls have a history. Do you think it is just coincidence that a major city with FA money struck out so badly last time out? In fact, pinning your future hopes on next years FA class is silly. Either you are going to be overpaying a player with a shoddy history of actual NBA performance (Pryz for example) or you are going to MAX out a player that won't advance you any further as a franchise (Peja). This is best case scenario for next season. Well I guess you could offer Nene a deal but any reasonable contract will be matched and I doubt he leaves Denver unless it is for a significant premium in money and role ala Joe Johnson.

So even if you win the pissing match with Eddy and his agent and brow beat him into the QO while refusing to attempt a S&T deal (when it is now known that at least one is out there), the organization loses IMO.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sixerfanforlife said:


> How about this
> 
> Sixers Send:
> 
> ...


Dealo!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Then why the hell are you bashing Paxson for "inferring" that all six years of a contract would be guaranteed? You, yourself just stated that in the first paragraph above that Pax wasn't going to accept the deal Rose was proposing which was a six year deal. The next sentance you write is that Rose hasn't asked for a six year deal? Which is it Scott?
> 
> If it was only a QO deal, which is a fully guranteed deal, then Pax statement that it would count against the cap and the luxury tax is completely and unequivocably true. Even if Curry should keel over on the first day of training camp. Can't have it both ways buddy. Which one is it? This mythical six year deal or the QO?


Rose hasn't asked for a six-year FULLY GUARANTEED deal. 

You are correct in that the QO would count against the cap (and the luxury tax we have absolutely no chance of incurring) if Eddy retired. I've acknowledged that.

But I believe that Pax's response was offered as a defense of why he couldn't accept the six-year contract that Rose wants.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I guess I need to go to Monster.com and read up on the job responsibilities of an NBA general manager.
> 
> I think it's more important for Paxson to make moves that benefit the basketball team than it is for him to prove a point to Eddy Curry and his agent.
> 
> ...



i think it would be a distraction only if eddy makes it a distraction. i don't think that all of a sudden ben or luol or andres or tyson or kirk or chris will stop playing hard or will not want to win cause eddy didn't get his. do you really think that? eddy is the only one who can (and probably will) make a fuss. _EDIT: which is to say that if eddy does make it about himself and the money he didn't get, then the fans and the press are going to see straight through that. at least i will._

and the specific knicks sign and trade scenario is one that pax has already gone on record saying he is not interested in. if there is another deal that leon is working on with another team, then let's hear it. eddy and his team have already rejected the multi-year deal. so where exactly does that leave things?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> *Rose hasn't asked for a six-year FULLY GUARANTEED deal.*
> 
> You are correct in that the QO would count against the cap (and the luxury tax we have absolutely no chance of incurring) if Eddy retired. I've acknowledged that.
> 
> But I believe that *Pax's response was offered as a defense of why he couldn't accept the six-year contract that Rose wants.*


You mean the one that isn't totally guaranteed for six years? Doesn't that lend further credibility to Paxson's statement that Curry's proposed deal (which evidently is shorter than six years of guarantees) would count against the cap (which by the CBA is also shorter than six years)?

What is attributed to him is clearly a true statement, so thats not even an issue. So I mean "credibility" in the sense that it further detracts from your inference that Paxson was trying to convince fans that it would count against the cap for 6 years. By the article, the Rose proposed contract itself that Paxson is referring to, is not for 6 guaranteed years. Hence, the more logical inference, if one is inclined to make inferences beyond the plain language of the article, is that the cap hit would be for shorter duration than 6 years (which it is).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i think it would be a distraction only if eddy makes it a distraction. i don't think that all of a sudden ben or luol or andres or tyson or kirk or chris will stop playing hard or will not want to win cause eddy didn't get his. do you really think that? eddy is the only one who can (and probably will) make a fuss. _EDIT: which is to say that if eddy does make it about himself and the money he didn't get, then the fans and the press are going to see straight through that. at least i will._
> 
> and the specific knicks sign and trade scenario is one that pax has already gone on record saying he is not interested in. if there is another deal that leon is working on with another team, then let's hear it. eddy and his team have already rejected the multi-year deal. so where exactly does that leave things?


In the spirit of things...

Any player on the Bulls who's going to be coming up for a contract extension after their rookie deal is over HAS to realize what's gone on with Curry, Crawford, Duhon, and Chandler. Even what happened to Skiles.

Maybe they should just be professionals, cold-hearted, ice in their veins, and just go out and play hard.

On the other hand, they're not robots - they're really young guys, basically kids. It's gotta stick in the back of their minds.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You mean the one that isn't totally guaranteed for six years? Doesn't that lend further credibility to Paxson's statement that Curry's proposed deal (which evidently is shorter than six years of guarantees) would count against the cap (which by the CBA is also shorter than six years)?
> 
> What is attributed to him is clearly a true statement, so thats not even an issue. So I mean "credibility" in the sense that it further detracts from your inference that Paxson was trying to convince fans that it would count against the cap for 6 years. By the article, the Rose proposed contract itself that Paxson is referring to, is not for 6 guaranteed years. Hence, the more logical inference, if one is inclined to make inferences beyond the plain language of the article, is that the cap hit would be for shorter duration than 6 years (which it is).


You lost me.

I think it's safe to say that the regulars on this board know probably more about the intracacies of the Bulls and the NBA than 99% of Bulls fans in general. Certainly a lot more than the fan who's listening to the Score or reading the Trib or even buying season tickets. They don't know about Larry **** or retirement clauses or any of that stuff. They aren't going to parse that passage like German logicians. Here's what that average sportsfan sees:

Paxson is only willing to offer a three-year deal. But Curry wants a six-year deal with some seemingly generous concessions for the Bulls. Why can't Paxson offer that deal? Oh, jeez, I get it -- that six-year deal is going to count against the cap if Eddy drops dead the second after his signature's dried.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Actually it is a bad situation for the Bulls regardless because this is not happening in a vacuum and the Bulls have a history. Do you think it is just coincidence that a major city with FA money struck out so badly last time out? In fact, pinning your future hopes on next years FA class is silly. Either you are going to be overpaying a player with a shoddy history of actual NBA performance (Pryz for example) or you are going to MAX out a player that won't advance you any further as a franchise (Peja). This is best case scenario for next season. Well I guess you could offer Nene a deal but any reasonable contract will be matched and I doubt he leaves Denver unless it is for a significant premium in money and role ala Joe Johnson.
> 
> So even if you win the pissing match with Eddy and his agent and brow beat him into the QO while refusing to attempt a S&T deal (when it is now known that at least one is out there), the organization loses IMO.


How is it a bad situation regardless? This edition of the Bulls is nowhere near the train-wreck that the 99 or 00 Bulls were ( I can't remember which year they had all that cash and got Ron freakin' Mercer). That team was going nowhere. This one is MUCH better and hence may (or may not) be a desirable FA destination.

How is this a brow beating situation? At this point in the game, I would think Curry would WANT the QO. He may want out or he may want big money but he's not getting either this summer. If he's anything close to the player he wants to be paid like it's in his best interest to prove it. Pax isn't going to S&T him for Knicks trash and he's really not going to get much of anything in any S&T deal. I don't see any team willing to offer Eddy anykind of long-term deal. He's just too risky. If he plays a year without incident he's going to re-establish his value AND he'll have the UFA flexability to do what he pleases.

As for pinning all the hopes on next years FA class; I don't believe I've done that. Sure, I think Pryz is going to be a very good center. He might not. I've been wrong before. I'm also not convinced by a long-shot that Curry is going to be a good one. I'd also be concerned about giving a guy with his sketchy work history a long-term guaranteed deal. That's just me. Hell, I'd rather have Kristic, Pryz, Biedrins, Nene manning the post over Curry. I'm just not all that sold on his overall value to the team.

Finally, I don't view this as a pissing match per-se. If anything, both sides are playing hardball. This isn't all on Pax and it isn't all on Curry. Both sides are trying to get the most out of this situation. Unfortunatly, it looks like they're too far apart. Plain and simple, Eddy Curry will not get a long-term big dollar payday this offseason from any team. Even in a S&T. I'm having a hard time understanding why his camp is insisting on more guaranteed years. I know that's what they're supposed to do but it seems pretty clear that nobody is willing to give them what they want. Something just doesn't seem right about that. Without kicking in BYC status, he's gonna have to take less money yearly for a long-term guarantee. Well, if he want's what has been alluded to ($70 mil over six years - if healthy) he ain't getting that this offseason. The only way he comes close to those dollars is to play a healthy year and perform - not pout. There just seem to be inconsistancies from his camp. I don't see why he isn't jumping at the QO right about now unless everything is not what it seems.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

I think most of this thread is an over-reaction to the current situation. I guess everyone is getting anxious for the season to begin. Both Curry and Pax need to do what is in their best self-interest and that is what they are both doing. Since I'm a Bulls fan , and Pax has yet to do something significantly wrong, he should get the benefit of doubt and not have people assume he is doing something wrong.

Next summer Curry can only sign with teams with cap room. When you look at who will be sufficiently under the cap to offer Eddy $8-10 million in the first year, there are few that would be interested ( remember Atlanta decided not pursue this year). Also every team with cap room will be losing teams. Certainly if Eddy plays well this year ( which is in his best interest) many teams over the cap will want Eddy. That will require a sign and trade with us. We could also sign Eddy to a long term contract next summer if he plays well and can be insured.

The key thing is that Eddy's value will be much greater ( to himself and the Bulls) if he can prove he is healthy enough to play well. It is not now. So why would you think Pax could get more for Eddy than next summer. Our cap space is really only for the next two summers. After that Kirk, Ben, Luol , etc. will take the space. That is why Pax cannot afford to tie up space even for just two years just to appease Eddy. Go Bulls and let's hope Eddy is Ok and plays well this year.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You lost me.
> 
> Paxson is only willing to offer a three-year deal. But Curry wants a six-year deal with some seemingly generous concessions for the Bulls. Why can't Paxson offer that deal? Oh, jeez, I get it -- that six-year deal is going to count against the cap if Eddy drops dead the second after his signature's dried.


Would you offer Eddy a six year guaranteed deal if it was your money on the line? Again, none of the 29 other GMs's has. Even Isaih's deal if it has Sweetney in it couldn't have been for much as Sweets doesn't make all that much. Also, regardless of whether that deal counts against the cap or not the Bulls would be 100% financailly liable to pay the full balance of the deal. Cap hit or not, that will effect what this team would be able to do for years to come. To me, that's the sticking point. Not all this cap garbage. It's just poor business to make such a deal. Your sarcastic Eddy dropping dead comment is a valid concern. There's no way around it other than for Curry to play the year out and then he can drop his shorts at the Evil Empire, give 'em the Full Moon the The Bird and go on his merry way.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Cager said:


> When you look at who will be sufficiently under the cap to offer Eddy $8-10 million in the first year, there are few that would be interested ( remember Atlanta decided not pursue this year).



Unfortunately for the Bulls some teams will adjust there cap strategy if Curry is healthy. I don't think some people grasp the significant difference between restricted and unrestricted free agency.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Unfortunately for the Bulls some teams will adjust there cap strategy if Curry is healthy. I don't think some people grasp the significant difference between restricted and unrestricted free agency.


You really think teams would try to dump salary this seaon to be in a position to get Curry? Isn't pinning your hopes on offseason FA acquisitions silly?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> You really think teams would try to dump salary this seaon to be in a position to get Curry? Isn't pinning your hopes on offseason FA acquisitions silly?



Yes but teams do it all the time. Also, unrestricted low post players do not hit the FA market often. There is a big difference between Eddy Curry and Eric Dampier. All it takes is one team for Eddy Curry to start holding the hammer to get the right S&T deal done.

Man, come on training camp. :banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> You lost me.
> 
> I think it's safe to say that the regulars on this board know probably more about the intracacies of the Bulls and the NBA than 99% of Bulls fans in general. Certainly a lot more than the fan who's listening to the Score or reading the Trib or even buying season tickets. They don't know about Larry **** or retirement clauses or any of that stuff. They aren't going to parse that passage like German logicians. Here's what that average sportsfan sees:
> 
> Paxson is only willing to offer a three-year deal. But Curry wants a six-year deal with some seemingly generous concessions for the Bulls. Why can't Paxson offer that deal? Oh, jeez, I get it -- that six-year deal is going to count against the cap if Eddy drops dead the second after his signature's dried.


The truthfullness of his statement is not lessened by the ignorance of the casual Bulls fan. But I certainly agree with everything you wrote here.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Would you offer Eddy a six year guaranteed deal if it was your money on the line?


From what I can piece together from the mess of conflicting statements, Eddy isn't asking for a six year guaranteed deal, so you're arguing against a non-issue.

Even though it's a non-issue, of course I would, given that it was for the right amounts and the right insurance.



> Again, none of the 29 other GMs's has.


Nor did they offer anything to Chandler. A red herring of an argument that's used on both sides.



> Even Isaih's deal if it has Sweetney in it couldn't have been for much as Sweets doesn't make all that much.


In truth we don't know who all was in the package supposedly offered, so this is a pointless assumption. They could have offered Sweetney and Stephon Marbury for all we know.

And if you're correct, the fact that Curry is willing to accept a low salary deal if offered over the long term, is an opportunity for the Bulls to get a great price if Curry remains healthy.

You're only looking at one side of the risk. The other side is that, if Curry's fine and through an overabundance of caution, you end up either losing a good player for nothing or paying significantly more than you had to.

Your money is "on the line" in that sense too. If Curry ends up healthy, the Bulls would save a fortune by signing him to a six year deal. If Curry ends up unhealthy, the Bulls would save a fortune by signing him to a one year deal. Their money is on the line either way.



> Also, regardless of whether that deal counts against the cap or not the Bulls would be 100% financailly liable to pay the full balance of the deal.


That's not at all clear to me from what's been stated. Judging by Rose's "sharing the risk" statement, I think it's an open question of what and how much would be paid.



> Cap hit or not, that will effect what this team would be able to do for years to come.


:rotf: 

Reinsdorf and the rest of ownership may have to start shopping Ebay for their second and third yachts instead of buying new.



> To me, that's the sticking point. Not all this cap garbage. It's just poor business to make such a deal.


On the contrary, it's great business if Curry turns out to be healthy. If that happens, they stand to gain tens of millions of dollars, I presume, over the alternative in which Eddy plays out the year, is healthy, and then commands a much larger contract.



> Your sarcastic Eddy dropping dead comment is a valid concern. There's no way around it other than for Curry to play the year out and then he can drop his shorts at the Evil Empire, give 'em the Full Moon the The Bird and go on his merry way.


Actually, it'd be quite easy for both sides to find a middle ground. It's in both sides' interest to do so. Yet, I see them both going down the wrong path and away from the sensible thing. By playing hardball, one side will likely get very lucky, the other will likely get nothing. It's actually a pretty ironic outcome to a situation that seems mostly to arise due to a lack of insurance.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Yes but teams do it all the time. Also, unrestricted low post players do not hit the FA market often. There is a big difference between Eddy Curry and Eric Dampier. All it takes is one team for Eddy Curry to start holding the hammer to get the right S&T deal done.
> 
> Man, come on training camp. :banana: :banana: :banana:


Sure. Wouldn't there be an underlying reason why Unrestricted bigs don't hit the market all that often? See, I view Curry much like Dampier. Curry is offense, Damp was rebounding. Both have big flaws to their games. I just don't see anything getting done this late in the game this season. Curry's gonna need to have a good healthy season to prove that he's less risky. After that, he may well command some nice dollars. We'll just have to see...

As to training camp - I'm with ya! A person can only watch Armageddon, Independance Day, An American President, The Wedding Singer or whatever else USA/TNT/TBS trots out without going brain dead. I even caught myself watching the WNBA finals! Gimme some hoops action!!!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You lost me.
> 
> I think it's safe to say that the regulars on this board know probably more about the intracacies of the Bulls and the NBA than 99% of Bulls fans in general. Certainly a lot more than the fan who's listening to the Score or reading the Trib or even buying season tickets. They don't know about Larry **** or retirement clauses or any of that stuff. They aren't going to parse that passage like German logicians. Here's what that average sportsfan sees:
> 
> Paxson is only willing to offer a three-year deal. But Curry wants a six-year deal with some seemingly generous concessions for the Bulls. Why can't Paxson offer that deal? Oh, jeez, I get it -- that six-year deal is going to count against the cap if Eddy drops dead the second after his signature's dried.


Not to interrupt or anything, but I thought the new CBA limited deals to 5 years.

Carry on.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Would you offer Eddy a six year guaranteed deal if it was your money on the line? Again, none of the 29 other GMs's has. Even Isaih's deal if it has Sweetney in it couldn't have been for much as Sweets doesn't make all that much. Also, regardless of whether that deal counts against the cap or not the Bulls would be 100% financailly liable to pay the full balance of the deal. Cap hit or not, that will effect what this team would be able to do for years to come. To me, that's the sticking point. Not all this cap garbage. It's just poor business to make such a deal. Your sarcastic Eddy dropping dead comment is a valid concern. There's no way around it other than for Curry to play the year out and then he can drop his shorts at the Evil Empire, give 'em the Full Moon the The Bird and go on his merry way.


I would not give Eddy a six-year guaranteed deal. I would give him the same deal as Ron Cey : three years, 24-30 million, all guaranteed. Rose's proposed deal is actually brilliant in both its simplicity and in the fact that it attacks Paxson's biggest reservation -- uninsurability -- head on.

Your comments on the cap are pretty amazing, but then again, I've stopped being surprised by the "fans" here who root for the business side of things more than they do the actual wins and losses. So, just to confirm: your gravest reservation about giving Curry a long-term deal isn't that it might impact our ability to sign free agents or be flexible in trades; it's that it would cost the Bulls' ownership money.

Right? 

$250+ million in pure profit while producing the worst six-year W/L record in the history of the NBA -- seems like there's room in there to cover $20-30 million of guaranteed contract if it came down to that.

On an unrelated note, it's interesting to me in light of my side argument with Ron Cey about public perception that you've yet again brought up the "why are there no offers for Eddy" and "Reggie Lewis" arguments. Those are your stories, and you're really going to stick to them, I guess.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Sure. Wouldn't there be an underlying reason why Unrestricted bigs don't hit the market all that often? {/QUOTE]
> 
> Most teams never let it come to that..see Gasol and Ming.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Your comments on the cap are pretty amazing, but then again, I've stopped being surprised by the "fans" here *who root for the business side of things more than they do the actual wins and losses.*


This insult tickles me because, when reading down the thread from top to bottom, what I see immediatly above your post is the name ScottMay as a proud member of a "Fire Paxson" club nowithstanding the fact that said GM assembled a team that more than doubled its win total from the previous season and made a playoff appearance for the first time in 7 years.

Who then is devalueing "actual wins and losses"? Evidently its not exclusive company.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW

The Fire Paxson Club is growing, not shrinking, in recent days/weeks.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This insult tickles me because, when reading down the thread from top to bottom, what I see immediatly above your post is the name ScottMay as a proud member of a "Fire Paxson" club nowithstanding the fact that said GM assembled a team that more than doubled its win total from the previous season and made a playoff appearance for the first time in 7 years.
> 
> Who then is devalueing "actual wins and losses"? Evidently its not exclusive company.


The reason I'm in DaBullz's sig club is well-documented, as is the set of desired circumstances that'll lead me to ask for my removal -- the re-signing of Tyson Chandler, Scott Skiles, and Eddy Curry to long-term contracts to remain as Bulls.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> From what I can piece together from the mess of conflicting statements, Eddy isn't asking for a six year guaranteed deal, so you're arguing against a non-issue.
> 
> Even though it's a non-issue, of course I would, given that it was for the right amounts and the right insurance.


I was directly responding to ScottMay who explicitly stated that Curry was looking for a six year deal. If you want to cite non-issues, take it up with him. I've already stated that no such thing exists. I keep reading this six-year deal from your "side" and now I get it's a non-issue. Would you guys get together and get your stories straight - please?




> Nor did they offer anything to Chandler. A red herring of an argument that's used on both sides.


True. So, are you telling me that if Chandler (or his agent) had gone public with demands of "sign me or trade me" that there would have been zero interest in him? Seems to me that with respect to Tyson, both sides were pretty close all along and they got a deal done. That's not the case with Curry.




> In truth we don't know who all was in the package supposedly offered, so this is a pointless assumption. They could have offered Sweetney and Stephon Marbury for all we know.


Now who's making non-arguments and red-herrings? C'mon Mike. You can do better than this.

[qoute]And if you're correct, the fact that Curry is willing to accept a low salary deal if offered over the long term, is an opportunity for the Bulls to get a great price if Curry remains healthy.[/qoute]

That's a pretty big "if", isn't it? Also, there's the whole question regarding what he'll do after he inks a long-term deal. Does he stay motivated and work hard? Does he slack off and not work too hard? Also, it doesn't seem to me that Curry's camp is content with a long-term "low value" deal. From what I can gather, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Therein lies the problem.



> You're only looking at one side of the risk. The other side is that, if Curry's fine and through an overabundance of caution, you end up either losing a good player for nothing or paying significantly more than you had to.[/qoute]
> 
> Possibly. I've seen nothing that would indicate that Curry would settle for a MLE-type long term deal and I've seen nothing from anywhere that states that such an offer even exists. See, I keep reading how we could possibly lose this tremendous asset and I keep wondering who they're talking about. I'm talking about a guy who, in four year, hasn't really improved much and in some aspects of the game has gotten worse. I'm talking about a guy who's had his work ethic questioned even before he was drafted and he's done nothing to alleviate that concern. To lend your point credence, the situation you describe may well happen. That's why I'm glad I'm not in John Paxson's shoes. It's a tough decision to make. I lean towards the cautious side of things. It's partially my nature.
> 
> ...


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I would not give Eddy a six-year guaranteed deal. I would give him the same deal as Ron Cey : three years, 24-30 million, all guaranteed. Rose's proposed deal is actually brilliant in both its simplicity and in the fact that it attacks Paxson's biggest reservation -- uninsurability -- head on.


Hey, three years and $24 mil works for me. It apparently doesn't work for Pax (and Curry). They're the ones calling the shots here.

[qoute]Your comments on the cap are pretty amazing, but then again, I've stopped being surprised by the "fans" here who root for the business side of things more than they do the actual wins and losses. So, just to confirm: your gravest reservation about giving Curry a long-term deal isn't that it might impact our ability to sign free agents or be flexible in trades; it's that it would cost the Bulls' ownership money.

Right? [/quote]

You started this tone. I've been civil but here goes... You are wrong yet again, which simply confirms the Evil Empire Club is pretty amazing also. I don't like the risk his deal invokes with respect to this teams ability to acquire assets should Eddy retire, get fat, die or whatever. If his deal becomes an albatross, then it directly effects how competetive this team can be with respect to spending money on players who actually contribute. But what the hell, that's not what this team is about is it? You crack me up. Pontificating from on high while being guilty of the exact same mode of thinking that you demean others about. Get over yourself.





> On an unrelated note, it's interesting to me in light of my side argument with Ron Cey about public perception that you've yet again brought up the "why are there no offers for Eddy" and "Reggie Lewis" arguments. Those are your stories, and you're really going to stick to them, I guess.



Tell me where in the hell have I cited Reggie Lewis in anything??? You just throw this crap out there like it's nothing. Do you have any hold on the real world? Are you so bereft at real debating skill that you have to resort to **** like this? You stick to stories that aren't even real. You harp on six year deals that don't even exist? I'm all for going tit-for-tat with you when you can stick to some semblance of reality but now you're just making stuff up. I'm out of this debate. I truly enjoy going back and forth with you, but when you resort to this pissy mode of writing, it's just not worth my time.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I've stopped being surprised by the "fans" here who root for the business side of things more than they do the actual wins and losses.


Getting screwed on the bad end of a business deal has a direct negative impact on the team's success. The way I see it, they are two inseparable components, yes? 

A big reason I think Pax has been a great GM so far is that he has not locked the Bulls into any clear-cut "bad" contracts, while simultaneously vaulting us way way up in the standings. That's fact, and ultimately the bottom line when it comes to success for both the present (lots of talent under contract) and future (lots of financial flexibility in the foreseeable future).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Getting screwed on the bad end of a business deal has a direct negative impact on the team's success. The way I see it, they are two inseparable components, yes?
> 
> A big reason I think Pax has been a great GM so far is that he has not locked the Bulls into any clear-cut "bad" contracts, while simultaneously vaulting us way way up in the standings. That's fact, and ultimately the bottom line when it comes to success for both the present (lots of talent under contract) and future (lots of financial flexibility in the foreseeable future).


The post-lockout CBA has done far more to prevent "bad" contracts than anything the GMs or teams have done for themselves.

The only difficult-to-trade contract is the max deal given to a marginal star on the downside of his career -- Allan Houston being probably the best example of this. This is why I don't want the Bulls to sign Peja, because that's how it'll end up.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> A big reason I think Pax has been a great GM so far is that he has not locked the Bulls into any clear-cut "bad" contracts, while simultaneously vaulting us way way up in the standings. That's fact, and ultimately the bottom line when it comes to success for both the present (lots of talent under contract) and future (lots of financial flexibility in the foreseeable future).


I would be careful to not count one's chickens here.

There are plenty of other teams who've "vaulted way up in the standings" and have had really young cores that don't sustain it.

Golden State had the same record as the bulls in 2002 and then improved by 17 wins. They have a great young core, still, and yet won 34 games last season (in perspective +4 over our Rose/Crawford/Marshall team).

The Clippers also have a great young core. They went from 31 wins (+1 over that Rose/etc. team) to 39 wins, back down to 27 (in perspective +4 over our Crawford/Hinrich led team two seasons ago).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Tell me where in the hell have I cited Reggie Lewis in anything???


This is worth clarifying and I shouldn't have said it -- it refers to your intentional unwillingness to understand Eddy's medical condition. Just today you made a reference to Eddy having a "coronary," e.g.

That's all.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

The Bulls had three young rotation players up for new contracts this summer. IMHO, they have already signed the two most important players in that group - Chris Duhon and Tyson Chandler. Getting Scott Skiles an extension probably was equally as important, if not moreso.

At least for the next couple seasons, I would imagine that Darius Songaila and Othella Harrington are likely to be at least as productive as Eddy Curry, if not moreso. After that it is very speculative how Curry might compare to Harrington and Songaila in terms of productivity.

So in my opinion, all of this attention on Curry is much ado about (relatively) nothing. He is a mediocre basketball player who shows flashes of promise that have teased us all since his days in high school. But there is more uncertainty now than there was four years ago about whether those flashes of promise will turn into anything substantial.

Curry's trade value probably was higher at some points of his career than it is now, but I think it was very reasonable for John Paxson to absorb the risk of seeing if Curry could meet his expectations with the Bulls. It is not the end of the world if the Bulls "lose Curry for nothing." IMO, it is no worse than if they had lost Duhon for nothing.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

Here's a little piece of advice for Paxson;Let Curry go.


The contract that Paxson had offered, was to insure that while Eddy Curry remains a ChiCago bull they'll likely save there future.

In other words he's trying to save there organization by saying "Okay we'll give you a shot but not risking things just yet"

If I'm Eddy I agree in a heartbeat to the deal to show my loyality passion energy to chicago.

Instead he goes off asking for big bucks and still has yet to do what Paxson believes is the only way he'll get the money he desires.

He doesn't respect the fans, he doesn't respect his team mates, and he doesn't respect Paxson let him go to the New York Knicks.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> The reason I'm in DaBullz's sig club is well-documented, as is the set of desired circumstances that'll lead me to ask for my removal -- the re-signing of Tyson Chandler, Scott Skiles, *and Eddy Curry to long-term contracts to remain as Bulls.*


Regardless of the circumstances, evidently. I know your rebuttal, so you don't have to bother. I realize that the fact Eddy can't be insured and that a leading expert (possibly "the" leading expert) in the field has not cleard Curry to play barring a DNA test (as reported by the Tribune yesterday) has no impact on your undying, and layman's, faith in Eddy's long term health.

Nonetheless, I advocate the presence of the Fire Paxson club. I love it. I never want to see it go away.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Regardless of the circumstances, evidently. I know your rebuttal, so you don't have to bother. I realize that the fact Eddy can't be insured and that a leading expert (possibly "the" leading expert) in the field has not cleard Curry to play barring a DNA test (as reported by the Tribune yesterday) has no impact on your undying, and layman's, faith in Eddy's long term health.


So we're back to square one with the medical angles? Are Drs. Mark Estes, David Cannom, and the other doctors who have unqualifiedly cleared Curry "laymen," too? No, wait, that's right -- they're merely "negligent."

You can't name a doctor who has diagnosed Eddy with HCM. Heck, the Harvard lab that processes Maron's DNA tests doesn't even give a percentage for how accurate the test is for people who don't have clinical HCM -- because they don't DNA test people w/o clinical HCM.

I'm not sure what Maron's motivation is, but yesterday's Trib report isn't really new news. That he hasn't diagnosed Eddy with HCM is all that matters to me.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I was directly responding to ScottMay who explicitly stated that Curry was looking for a six year deal. If you want to cite non-issues, take it up with him. I've already stated that no such thing exists. I keep reading this six-year deal from your "side" and now I get it's a non-issue. Would you guys get together and get your stories straight - please?


I don't claim any responsibility to agree with Scott, but he pretty clearly pointed out Curry was looking for a six year deal, but with "generous concessions" to the Bulls, and thus quite possibly not fully guaranteed. That's also what I gathered they might want from reading the papers.

Maybe you're just really thick and don't see any difference between a deal that's guaranteed and a deal that's not guaranteed. I do. You asked whether a six year *guaranteed* deal is ok.

No, and one hasn't been offered so it's besides the point.

However, a six year deal that appears not to be fully guaranteed has been offered.



> > And if you're correct, the fact that Curry is willing to accept a low salary deal if offered over the long term, is an opportunity for the Bulls to get a great price if Curry remains healthy.
> 
> 
> That's a pretty big "if", isn't it?


Based on your interpretation of the salary Curry is willing to accept (low enough to make possible a Sweetney sign and trade) and my detailed (but admittedly not infallible) readings on the medical issue, it seems more likely that he'll be healthy and he'll accept a lower contract both.



> Also, there's the whole question regarding what he'll do after he inks a long-term deal. Does he stay motivated and work hard? Does he slack off and not work too hard?


If that's the fear it's pretty stupid of the Bulls to have not traded him by now, and to be trying to deal with him at all.



> Also, it doesn't seem to me that Curry's camp is content with a long-term "low value" deal. From what I can gather, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Therein lies the problem.


Err... you were just saying he would be willing to be traded for Sweetney, who doesn't make a huge amount. Therefore Curry must be willing to take that salary to make the trade happen. So as far as I can see, you're saying he won't and will. Talk about having your cake and eating it too...



> > You're only looking at one side of the risk. The other side is that, if Curry's fine and through an overabundance of caution, you end up either losing a good player for nothing or paying significantly more than you had to.[/qoute]
> >
> > Possibly. I've seen nothing that would indicate that Curry would settle for a MLE-type long term deal and I've seen nothing from anywhere that states that such an offer even exists.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> So we're back to square one with the medical angles? Are Drs. Mark Estes, David Cannom, and the other doctors who have unqualifiedly cleared Curry "laymen," too? No, wait, that's right -- they're merely "negligent."


Those physicians are not laymen, you are. Therefore your refusal to acknowledge the finding of one of the physicians as having merit is what it is, your ignorant opinion. You simply side with the physicians that give you the most leverage to continue with your crusade, which is fine. But it certainly doesn't carry any weight, hence my "laymen" comment.

I, on the other hand, don't disregard any of the opinions of these physicians. I simply recognize the significant disparity between them and, therefore, conclude that this disparity creates a logical basis for pause on the part of the Bulls. Thats all.



> You can't name a doctor who has diagnosed Eddy with HCM. Heck, the Harvard lab that processes Maron's DNA tests doesn't even give a percentage for how accurate the test is for people who don't have clinical HCM -- because they don't DNA test people w/o clinical HCM.


I don't need to. I have the existence of Maron's opinion that he will NOT clear Curry to play barring the test (at least as has been recently reported by the Tribune). Unlike you, I recognize that I am not competent to judge the merit of his opinion. I am, however, competent to opine that the Bulls reliance on that opinion, and concern with the disparity of opinions, renders their conduct anything but the "schmear campaign" that you so detest.



> I'm not sure what Maron's motivation is, but yesterday's Trib report isn't really new news. That he hasn't diagnosed Eddy with HCM is all that matters to me.


The Trib report was huge news, if accurate. Up to this point, Maron's "recommendation" for the DNA test has been described simply as that. We have all, more or less, interpreted that to mean that Maron had cleared Eddy to play. Evidently he hasn't. That you think Dr. Maron's refusal to clear Eddy "isn't really news" when weighed against your opinion regarding HCM is a wonderful illustration of your hubris on this issue. And, frankly, it baffles me.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> You lost me.
> 
> I think it's safe to say that the regulars on this board know probably more about the intracacies of the Bulls and the NBA than 99% of Bulls fans in general. Certainly a lot more than the fan who's listening to the Score or reading the Trib or even buying season tickets. They don't know about Larry **** or retirement clauses or any of that stuff. They aren't going to parse that passage like German logicians. Here's what that average sportsfan sees:
> 
> Paxson is only willing to offer a three-year deal. But Curry wants a six-year deal with some seemingly generous concessions for the Bulls. Why can't Paxson offer that deal? Oh, jeez, I get it -- that six-year deal is going to count against the cap if Eddy drops dead the second after his signature's dried.



Nah

They're thinking what's Eddy's deal got to do with headwear?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Those physicians are not laymen, you are. Therefore your refusal to acknowledge the finding of one of the physicians as having merit is what it is, your ignorant opinion. You simply side with the physicians that give you the most leverage to continue with your crusade, which is fine. But it certainly doesn't carry any weight, hence my "laymen" comment.
> 
> I, on the other hand, don't disregard any of the opinions of these physicians. I simply recognize the significant disparity between them and, therefore, conclude that this disparity creates a logical basis for pause on the part of the Bulls. Thats all.


It's actually not an "ignorant" opinion at all. My opinion is based on careful multiple readings, including material written by most of the doctors who we're discussing, of how HCM is diagnosed. It is highly doubtful that Estes / Cannom / Maron have a differing CLINICAL diagnosis of Eddy. So for me it goes back to the same issue -- the usefulness of the DNA test, and plenty of world-renowned cardiologists say it isn't meaningfully predictive of whether someone who doesn't have clinical HCM will develop it.



> The Trib report was huge news, if accurate. Up to this point, Maron's "recommendation" for the DNA test has been described simply as that. We have all, more or less, interpreted that to mean that Maron had cleared Eddy to play. Evidently he hasn't. That you think Dr. Maron's refusal to clear Eddy "isn't really news" when weighed against your opinion regarding HCM is a wonderful illustration of your hubris on this issue. And, frankly, it baffles me.


I have never said that Maron had unqualifiedly cleared Eddy to play, nor has any other poster that I know of. If Maron wouldn't unqualifiedly clear Eddy without genetic screening, I fail to see the difference between whether he's "suggested," "recommended," or "insisted" on Eddy's taking the test. The meaningful thing, again, is whether or not Maron has offered a clinical diagnosis of HCM, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that's happened.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Cager said:


> I think most of this thread is an over-reaction to the current situation. I guess everyone is getting anxious for the season to begin. Both Curry and Pax need to do what is in their best self-interest and that is what they are both doing. Since I'm a Bulls fan , and Pax has yet to do something significantly wrong, he should get the benefit of doubt and not have people assume he is doing something wrong.
> 
> Next summer Curry can only sign with teams with cap room. When you look at who will be sufficiently under the cap to offer Eddy $8-10 million in the first year, there are few that would be interested ( remember Atlanta decided not pursue this year). Also every team with cap room will be losing teams. Certainly if Eddy plays well this year ( which is in his best interest) many teams over the cap will want Eddy. That will require a sign and trade with us. We could also sign Eddy to a long term contract next summer if he plays well and can be insured.
> 
> The key thing is that Eddy's value will be much greater ( to himself and the Bulls) if he can prove he is healthy enough to play well. It is not now. So why would you think Pax could get more for Eddy than next summer. Our cap space is really only for the next two summers. After that Kirk, Ben, Luol , etc. will take the space. That is why Pax cannot afford to tie up space even for just two years just to appease Eddy. Go Bulls and let's hope Eddy is Ok and plays well this year.



Word


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Nah
> 
> They're thinking what's Eddy's deal got to do with headwear?


Headwear?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> Unfortunately for the Bulls some teams will adjust there cap strategy if Curry is healthy. I don't think some people grasp the significant difference between restricted and unrestricted free agency.


Welll that liklihood is substantially predicated upon Atlanta, Charlotte and New Orleans taking out someone's trash this season

Every other team just doesn't have the wiggle room to be at a level low enough under the projected cap ( say $8M under that ) to be a player in free agency at that level

I've looked.

In addition to that the notion of a team changing its existing payroll structure at this time or by trade deadline with half the season gone to "be a player for Eddy Curry in free agency" is hilarious ( to put it mildly )


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Headwear?


For Darius Miles and Q maybe ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Paxson did liken Curry's situation to that of Reggie Lewis (again). Even bringing up Reggie Lewis at all appears to be misdirection and dishonesty since Lewis' condition was dramatically different from Curry's.
> 
> Even in the context of saying it's important to do what the doctors are telling us, the situations are dramatically different. *Every* doctor Lewis spoke with told him he couldn't play basketball and that he shouldn't be working out. *No* doctor has told Curry that, as far as we can gather, though (there's conflicting reports about what Maron has asked for, but it seems even he said there was no problem in Curry just working out without taking the test).
> 
> ...


Maybe if I bump my own post, someone will address it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It's actually not an "ignorant" opinion at all. My opinion is based on careful multiple readings, including material written by most of the doctors who we're discussing, of how HCM is diagnosed. It is highly doubtful that Estes / Cannom / Maron have a differing CLINICAL diagnosis of Eddy. So for me it goes back to the same issue -- the usefulness of the DNA test, and plenty of world-renowned cardiologists say it isn't meaningfully predictive of whether someone who doesn't have clinical HCM will develop it.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said that Maron had unqualifiedly cleared Eddy to play, nor has any other poster that I know of. If Maron wouldn't unqualifiedly clear Eddy without genetic screening, I fail to see the difference between whether he's "suggested," "recommended," or "insisted" on Eddy's taking the test. The meaningful thing, again, is whether or not Maron has offered a clinical diagnosis of HCM, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that's happened.


Let me be direct: 

Does a dispute over whether or not Eddy Curry should be cleared to play professional basketball exist among recognized leaders in the relevant specialty area?

Does Dr. Maron's refusal to clear Eddy to play barring the results of a DNA test have merit?

Should the existence of Dr. Maron's refusal to clear Eddy be disregarded by the Bulls?

Does the existence of Dr. Maron's refusal to clear Eddy support or detract from the reasonableness of the Bulls' position to date?

Does the existence of Dr. Maron's refusal to clear Eddy support or detract from the theory that the Bulls are attempting to "schmear" Eddy and drive down his value without regard to his health?

If injured on a multi-year guaranteed deal, would Curry's salary count against the Bulls capspace during the only offseason(s) in which it is anticipated that they will enjoy capspace?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Getting screwed on the bad end of a business deal has a direct negative impact on the team's success. The way I see it, they are two inseparable components, yes?


That's a yes for me ..its not a have or have not..masked socio economic debate ( depending on which side of the divide you sit on ) for me 

All about ball ..which the business is a part of as it pertains to operational capacity and not getting unreasonably albatrossed by one part ( particularly when that piece is just a piece and not THE team )


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Welll that liklihood is substantially predicated upon Atlanta, Charlotte and New Orleans taking out someone's trash this season
> 
> Every other team just doesn't have the wiggle room to be at a level low enough under the projected cap ( say $8M under that ) to be a player in free agency at that level
> 
> ...


It's not unreasonable to expect some teams to deal at the deadline to clear capspace, regardless of Curry's situation. In this sense, it's unknown if there might be other UFA suitors for his ... ahem... services.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

The Sausage King is correct. The teams with likely salary cap room next year are Atlanta, Charlotte, New Orleans, LA Clippers and perhaps Toronto. The Bulls are in great shape to retain Eddy or do a sign and trade if necessary. Atlanta didn't want Curry this summer, Charlotte is set with Primoz, New Orleans will not take a chance on possible health even if Eddy is insurable, the Clipps won't spend the money and Toronto may not have enough room to offer more than $7MM.

Pax is absolutely doiing the right thing here for the Bulls because there is only a small chance of losing Curry next summer for nothing unless we simply don't want him. The sign and trade offers next summer will be significantly better than anything we couls get now. Plus the QO ensures us if Curry no longer can play we will have ample resources to replace him or what he gives us ( only low post offense). A PF with a low post offense would work fine as an Eddy replacement.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Cager said:


> The Sausage King is correct. The teams with likely salary cap room next year are Atlanta, Charlotte, New Orleans, LA Clippers and perhaps Toronto. The Bulls are in great shape to retain Eddy or do a sign and trade if necessary. Atlanta didn't want Curry this summer, Charlotte is set with Primoz, New Orleans will not take a chance on possible health even if Eddy is insurable, the Clipps won't spend the money and Toronto may not have enough room to offer more than $7MM.
> 
> Pax is absolutely doiing the right thing here for the Bulls because there is only a small chance of losing Curry next summer for nothing unless we simply don't want him. The sign and trade offers next summer will be significantly better than anything we couls get now. Plus the QO ensures us if Curry no longer can play we will have ample resources to replace him or what he gives us ( only low post offense). A PF with a low post offense would work fine as an Eddy replacement.


I think Atlanta would be the only threat. If they don't get a quality big man in next years draft they will be desperate for a big difference maker. I don't know why the Curry Camp wants to say "trade him or lose him" when it is very possible even if we can't work a multi-year deal out this summer we are very likely his best option next year. If he gets insured and plays well next year he might just get the contract he's looking for.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> Maybe if I bump my own post, someone will address it.


OK I'll play

I don't know whether it is what you are looking for ..but notwithstanding a lack of spit and polish in how Pax handled the press conference ( and it is fair , I believe , to gain an impression that he elevated Cannom and backhandedly dismissed "Eddy's doctors" ) getting down to the root of it , I think it depends who the opinion has been provided for , and consequently , who can have entitlement to reliance on that opinion - which carries with it issues of recourse on professional indemnity insurance / negiligence etc

But I thought Estes was one of the Bulls recommended cardiologists ?

Maybe so ..but did the Bulls engage him directly or did the tell Eddy Curry to go see this guy, and therefore , is the legal relationship between Eddy and Estes ( without it extending to the Bulls ) given that Eddy engaged directly 

I think these are issues that aren't being looked at or are known clearly enough 

1. Who instructed who and who was it provided for ?

2. Therefore where does the legal liability lie in the contract of engagement /provision of service ?

3. Who has what kind of recourse to such advice without being limited with conditional advice ( re disclaimer etc )

Understanding all of this would certainly paint a different picture in the context of commercial responsibilities 

I think what is known is that Pax is claiming Cannom as his guy because it appears he was directly engaged by the Bulls and so in the legal relationship of engagement/provision of service "contract" he is the Bulls guy in this set of circumstances ... again notwithstanding that there are others such as Estes who are "Bulls endorsed" or "panelled" but have fallen into the category of "Eddy's doctors" given how they were instructed and by whom 

I think this is hugely important and is probably what is driving this - which consequently how it gets portrayed as " our guy Cannom" and "Eddy's backyard quacks" ( in the inference that some have taken for how it was perhaps clumsily said in the press interview )

And ..if this stuff is the driver .. then the Bulls guy , Cannom , has not cleared him to play until he gets a DNA test done 

Guess what ?

Pax will be sitting Eddy Curry on the IL until he gets further testing done that satisfies the Bulls

If he doesn't I will happily beat the drum with ScottMay and others who think the Evil Empire is morally and ethically bankrupt


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Hustle said:


> I think Atlanta would be the only threat. If they don't get a quality big man in next years draft they will be desperate for a big difference maker. I don't know why the Curry Camp wants to say "trade him or lose him" when it is very possible even if we can't work a multi-year deal out this summer we are very likely his best option next year. If he gets insured and plays well next year he might just get the contract he's looking for.


I presume Leon Rose is smart enough to know this ( can't vouch for Eddy ) and therefore would be foolish to act prematurely now

The S and T me now is trying to create leverage as Pax identified 

If Leon Rose really wanted to create leverage he would demand Pax withdraw the QO to let Eddy go UFA now 

He won't do that though... Camp Curry don't have the balls

But I think Eddy will find himself on the QO but on the IL until he has his DNA 

And once that course of action is determined I bet Eddy will be having his DNA test pretty soon

The longer Eddy sits on the IL the more he screws his market for next summer


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Why should Eddy have to get a DNA test? Is there any precedent at all for an employer demanding a DNA test of it's employee? Isn't that overly invasive to Eddy's privacy? How is that even constitutional? Isn't there a certain amount of information that an employer should not have the right to ask about?

And has Paxson even said that if Eddy's DNA test is okay that he will pay him?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I presume Leon Rose is smart enough to know this ( can't vouch for Eddy ) and therefore would be foolish to act prematurely now
> 
> The S and T me now is trying to create leverage as Pax identified
> 
> ...


Why would Rose ask for it and why would pax do it ?

If pax thought for a minute Eddy really couldnt have played he wouldve traded him by now even if for less value .

The only thing that can be said thats a 100% accurate about this whole ordeal is that the inurance company wont insure eddys heart .

If pax sits Eddy on the it would basically be admitting that the only reason Pax cleared him was to sign him to as cheap deal and now that Curry wont bite Pax is attempting to hurt his value next summer.Other teams will see right thru that and still be interested.

If paxs wasnt playing both sides of the fence when Eddy found another doctor to approve him he wouldve said we will take that into consideration but our medical staff needs further tests before we are able to clear Eddy to play for the Chicago Bulls and enter into any contract talks beyond the QO which we will make .

Instead Pax validated the other doctors diagnosis and proceeded into contract talks because he felt he had the upperhand.

It seems that Eddy and Rose are not following Paxs plan and he seems to be getting angry .


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> The Bulls had three young rotation players up for new contracts this summer. IMHO, they have already signed the two most important players in that group - Chris Duhon and Tyson Chandler. Getting Scott Skiles an extension probably was equally as important, if not moreso.
> 
> At least for the next couple seasons, I would imagine that Darius Songaila and Othella Harrington are likely to be at least as productive as Eddy Curry, if not moreso. After that it is very speculative how Curry might compare to Harrington and Songaila in terms of productivity.
> 
> ...


I was reading through this thread and believe in your argument, but some people are saying that Eddy Curry is a necessity to this team. I don't believe this to be true. Evidence such as the Wizards series is inconclusive being that the Bulls handily won the first 2 games and easily could have won games 6 and 7. Moreso, his lapses on defense and when rebounding the ball pretty much equal what he gives us offensively. Most people didn't get excited about the Songalia deal but Petrie has shown he's a good judge of talent. Songalia was not matched because of the C-Webb trade and the acquisition of SAR who is a more proficient and high-profile scorer than Songalia. Is he going to average 16 a game? No. If he gets extended minutes with the Bulls can I see him averaging 12 and 8 and playing good defense. Yes I can. 

In Paxson's mind I believe he is willing to let the Curry situation get straightened out from within. Curry has shown he is willing to play and interested in the team only during what he believed was his contract year. This happens so often in sports that to believe that Eddy Curry will suddenly show a fire and become a 20/10 guy is just idiotic. Remember the explosion of high school players specifically bigs stem from an increase in playing time, not the myth that they suddenly "get it". Confidence and desire are key elements in basketball. Losing Eddy Curry and gaining a legitimate post option in FA next year will not be a steep drop especially for a team that wins games strictly on defense and fundamentals. People here often criticize "the right way" and "jib", but in reality the Bulls don't have the firepower to compete any other way. Eddy Curry does not magically make us a completely different team. The keys to this team are Hinrich, Duhon, Noc, Deng, Chandler, and Gordon. Each provides a valuable role while maintaining the fiery demeanor that allows the Bulls to steal victories from far more talented teams. Personally I feel that the acquisition of Songalia and hypothetically whoever we draft next year will more than make up for Curry's departure (if it should come to that). Let Big Ed play out this year and if he shows no signs of his heart condition affecting his play and he improves his game (which is a ?) then we offer him fair worth, if he rejects it based on previous dealings then we will have lost a cog, but not a superstar. 

IMO the far more dangerous scenario is guaranteeing Eddy Curry for 3-4 years as some of you would like and watching him either shut it down mentally, physically, or both. Then we will see no shortage of new members in the Fire Paxson Club. A General Manager in any sport can very rarely despite assembling a team that erased a seven-year streak of being terrible.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> Why should Eddy have to get a DNA test? Is there any precedent at all for an employer demanding a DNA test of it's employee? Isn't that overly invasive to Eddy's privacy? How is that even constitutional? Isn't there a certain amount of information that an employer should not have the right to ask about?
> 
> And has Paxson even said that if Eddy's DNA test is okay that he will pay him?


Eddy doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to 

He is within his rights to refuse just as John Paxson is within his rights to protect himself commercially from possible litigation by being seen to take every avenue available to establish ( and practise ) proper duty of care 

You know what ? Eddy refusing to have the test , ultimately, only hurts Eddy's short term and long term basketball future


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Why would Rose ask for it


To put pressure on the Bulls that they will lose Eddy for nothing now and create firmer leverage for a S and T now 

But he won't have the balls to do it as 

A. Its the only gteed money on the table right now 

B. He knows that the Bulls are the only team that can likely give him the most amount of money still when none of the other teams with cap space are going to come knocking..if he and Eddy agree to work with the Bulls through the various issues and get something done that allays concerns and issues for *both* the Bulls and Eddy Curry in an individual sense

If these can't be jointly satisfied .. then Camp Curry has to have a preparedness to have as much respect and integrity as what we are demanding from John Paxson and be prepared to walk away now rather than try and syphon money from the rich devil slavemaster without a completely disclosed and honest platform , or , hamstring the team in such way with distraction and cap encumberance ( even if it is for 1 summer if he can't play anymore ) 

Its the only decent thing to do and we expect decency from the rich devil slavemaster right ?



> why would pax do it ?


Commercially he shouldn't 

Morally.... that's a different answer for different people

Clearly there is a path to go forward that is clearly uncomfortable for one party and raises issues about unfair control and invasion of civil liberties etc 

Someone's civil liberties may encroach upon another parties long term liability issues ?

The fair and honourable solution if neither party is prepared to concede ?

Don't hold the gun to the head and walk away with integrity 

Me.... I'm a ruthless arsehole and I would press whatever advantage I had and if that meant I sat his arse until he caved knowing that I still hold leverage next summer ..so be it 



> If pax thought for a minute Eddy really couldnt have played he wouldve traded him by now even if for less value .


I agree with you on this 

But what he thinks personally "gut feel" and doing the right thing to protect himself commercially are two different things




> If pax sits Eddy on the it would basically be admitting that the only reason Pax cleared him was to sign him to as cheap deal and now that Curry wont bite Pax is attempting to hurt his value next summer.Other teams will see right thru that and still be interested.


Dead wrong ...waaaaaaaaaay off base



> If paxs wasnt playing both sides of the fence when Eddy found another doctor to approve him he wouldve said we will take that into consideration but our medical staff needs further tests before we are able to clear Eddy to play for the Chicago Bulls and enter into any contract talks beyond the QO which we will make .


How do you he hasn't taken all of that into consideration

You haven't understood the points raised about advice , whom it was prepared for , extension of liability and recourse 



> Instead Pax validated the other doctors diagnosis and proceeded into contract talks because he felt he had the upperhand.


No it was advice prepared specifically for them and not for another party

He ignores it and he is creating an unaccceptable contingent risk for himself and the organisation not to mention any issues of moral responsibility to another individual ( that a lot of you think is completely bogus as all he is about is screwing anybody , Eddy being the latest victim , that comes across his path )



> It seems that Eddy and Rose are not following Paxs plan and he seems to be getting angry .


To you perhaps


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I would be careful to not count one's chickens here.
> 
> There are plenty of other teams who've "vaulted way up in the standings" and have had really young cores that don't sustain it.
> 
> ...


Two very bad examples.

Golden State lost Gilbert Arenas for nothing after their vast improvement. 

The Clippers lost Odom AND Andre Miller after struggling mightily just to reach 39 wins (btw, that was a failed season for the Clipps, as they had very high expectations). 

At the very least, we're keeping Curry this season. And even if we DID lose him for nothing in '06, he's a much lesser player than Arenas and Odom/Miller; not to mention our cap room to sign a Curry replacement.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I was reading through this thread and believe in your argument, but some people are saying that Eddy Curry is a necessity to this team. I don't believe this to be true. Evidence such as the Wizards series is inconclusive being that the Bulls handily won the first 2 games and easily could have won games 6 and 7. Moreso, his lapses on defense and when rebounding the ball pretty much equal what he gives us offensively. Most people didn't get excited about the Songalia deal but Petrie has shown he's a good judge of talent. Songalia was not matched because of the C-Webb trade and the acquisition of SAR who is a more proficient and high-profile scorer than Songalia. Is he going to average 16 a game? No. If he gets extended minutes with the Bulls can I see him averaging 12 and 8 and playing good defense. Yes I can.
> 
> In Paxson's mind I believe he is willing to let the Curry situation get straightened out from within. Curry has shown he is willing to play and interested in the team only during what he believed was his contract year. This happens so often in sports that to believe that Eddy Curry will suddenly show a fire and become a 20/10 guy is just idiotic. Remember the explosion of high school players specifically bigs stem from an increase in playing time, not the myth that they suddenly "get it". Confidence and desire are key elements in basketball. Losing Eddy Curry and gaining a legitimate post option in FA next year will not be a steep drop especially for a team that wins games strictly on defense and fundamentals. People here often criticize "the right way" and "jib", but in reality the Bulls don't have the firepower to compete any other way. Eddy Curry does not magically make us a completely different team. The keys to this team are Hinrich, Duhon, Noc, Deng, Chandler, and Gordon. Each provides a valuable role while maintaining the fiery demeanor that allows the Bulls to steal victories from far more talented teams. Personally I feel that the acquisition of Songalia and hypothetically whoever we draft next year will more than make up for Curry's departure (if it should come to that). Let Big Ed play out this year and if he shows no signs of his heart condition affecting his play and he improves his game (which is a ?) then we offer him fair worth, if he rejects it based on previous dealings then we will have lost a cog, but not a superstar.
> 
> IMO the far more dangerous scenario is guaranteeing Eddy Curry for 3-4 years as some of you would like and watching him either shut it down mentally, physically, or both. Then we will see no shortage of new members in the Fire Paxson Club. A General Manager in any sport can very rarely despite assembling a team that erased a seven-year streak of being terrible.



I agree. Not having Deng probably was more costly to us in the Wizards series than not having Curry. However I would have loved to see the Bulls with Deng and Curry get some experience playing in the second round.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Welll that liklihood is substantially predicated upon Atlanta, Charlotte and New Orleans taking out someone's trash this season
> 
> Every other team just doesn't have the wiggle room to be at a level low enough under the projected cap ( say $8M under that ) to be a player in free agency at that level
> 
> ...



Wrong. Just about any team that wants to be under the salary cap except NY can do so as long as their is a willingness and expiring contracts on other teams. NY has about $30 million+ expiring, they could effectively help two different teams get under the cap and I am willing to bet they will be willing to take on salary to scramble into the playoffs. Houston also has a lot of expring contracts and they will be another team looking to add a significant piece at the deadline.

Like I said, all it takes is one team with slary cap to be willing to sign Eddy and the Bulls lose all leverage re: a S&T.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Let me be direct:


(I'll skip the questions that I'm clearly not qualified to answer, either from my point of view or expertise.)



> Does a dispute over whether or not Eddy Curry should be cleared to play professional basketball exist among recognized leaders in the relevant specialty area?


No. So far as we know, none of the individual specialists who've examined Curry have been asked to compare notes and diagnoses. 



> Does Dr. Maron's refusal to clear Eddy to play barring the results of a DNA test have merit?


Not according to conventional cardiological practice, which dictates testing for DNA be done only in the presence of clinically observable HCM. 



> Does the existence of Dr. Maron's refusal to clear Eddy support or detract from the theory that the Bulls are attempting to "schmear" Eddy and drive down his value without regard to his health?


Dr. Maron's refusal is what Dr. Maron's refusal is. It's the Bulls' willingness to set aside Dr. Maron's refusal if Eddy signs a short-term, small-dollar, minimally guaranteed contract that supports the theory, coupled with their pointing to the refusal as evidence that they can't give Curry a six-year deal.



> If injured on a multi-year guaranteed deal, would Curry's salary count against the Bulls capspace during the only offseason(s) in which it is anticipated that they will enjoy capspace?


Unclear -- according to Dan Rosenbaum's discussion on the new CBA, the waiting period has been reduced from two years to one.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> But I thought Estes was one of the Bulls recommended cardiologists ?
> 
> Maybe so ..but did the Bulls engage him directly or did the tell Eddy Curry to go see this guy, and therefore , is the legal relationship between Eddy and Estes ( without it extending to the Bulls ) given that Eddy engaged directly


Based on Pax's recent Score interview, it appears that Estes was the first expert cardiologist whose opinion the Bulls sought. He is the doctor responsible for the initial diagnosis presented at the April press conference.

And you have some names wrong -- Maron is the guy who wants DNA. Cannom is the doctor who unqualifiedly cleared Curry in July (and it was only through that happenstance that we even learned of Estes's involvement).


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It's the Bulls' willingness to set aside Dr. Maron's refusal if Eddy signs a short-term, small-dollar, minimally guaranteed contract that supports the theory, coupled with their pointing to the refusal as evidence that they can't give Curry a six-year deal.


Where have you deduced this from? To my recollection, Paxson has been pretty steadfast in Eddy taking the DNA test, no matter the terms of the contract. In listening to his interview on the Score and reading this article from the Tribune, I think it's pretty clear that Paxson wants Eddy to take the DNA test before the BULLS ultimately clear him to play NBA basketball.



> "This is what we've been saying all along," Paxson said.


Paxson has certainly been negotiating a short-term deal, but I have absolutely no idea where you have gotten the notion that a DNA test will not be necessary if Eddy accepts a 3 year deal. That's just some pure edit: no cursing right there.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

> "Eddy can refuse to do it," Paxson said. "And if that happens when the day is done come October, then we have another issue we're going to have to deal with."


Again, can you please point me to where Paxson has made it seem like he will abandon his request of a DNA test if Eddy accepts a short-term deal?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Based on Pax's recent Score interview, it appears that Estes was the first expert cardiologist whose opinion the Bulls sought. He is the doctor responsible for the initial diagnosis presented at the April press conference.
> 
> And you have some names wrong -- Maron is the guy who wants DNA. Cannom is the doctor who unqualifiedly cleared Curry in July (and it was only through that happenstance that we even learned of Estes's involvement).


OK . 

What my question is who enagaged Estes for advice and who does it extend to 

If engaged by the Bulls for the Bulls then I could live with Pax's requirements for a 2nd opinion 

Was Cannom engaged by the Bulls for the Bulls or was this Camp Curry's choice with findings presented to the Bulls for consideration ?

I'm only speculating but maybe Maron was the Bulls choice for "their 2nd opinion" and given two opinions sought and extending to them they are siding with the more dour / cautious of the two ... which commercially and for reasons I have previously outlined I can understand 

I say to you again .. I have no doubt Pax will instruct that Eddy sit until he gets his way with further testing and if there is clear evidence that he lets him play without reservation on the QO or on a cheaper term offer ( if there was one available as an option ) then I will without hesitation agree that it stinks to high heaven and is indefensible across all levels 

Having said that I don't think that's where he is at ( Pax )


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Wrong. Just about any team that wants to be under the salary cap except NY can do so as long as their is a willingness and expiring contracts on other teams. NY has about $30 million+ expiring, they could effectively help two different teams get under the cap and I am willing to bet they will be willing to take on salary to scramble into the playoffs. Houston also has a lot of expring contracts and they will be another team looking to add a significant piece at the deadline.
> 
> Like I said, all it takes is one team with slary cap to be willing to sign Eddy and the Bulls lose all leverage re: a S&T.


Theoretically possible 

Extremely unlikely 

At a snapshot 

If New York dealt TT or Penny it would be for a marquee superstar who is the victim of a demolition job and a start over ( like what Toronto did with Vince last year ) 

It happens ..but it is rare .. the salary structure of such teams means that decosntruction has to happen on multiple levels and true cap space is not created for up to 2 seasons 

There are very few expiring contracts around the league outside of the Knicks and Houston with Weatherspoon and a bunch of other junk that total around $15M but to get something good back for taking on a "piece" it would be predicated upon a worthwhile "piece" being available for trade

About the only bargain basement give away that may be possible is Paul Pierce.. and even then unless they can throw Raef LaFrentz into the deal to clear the decks Boston wouldn't be a player next summer given its current salary structure 

No one in Jersey is going anywhere

Iverson in Philly ? why when you'be just committed to the Chris Webber experiment ? So no 

Kelvin Cato is an expiring contract of $8M + in Orlando but is a valuable vet partner to Dwight Howard 

Miami aren't trading anyone .. Memphis have done their pillage and added ... Frisco No , LA No. 

Dallas have Van Horn.. but they are going south in their payroll management and are not adding pieces .. see the money talks treatment of Michael Finley - the guy hose Jersey Cuban used to wear all the time 

I could go on ..but around the league .. the only guy I can see being on the move that is truly a star addition for someone that is a bees dick away from deconstructing is Paul Pierce in Boston 

Like I say your theory is possible but we are talking a very very narrow band of possibilities and probabilities IMO for movement that is not a gee we'd like to if we could palm crap scenario


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> I could go on ..but around the league .. the only guy I can see being on the move that is truly a star addition for someone that is a bees dick away from deconstructing is Paul Pierce in Boston


Grant Hill, Jalen Rose, Eddie Jones are three guys that all could get moved to the Knicks for expiring contracts. Each of those teams could sign a big FA next year.

I agree with Memphis X. It's way to early to know who will have space next year.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Cager said:


> The Sausage King is correct. The teams with likely salary cap room next year are Atlanta, Charlotte, New Orleans, LA Clippers and perhaps Toronto. The Bulls are in great shape to retain Eddy or do a sign and trade if necessary. Atlanta didn't want Curry this summer, Charlotte is set with Primoz, New Orleans will not take a chance on possible health even if Eddy is insurable, the Clipps won't spend the money and Toronto may not have enough room to offer more than $7MM.
> 
> Pax is absolutely doiing the right thing here for the Bulls because there is only a small chance of losing Curry next summer for nothing unless we simply don't want him. The sign and trade offers next summer will be significantly better than anything we couls get now. Plus the QO ensures us if Curry no longer can play we will have ample resources to replace him or what he gives us ( only low post offense). A PF with a low post offense would work fine as an Eddy replacement.


actually you cant say that for sure , teams can and do trade for cap space all the time during the season . usually 1 or 2 decide midstream that their team sucks and cant compete and decide for a quick rebuild.

ther knicks(29 mil in penny and Tim thomas) and dallas(jason terry and keith van horn for 23 mil.) have ample ending deals that could facilite this to almost any team in the league

you assumption is based off of if other teams do nothing to improve their cap situation and i dont know if thats accurate...last summer new orleans wasn't close to having free agent space and then they traded baron davis for peanuts. 

the suns did it with marbury and penny ...and had enough $ for nash and Q richardson.

what happens if lets say G.S. decides they do want eddy after all , they could trade troy murphy to dallas for KVH and all of a sudden they have over 10 mil in cap space next summer.

it may not happen , but its a risk i'd rather my GM not take and just sign curry to a decent deal and be done with it.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Grant Hill, Jalen Rose, Eddie Jones are three guys that all could get moved to the Knicks for expiring contracts. Each of those teams could sign a big FA next year.
> 
> I agree with Memphis X. It's way to early to know who will have space next year.


Perhaps and its a technically correct point 

But I must have missed the bit where the Knicks would deal for any of these players 

Isiah and Jalen together again ? Awwwwww . speshial 

The Magic could deal Hill and still not be any closer to being a legit player in free agency - gieven that they deal Hill - add a draft pick , renounce rights to Cato and Battie - two key vet supports for Howard and they have 7 players for $37M 

That leaves them $10M to sign another 5 players to make an NBA minimum roster of 12 .. they could get away with a league minimum type here and a 2nd round draft pick there which might wittle it to $8M for 3 players .. two more mimimum scrubs .. that's $7M for a big swinging dick free agent 

Are they a bit thin if they employ this strategy .... Curry ( in theory ) Howard , Turkoglu, Francis and Nelson.... + a 1st round draft pick , a 2nd round draft pick and the rest of the roster league minimum types... can't see it myself 

They will keep Hill who can still help .. keep Turkey for depth , resign their bigmen free agents with bird rights to exceed the cap for more depth and use their exceptions for more depth 

Eddie Jones being dealt for space ?

That would give the Memphis $43M for 7 players - Pau, Cardy, Shane, Spanky, Cheech Stods, and Warwick + a 1st round pick 

I don't think $5M in cap room is going to get much done with at least 5 more players needing to be added if they also renounce Bobby Jackson and Lo Wright 

From the Knicks point of view with Steph, Jamal, Q , Nate Robinson and Ariza all demanding time on the wings ( and not counting trade candidates TT, Penny or the defunct H20 ) why would they trade for Jalen, Eddie or Grant again ?

From Dallas' s point of view why would they make KVH and JT available to acquire these guys to help another team clear the decks when Mark Cuban has just endured his own Shakespearian tragedy in dealing Michael Finley for bucks in pocket ?

Not making much sense to me


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> what happens if lets say G.S. decides they do want eddy after all , they could trade troy murphy to dallas for KVH and all of a sudden they have over 10 mil in cap space next summer.


Except that Mark Cuban just released his boo for bucks 

I can't see him doing something like this as it just defeats the purpose of what he just did


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> Except that Mark Cuban just released his boo for bucks
> 
> I can't see him doing something like this as it just defeats the purpose of what he just did


not at all, cuban's goal isn't to be under the cap , finley was an increasingly injury prone fading player, making 18.6 mil. for play clearly not worth it.

he made a decision against age just a year ago with nash...but it didn't stop him from adding to the payroll in trading for kvh for alan henderson during the year, or getting erick dampier.

i doubt he would be against a deal to improve his club, whether or not it adds payroll, its just there are limits now.


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

I believe he was talking about Erick Dampier. Mark Cuban won't make that mistake again.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> not at all, cuban's goal isn't to be under the cap , finley was an increasingly injury prone fading player, making 18.6 mil. for play clearly not worth it.
> 
> he made a decision against age just a year ago with nash...but it didn't stop him from adding to the payroll in trading for kvh for alan henderson during the year, or getting erick dampier.
> 
> i doubt he would be against a deal to improve his club, whether or not it adds payroll, its just there are limits now.


Perhaps you are right 

But he could get 2 for 1 in Nash ... JT + the future in Dev Harris 

With Fin (who expires at the same time as Wailin Jalen, Eddie Jones and Grant Hill ) you haev the future in Josh Howard and Marquis Daniels ( if healthy ) + short term support in Stack 

Why would he part with Fin and add Jalen, Eddie or Grant Hill ?

I agree though that if he could get a superstar with KVH and Terry I think he'd probably do it 

My original point was that the only "star" I can see being on the block for a team that's on the brink of deconstructing is Paul Pierce and the Celts ..but if this is true and the C's want space they have to include Raef as part of the deal 

Hey KVH and JT for Pierce and LaFrentz works ..although Dev Harris would need some help at the point


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Once teams with high salaried vets that can help teams make or go deeper in the playoffs start falling out of the playoff race, different players will become available. Players like Ratliff, Okur, Miles, Pierce, Franchise, Grant Hill, Jamison, Jalen Rose, Maggette, Troy Murphy, Szczerbiak, etc. Will potentially be available.

Right now about 3/4 of the NBA (maybe more) think they will make the playoffs, once reality starts to set in during the season either due to lack of talent, chemistry or injury...team outlooks will change.


----------

